CNN describes Manafort Judge as "Losing his temper"

[orangecrush]

A federal judge expressed deep skepticism Friday in the bank fraud case brought by special counsel Robert Mueller's office against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, at one point saying he believes that Mueller's motivation is to oust President Donald Trump from office.

Although Mueller's authority has been tested in court before, Friday's hearing was notable for District Judge T.S. Ellis' decision to wade into the divisive political debate around the investigation.

"You don't really care about Mr. Manafort's bank fraud," Ellis said to prosecutor Michael Dreeben, at times losing his temper. Ellis said prosecutors were interested in Manafort because of his potential to provide material that would lead to Trump's "prosecution or impeachment," Ellis said.


"That's what you're really interested in," said Ellis, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan.

Ellis repeated his suspicion several times in the hour-long court hearing. He said he'll make a decision at a later date about whether Manafort's case can go forward.

"We don't want anyone in this country with unfettered power. It's unlikely you're going to persuade me the special prosecutor has power to do anything he or she wants," Ellis told Dreeben. "The American people feel pretty strongly that no one has unfettered power."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/05/04/politics/paul-manafort-hearing/index.html


Well now.

No low profile here, parroting Nunes and company, no pretense of impartiality.

Come November if we still have elections, perhaps an investigation of this assclown will be in order.

[Loki Liesmith]

1. It'll likely be fine

Please read all the other commentary on this judge.

[orangecrush]

2. Fresh out of optimism

but thanks.

[jberryhill]

3. And the prosecution said......?

They just stood there, right?

The judge was the only one who spoke during the entire hearing.

Somehow I don't believe that.

[janx]

4. See?

[onenote]

5. My guess is that the prosecution agreed with the judge

A smart prosecutor (and Dreeben is very smart) would have taken the opening given by the judge’s remarks to make clear that the prosecution doesn’t claim to have nor would it want “unfettered” power and that this prosecution isn’t based in any such claim and for reasons x, y and z falls within the legitimate boundaries of the special counsel’s power — which may be what the judge was looking for.

[jberryhill]

6. The moment I'm waiting for...

....is that the day may come when a lawyer for the President of the United States is asked:

"So, if the President stood in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shot someone, is it your position he could not be indicted?"

Because I'd love to see that lawyer say "That is correct, your honor."

[orangecrush]

7. I see what you're getting at

and know you are an expert in these matters.

So why, in your opinion, was the prosecutions answer not reported?

Being a layman in the law, hopefully I can be forgiven for believing what a mainstream news outlet reports as a judge spouting right wing talking points in court.

[jberryhill]

11. I'm not an expert by any means

What tends to happen is that reporters who do not themselves have a relevant background in "what is going on" will focus on things that seem interesting.

The responsive remarks by the prosecution were probably pretty dull, boring, involved big words and long sentences.

To liven it up, the prosecution should have started shouting "YOU'RE DAMNED RIGHT I ORDERED THE CODE RED!!!!" but I'm going to bet that didn't happen.

I'm certain that would have found its way into the story.

But a lot of what goes on in these things in a consequence of the fact that it doesn't work like a dinner table conversation, where you and your brother argue about something, and then Aunt Jane decides who won. So in order to put the other side's argument to one side or the other, the Judge, yeah, "spouts" the other side's argument at you, and you respond to the judge.

It is a certainty that any possible issue that can be appealed out of this proceeding will be appealed. The object of the game for the district court is to leave as little on the table to be played with on the way up.

There are 25 other judges who will get a crack at whatever happens at this level, and some of them more than once if it goes to a 3 judge panel of the 4th Circus, then en banc (all 16 of the 4th Circus), and 9 at the Supreme Court. Whatever this judge gets wrong, failed to develop on the record, didn't consider, etc., is going to be picked over in detail.

[orangecrush]

12. Thank you sincerely

it does make sense now.

[GusBob]

9. A loss of temper, if true, indicates a loss of judgement

An angry mind never thinks clearly. Never as in not ever.

It also indicates a predisposition to be prejudiced.

I see your posts on legal matters and trust them.

To your point, the prosecution just stood there. Do you mean to say they did not counter his points or plead their argument? Or did you mean to say their argument or presentation caused hm to lose his temper?

[jberryhill]

13. I'm suggesting the reporting is not a substitute for a full transcript

....which will take a little time to prepare. There is an office in the courthouse staffed by very nice people who bang those out. I'd wait to see that before having anything intelligent to say about what went on in the hearing.

[GusBob]

16. Completely understood, of course spot on

Perhaps the press reports we are getting are from those who don't cover legal cases much.

There's a guy from Slate, Stearns I think his name, legal affairs correspondent, he gets these kinds of things right usually.

I get what you are saying though, he's got to hold the prosecutors feet to the fire, there is a lot at stake.

I guess we can't let our prejudiced over take us as well

[jberryhill]

18. Ah, here....

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-manafort/u-s-judge-says-mueller-should-not-have-unfettered-power-in-russia-probe-idUSKBN1I51WE

Michael Dreeben, a deputy solicitor general working with Mueller, argued the special counsel’s investigative scope covered the activity in the indictment.

Well, gosh, what a surprise.

[GusBob]

21. What is the track record for federal prosecuters? Rhetorical question

If I recall, they rarely lose.

Interesting to note how closely Trump is following the case. Wonder who his courtvreporter is.

Once this guy rules against him, I wonder how much respected he will be by DT

[procon]

8. When will the judge hop aboard Trump One for his all exenses paid vacay

in the VIP suite at beautiful Mar-a-Lago?

[orangecrush]

10. and we

should bury our heads in the sand like good little ostriches.

[SunSeeker]

14. Ellis is a Reagan appointee. Sounds like he's suffering from dementia.

Incredibly unprofessional and troubling for a judge to lose his temper over something like this, if that's what happened. Alas, there's lots of miserable dinosaurs like that on the federal bench, appointed for life.

[Mr. Ected]

15. Regardless of his temperament, the judge will need to adjudicate according to established law

And precedent.

It's concerning that he appears to be hawking the same line of argument that we hear so often on FOX news, but as others have mentioned, he left the door wide open for the prosecution to explain the nuances of their positions and refute the statements made by the judge.

It will further provide a record of the prosecution's legal arguments in response to the judge's accusations, which will assist in public understanding in the short term and future litigation, if and when that happens, over the long haul.

[tomp]

17. Even if it were true...

...why the fuck would it matter? Rule on the meeits, asshole! Did manafort break the law or not?

...and futthermore...how could one possible separate trump and manafort? Their legal liabilities are entangled.

His statement should be reported to the bar association. He should be disciplined and replaced.

By the way...was this in front of a jury. Was there an objection.

[jberryhill]

20. Coupla things

This was a motion hearing on a legal issue. Whether the indictment is within the scope of the prosecutor's jurisdiction is not a question of fact which is tried before a jury.

>Was there an objection.

That's a unique question. No, one does not object to questions from the judge during a hearing on a preliminary motion. One answers them.

The point of a motion hearing is for the judge to probe the legal arguments of both sides to (a) establish a record beyond the briefs, and (b) to have the parties explain the limits of their arguments, and (c) to have each side respond to issues raised by the other side.

The entire dynamic is set up to have the judge put propositions to the parties and to have the parties explain their arguments in order to avoid the problem that arises when the ruling is made, and then one or the other party files an appeal premised on "the judge never thought about X, Y, or Z".

[tomp]

28. I appreciate your clarifications, but...

...the OP quotes the judge as making a statement, not asking a question, though it likely could be considered "probing" in context. I assume judges are given a fair amount of latitude in their probing of the legal issues of a case, but It seems to me legally unseemly to make statements demonstrating bias.

As a layman who knows nothing about the law other than what I've seen on TV and in the movies, I would consider filing a motion for the judge to recuse himself based on overt bias.

PS: please pardon all my previous typos, I have big thumbs and was on the subway.

[NastyRiffraff]

19. We don't want anyone in this country with unfettered power"

And yet he's clearly a Trump apologist.

That said, he was completely unprofessional. It's one thing to deny the case; it's another to question a prosecuter's political motives in bringing the case.

[ProudLib72]

22. Bank fraud is nothing! I do it all the time.

I mean, who hasn't committed a little bank fraud from time to time, just to cover that new home in the Bahamas? We should let Manafort go!

[jberryhill]

23. I'll bet you put Canadian pennies in your penny rolls.

You got 49 US pennies and one Canadian penny.

Whatcha gonna do?

[ProudLib72]

24. I've moved on to nickels!

They almost caught me once when they were feeding the coins through the counter and half came out Canadian. I acted innocent. Said my wife had packed the rolls and she is far sighted.

[jberryhill]

25. That's 25 years hard time

[Eliot Rosewater]

26. Sycophant, there to protect the traitor. Get used to it, by the way.

Because of NOSE HOLDING and whining, the fascist is going to appoint hundreds more like him

[lame54]

27. If Mueller is shut down - Trump will have unfettered power