General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRobert Mueller's team just had a really rough day in court
Judge Ellis suggested Muellers team just wants Trumps impeachment
When Manaforts team made this same argument in court in DC, the presiding judge, Amy Berman Jackson, seemed skeptical. (She hasnt yet ruled on the motion, though she did dismiss an accompanying civil suit filed by Manafort.)
But Manafort may have found a more receptive audience with Judge Ellis, in Virginia, a 77-year-old Ronald Reagan appointee.
I dont see what relation this indictment has with what the special counsel is authorized to investigate, Ellis said, according to Politicos Josh Gerstein. What you really care about is what information Mr. Manafort could give you that would reflect on Mr. Trump or lead to his prosecution or impeachment.
Though Ellis didnt issue a ruling, Brandi Buchman of Courthouse News reports that he asked to review an unredacted copy of a memo from last August, in which Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein authorized Mueller to investigate crimes related to Manaforts Ukraine work. Muellers team revealed the memos existence in court filings, but the vast majority of it is redacted.
If Ellis does in fact end up dismissing Manaforts Virginia indictment (and, for what its worth, many smart court reporters are skeptical that he ultimately will), it wouldnt get Manafort completely out of the woods, as hed still face charges in Washington. But it would be a dramatic defeat for Mueller, with major implications for his strategy as a whole which, it seems, has relied heavily on bringing or threatening unrelated charges against Trump associates to try to get them to flip.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/2018/5/4/17319554/manafort-hearing-robert-mueller-judge-ellis
My question - does this Judge have a right to impugn the integrity of a prosecutor?
Openly injecting politics into a legal proceding?
Having a serious WTF moment here.
manor321
(3,344 posts)Sounds like an asshole judge
Eliot Rosewater
(31,096 posts)orangecrush
(19,236 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,110 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,110 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)But this thread is from a few weeks ago.
That "asshole judge" just denied Manafort's motion yesterday.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)think they have the legal expertise to be flame throwing critics on the actual experts?
l
triron
(21,914 posts)orangecrush
(19,236 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)So is he not an asshole anymore?
LenaBaby61
(6,965 posts)He will be in 3, 2, 1 to tRump who was singing his praises on May 5th.
Looks like fatso-in-chief cannot pardon ManFART'S state crimes if he's found guilty of any. And there are MANY crimes he's allegedly guilty OF.
emulatorloo
(43,979 posts)Because Manaforts antics in Ukraine were part of the scope of the investigation.
BTW does the judge seriously think Manafort should be able to get away with bank fraud?
arthritisR_US
(7,269 posts)emulatorloo
(43,979 posts)In fact, a courthouse observer told me that this judge is often hardest in court on the side he rules in favor of.
orangecrush
(19,236 posts)for that information.
genxlib
(5,506 posts)But it seems to me that the "you-weren't-supposed-to-look-there" is a poor defense once some wrong doing is found.
dsc
(52,129 posts)Special prosecutors are literally all powerful in that there is no budget, no other cases competing for time or other resources, in short no break on them at all. The one break they have on them is that their purview is supposed to be limited and strictly set out. I think the Manifort indictment fits that limit but there needs to be a limit.
But I don't see how this could be considered out of bounds to at least look at.
For all we know, those bank records could have included payments to Gucifer himself. We do know that they include financial ties to some of the very same people who could be involved in the conspiracy. So there seems to be firm standing to at least look at them.
Having looked, would it then be the responsibility of the Special Prosecutor to ignore other financial crimes that came to light? Even if they weren't directly linked?
orangecrush
(19,236 posts)I hope the answer is good for Mueller.
AncientGeezer
(2,146 posts)genxlib
(5,506 posts)AncientGeezer
(2,146 posts)Backwoodsrider
(764 posts)We might be getting a chance to see how much Trump and his backers have influence over the judicial branch. Is the judicial branch really going to be able to use the rule of law and save the US or is Russian mafia going to tear our democracy down and replace the world government with authoritarian rule?
stay tuned
orangecrush
(19,236 posts)Loki Liesmith
(4,602 posts)Its the judges job to be skeptical.
orangecrush
(19,236 posts)and not a Reagan flunky working for the coup.
Loki Liesmith
(4,602 posts)Anyhow this Judge wont want to get reversed on appeal
Fullduplexxx
(7,818 posts)If dems take congress maybe they should think about eliminating courts with republican judges
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Fullduplexxx
(7,818 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Because the briefs were pretty clear on which one had the winning argument. The hearing, as many motion hearings are, was pretty much for shits and giggles. But, hey, due process includes the opportunity to be heard.
People shouldn't freak out so much over what goes on at oral argument.
Fullduplexxx
(7,818 posts)Actually i was listening to norman goldman later that day, he is a lawyer in california who does a radio show, and he said basically the same thing in that what the judge said was really not a big deal
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)If only I had known I needed to have a radio show.
Fullduplexxx
(7,818 posts)Goldman was the plaintiff's attorney in Krumme vs. Mercury, a 2002 lawsuit in California. Both the trial court and the California Court of Appeal found for the plaintiffs that the insurance companies were mislabelling agents as independent brokers. The court upheld damages and attorney's fees.[7] An insurance industry journal has described the case as "infamous".[8] Goldman also represented plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed in San Francisco Superior Court against Auto Insurance Specialists accusing the company of paying sales money to an insurer in exchange for commissions.[9].
Ive been listening to him for ten years . He does a show on civics law and politics . I dont know who you are
RockRaven
(14,782 posts)said this judge has a reputation for being hardest on the side he's leaning towards ruling in favor of. I don't know.
But even if the judge decides it is outside of Mueller's mandate, Manafort wouldn't walk on these charges, I don't think. The US Attorney's office in that jurisdiction could file the same charges based on the same evidence. The entire motion is just a delaying tactic, no?
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)marylandblue
(12,344 posts)So, yes the judge does have a right to do this. But even if Mueller loses here, I don't see it as a major defeat. Another DOJ prosecutor can still bring the case, and Mueller can still charge Manafort with campaign-related crimes.
orangecrush
(19,236 posts)struggle4progress
(118,032 posts)Khalid El-Masri .. was .. abducted by .. Macedonian police in 2003, and handed over to the .. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). While in CIA custody, he was flown to Afghanistan, where he was held at a black site and routinely interrogated, beaten, strip-searched, sodomized, and subjected to other .. degrading treatment ... After El-Masri held hunger strikes, and was detained for four months in the "Salt Pit," the CIA finally admitted his arrest and torture were a mistake and released him ... at night on a desolate road in Albania, without an apology or funds to return home ... On May 18, 2006, U.S. Federal District Judge T.S. Ellis, III dismissed a lawsuit El-Masri filed against the CIA and three private companies allegedly involved with his transport, based on the government's position that it would "present a grave risk of injury to national security" ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_El-Masri
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)to answer along the way.
Amazing how something like this can get turned into such encompassing questions by spectators.
Kirk Lover
(3,608 posts)read about this this morning....and now I am not.
kmla
(4,047 posts)...since there is no mention or evidence of consensual oral sex anywhere in the investigation parameters.
As everyone knows - THAT is what cements an entire investigation of a sitting president, and forces the senate to start impeachment procedures...
Ferrets are Cool
(21,059 posts)a Democrat.
Girard442
(6,059 posts)If Mueller, tasked with investigating Manafort's Ukranian/Trump related activities, finds substantial evidence that Manafort dismembered his cleaning person and put his/her remains down a garbage disposal, doesn't somebody have to pursue that?
RandySF
(57,604 posts)The mandate allows Mueller to go after anything he finds along the way. He could have even gone after Cohens Stormy dealings.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)This one is pretty simple.
Here's the scope:
https://www.scribd.com/document/375478974/Rosenstein-Instructions-Authorizing-Mueller-Investigation?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=725X700959X61292679a74a98668012ba491a3bf8c7&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate
Here's the indictment:
https://www.justice.gov/file/1038391/download
There's no way on appeal that Manafort can claim that his objection here was not fully heard.
RandySF
(57,604 posts)But it sounds like this hearing is over one of several indictments. If Im right, then Manafort is still in a world of hurt.
orangecrush
(19,236 posts)When I saw the judge was a ""Reagan appointee, my heart sank.
But other posters say this is not the end of the line for Mueller.
Gothmog
(143,998 posts)orangecrush
(19,236 posts)by skepticism.
It is the tactic of the Putin coup to throw out so much disinformation (the lie that DOJ leaked the "Mueller questions" that were actually made up by the white house, and the false report that Cohen's phone was "wiretapped", (it was actually just monitoring numbers of calls), which Giuliani once again blamed on a non existent DOJ "leak".
When something seemingly breaks, I now wait 24 hours to see if it turns out to be disinformation.
The coup disinfo campaign is in high gear at this point.
Gothmog
(143,998 posts)genxlib
(5,506 posts)If the Clinton investigation can start with a land deal and end up with a blow-job then piss on anybody that says the scope of this investigation needs to be limited.
Gothmog
(143,998 posts)SHRED
(28,136 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,267 posts)And he denied Manafort's motion. Is he still a RW tool?
Gothmog
(143,998 posts)Yeah https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/26/judge-rejects-challenge-676814
The ruling from U.S. District Court Judge T.S. Ellis III dashes the hopes of many allies of President Donald Trump's that Ellis would deliver a crippling blow to Mueller's office and undermine the legal legitimacy of his appointment....
Ellis's 31-page written opinion is rife with skepticism about the special counsel mechanism and about Mueller's pursuit of fraud charges against Manafort. But the judge ultimately concluded that Manafort's attorneys had not made a sufficient legal case to justify tossing out his indictment.
"The Special Counsels appointment was consistent with both constitutional requirements regarding appointment of officers and statutory requirements governing the authority to conduct criminal litigation on behalf of the United States, the Special Counsel had legal authority to investigate and to prosecute this matter and dismissal of the Superseding Indictment is not warranted," the Reagan appointee wrote
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,267 posts)is that their questions often do not reflect how they eventually rule. More often than not they are just testing the strength of your argument. Many years ago I was a law clerk for an appellate court, and it was always interesting to compare the judges' questions with their eventual rulings. They poke around for weak points, and sometimes I suspected they were just fucking with a lawyer a little bit. But questions at oral argument were not good predictors of final decisions, nor were they often even reflective of a judge's ideology.
There's a bit too much knee-jerking around here lately, IMO.
orangecrush
(19,236 posts)That puts it in perspective.