Judge Grills Mueller Team On Relevance Of Manafort Case To Russia Probe

[DonViejo]

Source: Talking Points Memo




By Caitlin MacNeal | May 4, 2018 11:18 am

The federal judge presiding over the criminal case against Paul Manafort in the Eastern District of Virginia on Friday quizzed the attorneys representing special counsel Robert Mueller on how the charges they brought against Manafort were linked to their core investigation into Russian election interference and any potential collusion with members of the Trump campaign.

U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis asked several pointed questions to prosecutors during the Friday morning hearing on Manafort’s motion to dismiss the federal grand jury indictment, and he spent more time pushing the prosecution to parse out their reasoning than he did pushing Manafort’s attorney, Kevin Downing, to do so.

At the beginning of the hearing, Ellis noted that the Justice Department was aware of some of Manafort’s activities in Ukraine that led to the charges in the Virginia indictment before Mueller was appointed and pointed out several times that the charges against Manafort were not related to Russian election interference.

“That seems to me to be obvious,” Ellis said of his belief that

Read more: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/hearing-motion-to-dismiss-manafort-virgina

[Eliot Rosewater]

1. All I want to know is who is the judge. Appointed by who.

Reagan judge.

Well, lets hope he is a patriot.

[mr_lebowski]

2. Shit ... this doesn't sound good ... who appointed this judge? (nt)

[angrychair]

5. Reagan

He wants to see the unredacted memo to get a complete understanding of the mandate so we will see I guess.

[Fred Sanders]

13. Judges often ask "pointed questions" of all parties...I would not take too much away from this.

[jberryhill]

14. Gee...

One would almost think that the court wants to make sure that it doesn't leave an appealable issue on whatever ruling eventually comes out.



If federal judges at the District Court level have any biases at all, they are these:

1. Getting stuff off the docket, and

2. Not having to do stuff over on remand from an appeal.

The degree to which people just assume that judges are somehow puppets of the long-dead president who appointed them IMHO suggests more about the character of those making those assumptions.

[Fred Sanders]

17. Well said. I read a study recently indicating very little political bias by federally appointed

judges at all levels. They swear an oath not to have such bias and I believe the oath is solemnly taken.

Of course their may be exceptions (Roy Moore).

[olegramps]

21. I suppose the Supreme Court appointing Bush president wasn't political. Yeah.

[jberryhill]

40. The Supreme Court is a different kettle of fish

By definition, the Supreme Court has to make decisions on legal disputes for which there is no clear rule.

It is not the same job as being a district court judge.

[olegramps]

51. When is justice to use different scales to measure the validity of cases?

And I am suppose to neglect that Blacks receive far more harsher sentences, this is proven, than white for the same offense. This is especially true in the South. Oh, and how about the appoint of all those judgeships for District Courts and Appeals. Party is of no concern. Since when. Everyone knows that the system has become rigged.

[jberryhill]

53. Oh, okay, the federal courts are rigged

Then, fine, what are you upset about?

They're rigged. That's your answer. No sense caring what the outcome is. Why get excited over it in the first place.

Manafort is going to skip on a laundry list of money laundering charges because racism. Okay.

Disparities in sentencing couldn't possibly be the result of access to counsel, to name one of several factors in which there is racial disparity, primarily due to underlying economic consequences of systemic racism.

[olegramps]

60. I am not oblivious to the fact that they are rigged and it does make a difference. I care!

Firstly, I think that life time appoints should be rescinded. I have read the Federalist Papers and aware of the arguments put forward that they would protect the courts' integrity. Unfortunately, too many who hold their lifetime position were selected primarily on their political affiliation. Time after time the decisions handed down totally reflect the person's political affiliation. People only show any concern is when what was expected of them is not forthcoming. Its so pronounced that people are aghast that Conservative judge sided with the Liberals or vis-versa. Don't attempt to win a discussion by attempts to put a false claim in the mouth of your opponent. Its not civil.

[janx]

22. Some media are reporting this with sensational

headlines to get attention: "grilled," "raked over coals," etc..

It's not helping.

[jberryhill]

46. It's good for the prosecution to get grilled

As far as "helping" goes.... helping what?

The court could not give two shits how it is reported, and the decision will be what it will be.

[janx]

49. I know that the judge is doing what the judge needs to do

but am pointing out that the media's sensational reporting of it seems to be what is getting otherwise sensible people riled up.

[djg21]

26. Agree.

The decision likely was pre-drafted. You virtually never win or lose motions at oral argument. They are almost always decided on the papers submitted beforehand. Judges often know how they will be deciding a motion before argument, and ask pointed questions when they want to test their reasoning.

For the attorneys, it’s often like a college exam. When you leave certain that you failed, you get an A; and when you leave feeling like you aced the exam, you get a C.

Trying to devine how a Court will rule based on oral argument is like reading tea leaves.

[meadowlander]

44. +1

Decisions are also written for the losers to head off the possibility of an appeal, including appeal on the grounds that the judge did not sufficiently consider or test the other argument. One of the ways judges demonstrate that they did this was by grilling the side that they end up agreeing with in order to demonstrate that their position is robust.

[elleng]

16. Thanks!

Angers me that people so often attribute trial/judicial issues to perceived politics of judges.

[jberryhill]

41. People who do that...

The ones that assume everyone else is motivated primarily by graft, corruption, cowardice and bias, are the sort of people you don't want to put in positions of actual responsibility.

[elleng]

48. Exactly.

[quartz007]

3. How simple minded is this judge?

This is the most common technique used by prosecutors. Catch Manafort on any crime, threaten him with long prison time, and get him to sing like a canary about tRump collusion with Russia.

[Sophia4]

4. Either Manafort committed crimes or he did not.

What difference does it make whether the Justice Department or Mueller prosecutes the crimes?

If Manafort committed the crimes, the crimes involved connections and developing connections with Ukraine under the Russians and the Russians and then he worked on the Trump campaign, what difference does it make?

It does not make sense to me that the judge is trying to decide how Mueller should deal with the witnesses to the Trump campaign and Russia when Mueller is charged with determining just what the links if any are between Russia and Trump.

What is the judge's mandate in a case like this -- to define the parameters of the work of the prosecutors??

So a perpetrator robbed a bank and then raped a woman. Is the prosecutor only permitted to prosecute one of those crimes?

I don't understand this. Is the judge suggesting that if Mueller discovers a crime while investigating Trump and Russia, he is supposed to just ignore the crime if it isn't directly and clearly related to his Russia investigation? That's just strange.

[former9thward]

35. It is not strange.

The DOJ previously looked at Manafort's dealings and decided they weren't worth going after. Mueller is supposed to be operating under guidelines. He is not a "super" U.S. Attorney. He is supposed to be looking to see if any crimes were committed by the Trump campaign in connection with the Russians. That is why the judge made his comments.

[Sophia4]

58. We shall see.

[MosheFeingold]

43. There's a little bit of "show me the man and I'll find the crime"

Going on with Mueller. Same as with the Clinton Impeachment.

As a Democrat, I cheer any troubles Trump gets.

As a lawyer and former prosecutor (who looks at things too intellectually), I'm cringing at bit at the whole thing.

I've got the impression that there won't be any showing of a criminal conspiracy between Trump and Russians (which is what would be needed -- "collusion" is not a crime).

Hence, what they have left to punish Trump and his gang of assholes are "process crimes" and anything they might happen to stumble across.

I just dread the day this is turned against us. Trump being such a foul person has caused us to use extraordinary means that will, from henceforth, damage the office of the presidency.

THAT is one of the greatest costs of Trump.

[Sophia4]

56. Here is a possible scenario: The Trump campaign was advised early on by Papdapouolous

that the Russians had incriminating e-mails.

In early June, Don, Jr. met with Russian agents with Manafort and others and spoke about a number of things including possibly but we do not know for certain the release of incriminating information about Hillary -- could include the e-mails.

In a debate, Trump signaled something by asking the Russians to release Hillary's missing e-mails if they had them. That suggest even more strongly that Trump knew the Russians had the e-mails.

The Russians most likely provided the e-mails to Wikileaks either through a direct or circuitous route.

The e-mails were stolen, whether by someone within or outside of the DNC and Podesta's office. The theft of them, their publication, their use to solidify discontent and distrust within the Democratic Party, all of that constitutes the initial crime -- theft of e-mails, then the conspiracy, members of the Trump campaign knowing that e-mails had been stolen, meeting with Russians who represented those who had stolen the e-mails and were about to publish the e-mails and Trump's statement during the debate --- may or may not be enough.

I suspect that Mueller with all his documents and cooperating witnesses has much more.

Members of the press who have investigated this may also know much more than I do sitting here, retired, at my computer just watching the story develop.

When any member of Trump's campaign learned that the Russians had stolen e-mails, they should have gone to the authorities and very definitely asked the Russians not to publish the e-mails. They also should have discouraged, strongly discouraged the Russians from sending bot e-mails, etc. to help Trump and other candidates. Any candidate who knew that the Russian bots were interfering in our election should have said something.

Democracy is a precious institution and we all need to protect it.

I must say that publishing Hillary's and Podesta's e-mails was very, very different from using negative research about another candidate. We have seen the use of opposition research and gossip against an opponent in an election campaign since early in our country's history.

So Hillary's opposition research -- which was shared with the authorities, the FBI about Trump is not at all the same as the Russians' use of bots and theft of the e-mails or receiving of stolen e-mails and publication of those e-mails.

This is just really superficial. I have no knowledge other than what I have seen on the internet. I am retired and totally out of any kind of information loop. And I don't know anyone in government who would have any information beyond what we read.

Seems to me that even based on what we all know, there was what could be determined to be a criminal conspiracy. Just whether or how much Trump personally was involved, I do not know. But Mueller probably does.

[blondebanshee]

6. Possibly, Ellis is thinking about Kennedy retirement rumors

[jberryhill]

7. The level of ignorance of how courts work is really depressing

It is the burden of the prosecution here to show that the Manafort indictment was within the scope of the special counsel mandate.

The defendant is entitled to challenge whether that is true.

As this motion and counter-motion are matters of law, then it is up to the court to hold a hearing, ask questions of the attorneys, and develop a record that will withstand appeal of the decision to be issued.

It is ENTIRELY FUCKING APPROPRIATE for the court to ask pointed questions of the prosecution. It is also ENTIRELY FUCKING APPROPRIATE in a criminal prosecution for the judge to require the prosecution to satisfy the burden that is always on the prosecution in any criminal proceeding.

You can NEVER TELL from the questions a court asks, how it is going to rule. The court's job is to require the prosecution to prove its case.

[KY_EnviroGuy]

9. K & R. Thanks for that truth and insight.

Sounds like the judge is just dotting the i's and crossing all the t's.

.......

[jberryhill]

11. a/k/a doing the job

Cracks me up how people go on about the "rule of law" but have issues with it when it is actually being followed.

The prosecution has to prove its case. It is the court's job to make sure the prosecution is held to that requirement.

Most folks here don't have a problem with kangaroo courts. They just want the right kangaroos.

It's pretty clear that Manafort's motion will fail, based on the non-redacted portion of the DOJ scope memo to Mueller. Absent a fair hearing of that question, Manafort gets an appeal.

[KY_EnviroGuy]

50. Jberry, what do you make of this reaction in the press?

They're implying the judge reacted in a very angry fashion. Is this over-analysis?

See: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/may/04/donald-trump-russia-paul-manafort-robert-mueller

Also, do you think the judge will be provided the non-redacted memo of scope?

Thanks.....

[jberryhill]

52. I think they have to sell soap

When you read an article like that where.... "Judge said this...", "Judge said that...", "Judge did this..." you have to remember that the judge is engaged in a discussion with a human being who is also responding to those things.

In a motion hearing, the parties don't address each other or argue with each other. They have already filed their briefs, the judge and clerks have read them, and the parties are allotted time to present their arguments to the judge. Typically, you get a few words in before the judge, who already knows what the arguments are, more or less puts to each party points that the other party has raised.

For example, you and I are in court on cross motions. My argument is that you are a poopy-head. Your argument is that I'm the one who farted. We aren't going to stand there and say those things to each other.

The judge is going to ask you, "So, what's your excuse for being a poopy-head?" and the judge is going to ask you, "But aren't you really the one who farted?"

So, what's NOT in that article? What the prosecution's response was to any of those comments or questions. If you find one that says, "The Judge said X, and the prosecution responded with Y", let me know.

The judge's job is "show me how you are right, and this proposition is wrong".

[KY_EnviroGuy]

54. Thanks, Jberry - that makes sense.

I appreciate your thoughtful responses to those of us lucky enough to have not spent much time in court. Virtually all of my time was as a professional witness in engineering disputes many years ago.

The very basic foundational principle of innocent until proven guilty seems the predominant theme, and I'm grateful we have that enshrined in our laws. Armchair judges, and jurists (and reporters as well) need to remind themselves of that core protection.

.......

[Kotya]

61. Here is what is alleged to be a transcript of the proceedings:

Link to tweet

[jberryhill]

63. Ah good. I'll have a look at that.

[Kotya]

64. There's a thread with the full transcript.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210580386

I'm always interested in the opinions of those who understand how these processes work rather than just those who want to preach happy thoughts to the choir.

[lisa58]

10. My thoughts exactly

[onenote]

12. Exactly

Some silly stuff in some of the comments in this thread. Thanks for giving folks a reality check.

[elias7]

19. I am sorry to further depress you, but can you clarify a couple of things?

From the article in TPM:

""Ellis told the prosecutors that it seemed they were using the Manafort indictment “to exert leverage on a defendant” so that they will flip and provide information on the core issues of the investigation. He said that the indictment is about pressure and argued that Mueller team is trying to make Manafort “sing.” The judge told prosecutors that they “don’t really care” about Manafort and the charges they brought against him.""

I thought that was how this whole thing worked, so why would the judge be pointing this out?

If judge rules against plaintiff, does that negate the evidence collected, and therefore negate prosecution for the crime?

[jberryhill]

31. The purpose of a criminal indictment is to prosecute an accused criminal of the crimes charged

The court is not there to provide "leverage". The court is there to proceed with a criminal case.

The defense alleges that (a) the prosecution is out of scope of the mandate of this prosecutor, and (b) that the prosecution is pursuing the case or an improper purpose.

The defense is, IMHO, going to lose both of those arguments. If there is any "trend" in determining outcomes from court proceedings, I've noticed that the winning side tends to have gotten the closest scrutiny by the court in motion hearings. The first motion hearing I ever did, I was absolutely stunned by how the judge did not seem to care much about our arguments, gave us a really hard time, and was actually an old friend of the lead counsel on the other side and had a nice chat about old times with him during the freaking proceeding. Weeks later, we got the decision which utterly eviscerated the other side's position.

It is the further job of the court to establish a full record of all the arguments and counter-arguments made before that court, and to try not to leave any issues to have been not fully considered. Otherwise, on appeal, the appellate court will say "You missed a spot" and send it back for a do-over. District court judges seek to avoid that by making sure that everyone has gotten all their jollies out on the record.

You WANT any criminal defendant to have been well-represented and you WANT a trial court to have fully tested the arguments put before it.

You want these things, because society has an interest in securing reliable convictions of criminals, and ensuring that every criminal defendant has had due process.

The majority of commenters on DU have no problem with mob justice, so long as their mob is "winning". That's not what the American system of government is about.

As long as the process is followed, then one of two things happens ultimately - (1) the "right" side does indeed win most of the time, and (2) flaws in the process subject to correction are exposed.

The process is more important than the outcomes, because the process is the entire point.

[elias7]

59. Thanks

So either the judge was expressing a personal opinion or restating the defendant’s claims, with a goal in either case of testing the strength of the prosecutorial response.

[MGKrebs]

23. This sounds like a bit more than a judge doing due diligence.

"You don't really care about Mr. Manafort's bank fraud," Ellis said to prosecutor Michael Dreeben, at times losing his temper.

"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."

"They weren't interested in it because it didn't "further our core effort to get Trump," Ellis said, mimicking a prosecutor in the case.

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

If Mueller's team loses this I suppose they can appeal? Or just send it to the appropriate jurisdiction. I'm sure they could still exert their influence to try to get the information they are seeking.

[olegramps]

62. One person on this board doesn't what anyone to be allow to question the judge's actions.

First how did he determine that the prosecution is not concerned about bank fraud. Perhaps the Judge could be asked why he apparently isn't concerned about the crime the defendant is being charged with. He is the one that is deflecting from the charge and then some would have us believe that his intentions are pure. Bull. He even went to the extent of mocking the prosecution and accusing them of actually going after Trump. He is the one who sees it as a threat to his beloved Trump. He even goes so far as charging that the prosecutors are after unfettered power. This charge is absolutely and exactly what Trump is doing by acting like a damn dictator placing himself above the law. The intentions of this judge are clear and just another case why there should never be lifetime appointments.

[sprinkleeninow]

39. Doing the prosecution a favorable turn, perhaps.

Making sure there's no wiggle room for the defense.

I hope that's the intent [legal procedure taken into account].

On pins and needles waiting, waiting...

[jberryhill]

47. No, just the court doing its job

The court is not interested in doing anyone favors.

Incidentally, if you are ever in a court, and the judge rules in your favor on any question, do not say "thank you". That is the most patronizing thing a judge can hear. The judge is not there do to favors for you, the other side, or anyone else.

And, as far as pins and needles goes, they aren't worth it. The court will rule on the motions when it damn well pleases. I've seen cases in civil proceedings where everything is briefed and argued, and the decision doesn't issue for months. The courts are understaffed, underfunded, and pretty busy. This court is pretty good at moving things forward.

[sprinkleeninow]

57. What I meant was that it 'sounds' as if the judge is being biased

and busting the prosecution's chops, but it most likely is not in reality what it appears to some.

I used favorable as in the judgment he will make eventually, not showing some kind of favoritism. Jeez louise.

I've had hyper stress as have many since November 2016 and it gets progressively worse by the day. Just waiting for a resolution on this madness. If I feel on edge, then so be it. It's a normal reaction.

[MosheFeingold]

45. Correct n/t

[blondebanshee]

8. HTF, is Manafort not related to Russian interference????? Something doesn't smell right.

GOP will use this as another example to fire Rosenstein

[jberryhill]

33. Getting the arguments on the record in court is the best way to secure reliable prosecutions

[fleur-de-lisa]

15. Do not despair:

Ken Dilanian✔ @KenDilanianNBC

In fact, a courthouse observer told me that this judge is often hardest in court on the side he rules in favor of.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[blondebanshee]

18. Thank you for posting some hope, but his comments have me concerned:

You don't really care about Mr. Manafort's bank fraud," District Judge T.S. 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...

"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."

When Dreeben answered Ellis' question about how the investigation and its charges date back to before the Trump campaign formed, the judge shot back, "None of that information has to do with information related to Russian government coordination and the campaign of Donald Trump."

At one point, Ellis posed a hypothetical question, speaking as if he were the prosecutor, about why Mueller's office referred a criminal investigation about Trump's personal attorney Michael Cohen to New York authorities and kept the Manafort case in Virginia.

They weren't interested in it because it didn't "further our core effort to get Trump," Ellis said, mimicking a prosecutor in the case.

[dajoki]

20. They concern me as well n/t

[fleur-de-lisa]

25. I understand. Please see this post:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210576296

[blondebanshee]

30. Thank you fleur-de-lisa!

[Gothmog]

27. Many judges are harder on the sides that they are going to rule for

Thanks for posting this

[jberryhill]

32. And if you think about it, that's the way it is supposed to be

[OliverQ]

24. Why can't we ever catch a break? Now we have judges siding with the Trump team.

[WhoWoodaKnew]

28. I like it when judges do their jobs. I don't want any of these criminals to get off on appeal.

[MaryMagdaline]

29. Manafort's involvement in Ukraine was one of the reasons the Russians got him involved in the Trump

campaign.

[Nitram]

36. Yes, because at that time the President of Ukraine was Friend of Russia, Viktor Yanukovych.

Unfortunately for Russia (and Manifort), he was overthrown by a popular uprising when he abandoned pursuit of closer ties with the EU, in favor of closer ties to Russia.

[jberryhill]

65. Indeed, the judge covered that

You might want to look at this post:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210584266

Turning to the defense, the judge had this to say:

THE COURT: It's now your opportunity to
bring out what really you think is dispositive in some
arresting, interesting way.

MR. DOWNING: That's setting the bar high.

THE COURT: I reminisce a lot. The world has
changed. I was a student in England in the late '60s,
and I went to many oral arguments. They didn't use
briefs at all in the cases I went to. In the House of
Lords, the judges appeared in suits, and the lawyers
appeared and the barristers appeared in wigs and robes.
They together bent down, pulled books off the shelf,
and read cases together and argued about them. I
thought that was a charming but ineffective way to do
things. Writing briefs is much more effective, but
then it kind of renders oral argument a little more
uninteresting.

Tell me why -- you've heard him say -- I mean
their argument is fairly straightforward. They say you
look at the May 17 letter. It says any links and/or
coordination between the Russian government and
individuals associated with the campaign of President
Donald Trump; secondly, any matters that arose or may
arise directly from the investigation. Which I focused
on their investigation rather than the Department of
Justice's, but that's a fair point. And then the third
one is any other matters within the scope of 600.4 of
Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations.
Then counsel appropriately called my
attention to the August 2 memorandum from Rosenstein
which amplifies that a bit. Of course, most of the
letter is redacted, but I'm advised that that doesn't
have anything to do with Mr. Manafort. I'm going to
look at that myself.

But that goes on to say whether crimes were
committed by colluding with Russian government
officials with respect to the Russian government
efforts to interfere with the 2016 election for
president. That was pretty clear from the May letter.
But then they go on to say committed a crime or crimes
arising out of payments he received from the Ukrainian
government before or during the tenure of President
Viktor Yanukovych.

Well, we could argue all day here and not get
very much clarity on whether there's a difference
between the Ukraine and Russia. Of course, I wasn't
there any later than about 40 years ago, but if you ask
the average Ukrainian, they will tell you there's a
huge difference.


On the other hand, the government makes a
very powerful point. Yankovych's operation was
supported by the Russian government. He did
essentially what they wanted him to do, but he's not
there anymore. People are killing each other in the
eastern Ukraine. My hunch is that it's Ukrainians and
Russians that are mostly fighting.

[Nitram]

34. And. Bingo! We have a guaranteed Trump nominee for the Supreme Court!

[former9thward]

37. Ahhh, no.

The judge is 77 years old. He is not going anyplace.

[Nitram]

38. That wouldn't stop Trump or his flunkies in Congress. It's all about loyalty.

[former9thward]

42. Yes it would stop Trump or any other president.

No one past 70 has ever made it on the court.

[Nitram]

55. No one like Trump was ever president before.