The Robert Mueller Investigation

[Dolemite 143]

Federal judge accuses Mueller's team of 'lying,' trying to target Trump: 'C'mon man!'

Quote

A federal judge on Friday harshly rebuked Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team during a hearing for ex-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort – suggesting they lied about the scope of the investigation, are seeking “unfettered power” and are more interested in bringing down the president.

"You don't really care about Mr. Manafort,” U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III told Mueller’s team. “You really care about what information Mr. Manafort can give you to lead you to Mr. Trump and an impeachment, or whatever."

Further, Ellis demanded to see the unredacted “scope memo,” a document outlining the scope of the special counsel’s Russia probe that congressional Republicans have also sought.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/05/04/federal-judge-accuses-muellers-team-lying-trying-to-target-trump-cmon-man.html

 

U.S. judge questions special counsel's powers in Manafort case

Quote

“I don’t see what relationship this indictment has with anything the special counsel is authorized to investigate,” U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III in the Eastern District of Virginia said.

At a tense hearing at the federal courthouse in Alexandria, Virginia, the judge said Mueller should not have “unfettered power” in his Russia probe and that the charges against Manafort did not arise from the investigation into Moscow’s alleged meddling in the 2016 U.S. election.

“It’s unlikely you’re going to persuade me the special counsel has unfettered power to do whatever he wants,” said Ellis, who was appointed to the bench by Republican President Ronald Reagan.

Manafort is facing charges in both Virginia and Washington. The Virginia case charges him with offenses including tax and bank fraud.

The other case in Washington accuses him of conspiring to launder money and failing to register as a foreign agent when he lobbied for the pro-Russia Ukrainian government.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-manafort/u-s-judge-questions-special-counsels-powers-in-manafort-case-idUSKBN1I51WE

Edited May 4, 2018 by Dolemite

[BurntOrange&White 39,486]

Anyone care to show that judges political history?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

3 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

I haven’t read the questions but from what I understand they are fairly non-specific.

You should really read the questions before whatever followed the above sentence.

Here are all the questions the public knows of:

[kevwun 15,595]

He comes across as a Nunes type if you read the article.  Or a concern troll.  And what concern of his is it to know the scope of the investigation?  That's not the case before him.

Edited May 4, 2018 by kevwun

[Buzzrock 14,867]

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3,861]

5 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

I haven’t read the questions but from what I understand they are fairly non-specific. If true, then asking your (infamously loquacious) subject a bunch of vague questions seems like you’re hoping he’ll slip up and say something a la Clinton. 

It’s not the worst strategy ever. It’s entirely possible that Trump won’t be able to help himself and he’ll end up tripping himself up. 

Not that I think that will matter either: he may get impeached but I don’t think they can get the 2/3 they need. 

And if you think there’s any level of shame that would get DJ Trump to step down, well...

Yeah possible.  I thought briskets guess was good from the other day that it was just topics analogous to what you provide a corporate rep before testimony.  No requirement to do it here, but maybe this is just in recognition that they are questioning the pres and that he’d have to refresh himself on some topics.  Plus the addded benefit of being able to say each time “what do you mean you don’t remember?  Did you look at any of your notes? Did you ask anyone? You knew I was going to be asking this.”

[TahoeHorn 107]

12 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

...

And if you think there’s any level of shame that would get DJ Trump to step down, well...

There are other theoretical threats.  If he engaged in financial misdeeds there could be a threat to his whole financial empire.

[David Dennison 18,604]

5 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

There are other theoretical threats.  If he engaged in financial misdeeds there could be a threat to his whole financial empire.

If?

[TahoeHorn 107]

14 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The NRA is a good "maybe" subject.

How does the fact that the Mercers don't talk to anybody imply they are not wrapped up in this investigation?

They are the money movers and financiers of a global black ops democracy subversion operation.   I'm not sure what part of that is illegal, but it's nefarious AF.

 You're being naive if you think they are not being looked at very closely by law enforcement. 

The FBI loves going after the people that think they are above the law because they're billionaires. 

I have two (related) reasons:

1. Unless they are utter idiots they fund organizations which address their goals and stay a million miles away from the details of operations.

2.  That's far, far afield from Mueller's mandate.  Mueller's mandate is not to address every left-wing wet dream.  He's not going to come across any crime by the Mercers.  If some PPAC they fund is doing something shady he'll refer it.

[Buzzrock 14,867]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

If?

Point to any Manhattan business operation that’s has been around for 40+ years and I’m sure you’ll find “misdeeds”. Didn’t you see Back To School?

[David Dennison 18,604]

1 minute ago, Buzzrock said:

Point to any Manhattan business operation that’s has been around for 40+ years and I’m sure you’ll find “misdeeds”. Didn’t you see Back To School?

Most of the people who do those things are smart enough not to run for president as a half-assed publicity stunt.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

1 minute ago, TahoeHorn said:

That's far, far afield from Mueller's mandate.

This is simply false.

https://www.google.com/amp/thehill.com/homenews/campaign/357558-top-trump-donor-asked-data-firm-to-help-organize-hacked-wikileaks-emails%3famp

https://www.thedailybeast.com/report-mercer-asked-cambridge-analytica-to-help-organize-clinton-emails

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.thedailybeast.com/trump-data-guru-i-tried-to-team-up-with-julian-assange

 

The Mercers are directly caught up in the Russian interference.

[ChiTownDoc 21,091]

4 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

Point to any Manhattan business operation that’s has been around for 40+ years and I’m sure you’ll find “misdeeds”. Didn’t you see Back To School?

 

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Most of the people who do those things are smart enough not to run for president as a half-assed publicity stunt.

Exactly.  

[Buzzrock 14,867]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Most of the people who do those things are smart enough not to run for president as a half-assed publicity stunt.

Look, it’s not his fault that Matt Groening is a prophet...

[DanRydell 799]

He comes across as a Nunes type if you read the article.  Or a concern troll.  And what concern of his is it to know the scope of the investigation?  That's not the case before him.

 

Manafort filed a motion to dismiss the indictment on the basis that the scope of the indictment was outside the Special Counsel’s purview. So the scope of the Special Counsel’s authority is relevant. Where the judge loses me is the suggestion that crimes which were investigated by another office would be outside of the scope on that basis. It also isn’t remotely relevant whether the prosecution of Manafort is a goal in and of itself or merely a tool so the judge is just bloviating there.

[ChiTownDoc 21,091]

Does this judge have German roots?

[Dutchrudder 11,103]

1 hour ago, Bevo VIII said:

Anyone care to show that judges political history?

Dunno about political history, but here's his Wiki bio. On paper he seems like a good pick for an experienced judge.

Quote

• Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
• In office August 6, 1987 – April 1, 2007
• Appointed byRonald Reagan

In March 2018 Ellis assumed control over criminal charges against Paul Manafort, former chair of the 2016 Donald Trump presidential campaign. Manafort is charged with tax evasion and bank fraud.[10] The government alleges that Manafort, with assistance from his associate Rick Gates, laundered over $30 million through offshore bank accounts between approximately 2006 and 2015.[11] Ellis set a trial date of July 10, 2018.[12]

Born on May 15, 1940, in Bogotá, Colombia, Ellis graduated from Princeton University where he earned a Bachelor of Science in Engineering in 1961. Ellis served in the United States Navy as a Naval aviator from 1961 to 1966. Ellis earned a Juris Doctor, magna cum laude, from Harvard Law School in 1969. Harvard awarded Ellis a Knox Fellowship for study in England. He then received a Diploma in Law in 1970 from Magdalen College, Oxford University. Ellis then entered private practice with the law firm of Hunton & Williams (now Hunton & Williams LLP), located in Richmond, Virginia, where he remained until 1987.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._S._Ellis_III

Edited May 4, 2018 by Dutchrudder

[kevwun 15,595]

He's pushing 80.  He may be suffering from Old Guy Who Watches Too Much Fox News Syndrome.

Edited May 4, 2018 by kevwun

[Buzzrock 14,867]

He’s not part of the resistance! String him up!

[kevwun 15,595]

He gives Mueller grief for legal reasons and I don't say anything.  He starts making snide comments from the Bench that sound a lot like a Trumpkin and it makes you wonder.

[David Dennison 18,604]

Donald Trump believes he can win this fight politically.

We'll find out if that is true in November.

 

[TwiceHorn 31,184]

25 minutes ago, Dutchrudder said:

Dunno about political history, but here's his Wiki bio. On paper he seems like a good pick for an experienced judge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._S._Ellis_III

Clearly the guy is disposed to be skeptical of the SCO, but he isn't an obvious political hack, either.  And I suspect if there wasn't such breathless coverage of the investigation, he wouldn't be as critical.  That isn't Mueller's fault though.  As I have said all along, despite the breadth of the language of the special counsel mandate, it isn't without limits and the Manafort deal may be pushing them a little.  I do seem to recall some coverage stating that the money laundering cases were brought because of expiring statutes of limitation, but no one has mentioned that in the last few months.

Also note that this is the Virginia case, which is tax fraud and mortgage fraud, which is arguably even more Trump-attenuated than the DC case.

Edited May 4, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[Stros 153]

 

1 hour ago, Dolemite said:

Federal judge accuses Mueller's team of 'lying,' trying to target Trump: 'C'mon man!'

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/05/04/federal-judge-accuses-muellers-team-lying-trying-to-target-trump-cmon-man.html

 

U.S. judge questions special counsel's powers in Manafort case

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-manafort/u-s-judge-questions-special-counsels-powers-in-manafort-case-idUSKBN1I51WE

The straw that breaks Muellers back? "This is a pretty fucking big deal..."

[triplehorn 2,664]

9 minutes ago, kevwun said:

He gives Mueller grief for legal reasons and I don't say anything.  He starts making snide comments from the Bench that sound a lot like a Trumpkin and it makes you wonder.

Judge Ellis hasn't yet gone so far as to suggest the case warrants dismissal, while at the same time his comments dampen the potential for claims of his bias against Trump.  It might serve as a perspective consistent with an argument Manafort might use but pre-determined not to be actionable.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

4 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Judge Ellis hasn't yet gone so far as to suggest the case warrants dismissal, while at the same time his comments dampen the potential for claims of his bias against Trump.  It might serve as a perspective consistent with an argument Manafort might use but pre-determined not to be actionable.

Me thinks the judge protest too much...

Mueller has Manafort dead to rights on multiple felonies and this judge is like, “Well, Manafort might be a career criminal but Mueller wasn’t supposed to prosecute Uncle Pauley for all these  major felonies not connected to the Russian government just to get him to flip.”

Da fuck? 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

11 minutes ago, Stros said:

 

The straw that breaks Muellers back? "This is a pretty fucking big deal..."

Really why?

[TwiceHorn 31,184]

9 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Judge Ellis hasn't yet gone so far as to suggest the case warrants dismissal, while at the same time his comments dampen the potential for claims of his bias against Trump.  It might serve as a perspective consistent with an argument Manafort might use but pre-determined not to be actionable.

I think ultimately the remedy probably is simply that, dismissal, only to be re-brought by the USAO EDVa.  I suppose an argument could be made that the investigation itself is wholly tainted, but I don't think that gets very far, cuz facts is probably facts or evidence is evidence.

[Sawbonz 27,375]

I bet that judge is a Russian asset

Edited May 4, 2018 by Sawbonz

[TwiceHorn 31,184]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Me thinks the judge protest too much...

Mueller has Manafort dead to rights on multiple felonies and this judge is like, “Well, Manafort might be a career criminal but Mueller wasn’t supposed to prosecute Uncle Pauley for all these  major felonies not connected to the Russian government just to get him to flip.”

Da fuck? 

But that isn't the way criminal procedure works, Hugo.  Just because a guy seems to be guilty, we don't get to toss the rulebook in the trash.

[LongestHorn 759]

POTUS is incapable of getting a story straight.  That pre-existing condition is known, and therefore he cannot be expected to testify under threat of perjury.  Reflexive self-incrimination.  His versions of stories are so conflicting, it is reasonable that his facts are going to clash with what we understand as reality.  is that a crime?  Or is a brilliant skillset worthy of a Nobel?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

But that isn't the way criminal procedure works, Hugo.  Just because a guy seems to be guilty, we don't get to toss the rulebook in the trash.

I understand.  So if Mueller comes back with another superseding indictment with a bunch more felonies tied directly to the Russian interference, what happens then? 

[kevwun 15,595]

I would bet against Mueller thinking Manafort will flip for him.  There are people in the world who Manafort is more afraid of and I'm sure Mueller knows that.  Does this coffee taste like polonium to you?  Mueller is throwing the book at him because he's a scumbag.

Edited May 4, 2018 by kevwun

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

2 minutes ago, kevwun said:

I would bet against Mueller thinking Manafort will flip for him.  There are people in the world who Manafort is more afraid of and I'm sure Mueller knows that.  Does this coffee taste like polonium to you?  Mueller is throwing the book at him because he's a scumbag.

This is just one of Manafort’s cases.  It’s the original one he got indicted with Rick Gates.  

Gates already flipped so I doubt Mueller gives much of a fuck what this judge does with Manafort.

[TwiceHorn 31,184]

24 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I understand.  So if Mueller comes back with another superseding indictment with a bunch more felonies tied directly to the Russian interference, what happens then? 

I dunno, like I said, I think the only real remedy for exceeding the scope of the mandate is dismissal of the indictment or certain of the unrelated charges in the indictment, only to have them brought again by a "general jurisdiction" prosecutor, ie the USAO EDVa or DC.  Of course if statutes of limitation apply, there might be some loss of ability to "re-bring" the charges.  And, bringing a different pr osecutor's office into it might result in fewer (or more) charges because different lawyers may view the same evidence differently.

A big part of criminal defense is securing even the most minor and Pyrrhic seeming victory because it just injects a little more chaos into the thing.  Sometimes that chaos benefits the defendant, sometimes it f's him in the a.

As I have said (probably without making it clear) all along, I think Mueller has little interest in exceeding the mandate just to avoid "political" crap like this and the appearance of impropriety and not so much that it would actually jeopardize his work.

Also, I have to say, these confidential memos (apparently?) clarifying the scope of the investigation are somewhat unsatisfying.  The initial order was public record and it strikes me that any product of Mueller clarifying his jurisdiction with Rosenstein should probably be a public record also.  Or at least some sort of order supplementing the initial one if not the memos discussing targets and subject matter.

Edited May 4, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[kevwun 15,595]

You also don't want to have him give away his hand when there are people in Congress and the Administration actively trying to thwart his investigation.

Edited May 4, 2018 by kevwun

[TwiceHorn 31,184]

19 minutes ago, kevwun said:

I would bet against Mueller thinking Manafort will flip for him.  There are people in the world who Manafort is more afraid of and I'm sure Mueller knows that.  Does this coffee taste like polonium to you?  Mueller is throwing the book at him because he's a scumbag.

Yeah, agree with this.  It also seems inconsistent with Mueller's MO, at least with less culpable defendants.  Flynn, Papa, and VDZ were all indicted/informed after their cooperation was secured and we have no clue what, if any, other crimes they might have been charged with.

[Stros 153]

29 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Really why?

The scope memo should list what is being investigated by Mueller. There is suspicion the DOJ doesn't want to turn the memo over because it doesn't list a specific crime that is being investigated.           “unfettered power" 

Edited May 4, 2018 by Stros

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

3 minutes ago, Stros said:

The scope memo should list what is being investigated by Mueller. There is suspicion the DOJ doesn't want to turn the memo over because it doesn't list a specific crime that is being investigated.           “unfettered power" 

Still don’t see how this could “break Mueller’s back” as you put it.

[TwiceHorn 31,184]

14 minutes ago, Stros said:

The scope memo should list what is being investigated by Mueller. There is suspicion the DOJ doesn't want to turn the memo over because it doesn't list a specific crime that is being investigated.           “unfettered power" 

Setting aside the Trumpkin bullshit for a minute, I have always thought we need to be careful with special prosecutors/counsel.  We have an enormous and expensive DOJ for investigating and prosecuting crimes.  The roles of the executive, executive officers, and Congress in that apparatus are all known and well-understood.  A special counsel or prosecutor, outside that normal apparatus and chain of command, should be a rare exception that is viewed with skepticism. 

It is entirely appropriate to have a special counsel when there are conflicts of interest between the targets of the investigation and the leadership of the DOJ, or even other gubmint officials.  But when that conflict gets attenuated, or ceases to exist, the jurisdiction of the special counsel must also cease to exist.  Otherwise we're in danger of creating some kind of Star Chamber/Dexter thing (yes an exaggeration).

The Trumpphages don't like to hear this, but if they put down their pitchforks for a minute, they'll get what I'm saying.

Edited May 4, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[Stros 153]

3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Still don’t see how this could “break Mueller’s back” as you put it.

That's why I put a ? at the end of the sentence.  I'm sure fox news will let us know. lulz

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

Manafort is the lynchpin that ties the Trump Campaign to the Russian interference and he’s not cooperating with Mueller at all.

I think Mueller is perfectly justified to use all the legal tools available to him to compel Manafort to cooperate in the most serious criminal investigation I’ve ever seen.

[Mojo Hand 4,580]

He should just get a permission slip from Rosenstein and moot the question. 

[TahoeHorn 107]

9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

...

It is entirely appropriate to have a special counsel when there are conflicts of interest between the targets of the investigation and the leadership of the DOJ.  But when that conflict gets attenuated, or ceases to exist, the jurisdiction of the special counsel must also cease to exist.

Manafort was campaign manager - clearly part of Mueller's mandate.  And prosecutors by the thousands use one crime as leverage against another and one target as leverage against another.  Are you suggesting that Mueller shouldn't have this power?  The guy prosecuting a homicide can cut a deal with somebody accused of prosecution to get their testimony.  Why shouldn't the guy investigating campaign violations be able to use bank fraud?

Edited May 4, 2018 by TahoeHorn

[TwiceHorn 31,184]

2 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

Manafort was campaign manager - clearly part of Mueller's mandate.  And prosecutors by the thousands use one crime as leverage against another and one target as leverage against another.  Are you suggesting that Mueller shouldn't have this power?  The guy prosecuting a homicide can cut a deal with somebody accused of prosecution to get their testimony.  Why shouldn't the guy investigating campaign violations be able to use bank fraud?

No I am not.  But, prosecutions brought by other USAOs or even states/district attorneys are equally valid leverage.  It doesn't have to be Mueller.  No one is saying Cohen isn't going to cooperate because SDNY is investigating the case.

The charges brought against Manafort have almost zero connection to the Trump campaign.  The only remaining conflict is that Manafort is Trump's buddy.  Still a conflict, but getting to the edges of what I think is good policy.  We have prosecuted numerous political "good buddies" over the past 20 decades or so without the benefit of special counsel.

[TwiceHorn 31,184]

21 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Manafort is the lynchpin that ties the Trump Campaign to the Russian interference and he’s not cooperating with Mueller at all.

I think Mueller is perfectly justified to use all the legal tools available to him to compel Manafort to cooperate in the most serious criminal investigation I’ve ever seen.

Again, this is an ends justifies the means argument that shouldn't be tolerated in serious discussions of American criminal justice.  And I don't believe that the Manafort prosecution is really geared to securing cooperation.  If it happens, as it seems to have done with Gates, great, but I don't think that was Mueller's end game.  His game was to bring serious charges against a serious crook.

And, as noted above, no one seems to be saying that Mueller has lost any leverage over Cohen because he gave up the case because it wasn't within his mandate.  And anyone who does say such a thing is a fool.

 

Also, I think we seriously need another special prosecutor statute.  It annoys me that we're having to have this discussion in the context of the DOJ's internal rules which have almost zero force of law.  And because of that, we're left with Rod fucking Rosenstein, with all due respect, being the ultimate arbiter of what the special counsel can and can't validly do, with the only seeming remedy for mal- or misfeasance  being removal by the President or impeachment by Congress and ad hoc review by the court hearing the criminal case.  Not that he's doing anything wrong, but the unclear scope of review is kind of scary.

Edited May 4, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[Pig Bellmont 8,679]

1 hour ago, kevwun said:

He's pushing 80.  He may be suffering from Old Guy Who Watches Too Much Fox News Syndrome.

This is not accurate. Judge Ellis is one of the smartest and toughest judges in EDVA. He’s going to hammer every party on his perceived weaknesses in their argument, but it would be dumb to try and read tea leaves simply on the basis that he gave the feds a hard time. He gives everyone a hard time, but unlike some ego driven judges, Ellis usually knows his shit. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Again, this is an ends justifies the means argument that shouldn't be tolerated in serious discussions of American criminal justice.  And I don't believe that the Manafort prosecution is really geared to securing cooperation.  If it happens, as it seems to have done with Gates, great, but I don't think that was Mueller's end game.  His game was to bring serious charges against a serious crook.

And, as noted above, no one seems to be saying that Mueller has lost any leverage over Cohen because he gave up the case because it wasn't within his mandate.  And anyone who does say such a thing is a fool.

Mueller’s job is to get to the truth on the Russian interference.  Why shouldn’t he use all the legal tools at his disposal to get to the bottom of what was basically a digital Pearl Harbor?

Mueller can still get information out of Cohen if he flips in the SDNY and Cohen is all but certain to still be a target in Mueller’s Russia investigation.

[TwiceHorn 31,184]

12 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

This is not accurate. Judge Ellis is one of the smartest and toughest judges in EDVA. He’s going to hammer every party on his perceived weaknesses in their argument, but it would be dumb to try and read tea leaves simply on the basis that he gave the feds a hard time. He gives everyone a hard time, but unlike some ego driven judges, Ellis usually knows his shit. 

Some of the comments here are amusing.  http://www.therobingroom.com/Judge.aspx?ID=843

Several of the comments show that he is ordinarily quite pro-government.

Edited May 4, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31,184]

10 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Mueller’s job is to get to the truth on the Russian interference.  Why shouldn’t he use all the legal tools at his disposal to get to the bottom of what was basically a digital Pearl Harbor?

Mueller can still get information out of Cohen if he flips in the SDNY and Cohen is all but certain to still be a target in Mueller’s Russia investigation.

The fact remains that Mueller, understanding how this works better than most of us, punted Cohen to the USAO SDNY without missing an investigative beat because Cohen, despite his nexus to Trump, apparently is viewed as being outside the mandate likely because his crimes predate or are unrelated to Trump's campaign.  His "needs" should not define his jurisdiction, which is basically the thrust of my argument.

Edited May 4, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[BurntOrange&White 39,486]

B2