• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge in Manafort case says Mueller's aim is to hurt Trump

Atomic Kid said:
Exactly! That's why I'm very confident that even if the judge rules against the prosecution that Dreebin would easily win on an appeal.
Click to expand...

The judge has been around a long time, and as an old man, he should be given some leeway to go off in an odd direction. But will it make a difference to Manafort's situation? No. He was indicted by a Grand Jury of his peers. I know the citizens of Trump Fan Nation want to let Manafort get away with crimes, but I think the rest of the country has an interest in seeing him tried. If he's innocent, then send him on his way. But he needs to answer for the charges.

And the question he posed to Dreeben, or I should say the comments, were pretty unprofessional. If he has a problem with what Mueller is up to, take it up with Sessions, or Trump, or Congress. Not Dreeben. That was just ignorant to ask his underling to comment on what his boss does in an open court.

And glad you understand the Ito analogy.
 

On a separate case that has nothing to do with the Trump campaign. Big difference. The whole reason for this investigation was to get Trump out of office and overturn the election results. One of those judges DID say that, hence if you read what I said, it reads "for a lack of a better phrase". But that judge was implying just that, and said what he said over and over again throughout the hearing. That's not me making that up because that happened Friday (or at least reported). As far as linking that, look it up yourself. It's already in there and not hard to find.
 

So there's a massive conspiracy against Trump that everyone is too weak to stop. Got it.

Can you please link to a judge calling the Mueller investigation a witch hunt? One of the three judges I was told said this?
 

I think it was commendable of Dreebin in not taking any personal offense when he informed the judge that the redacted portion of Rosenstein's scope memo had nothing to do with Manafort and the judge responded with "I'll be the judge of that". That judge basically implied that Dreebin might actually deliberately misrepresent or mislead the court with that quip. But Dreebin kept his cool and didn't let it devolve into a personal fight as to whose judicial dick is bigger.
 
Last edited:

Am I to believe that a judge can instruct prosecutors on who they can and can't bring to trial irrespective of the particular charges before the court ?

When judge presides over who does and doesn't get charged (indicted) this country's legal/civil/BoR regime is gone.

I.e., can't prosecute Manafort if Mueller is going after Trump ?

Of course it is as likely if this were Obama, judge would rubber stamp everything. 'Lock-him-up.' [sic]
 

If you read the transcript then what was most of the discussion about? Did they happen to the memo about the scope of the Mueller investigation?

28 CFR Part 600 - GENERAL POWERS OF SPECIAL COUNSEL

In this paragraph they describe the "jurisdiction" of an appointed special counsel. This is what requires the generation of the scope memo:

§ 600.4 Jurisdiction.

(a)Original jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall be established by the Attorney General. The Special Counsel will be provided with a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall also include the authority to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel's investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; and to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted.

(b)Additional jurisdiction. If in the course of his or her investigation the Special Counsel concludes that additional jurisdiction beyond that specified in his or her original jurisdiction is necessary in order to fully investigate and resolve the matters assigned, or to investigate new matters that come to light in the course of his or her investigation, he or she shall consult with the Attorney General, who will determine whether to include the additional matters within the Special Counsel's jurisdiction or assign them elsewhere.

(c)Civil and administrative jurisdiction. If in the course of his or her investigation the Special Counsel determines that administrative remedies, civil sanctions or other governmental action outside the criminal justice system might be appropriate, he or she shall consult with the Attorney General with respect to the appropriate component to take any necessary action. A Special Counsel shall not have civil or administrative authority unless specifically granted such jurisdiction by the Attorney General.

This further requires the SC to stay in line with the "scope: of the memo. It limits their authority:

§ 600.6 Powers and authority.

Subject to the limitations in the following paragraphs, the Special Counsel shall exercise, within the scope of his or her jurisdiction, the full power and independent authority to exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions of any United States Attorney. Except as provided in this part, the Special Counsel shall determine whether and to what extent to inform or consult with the Attorney General or others within the Department about the conduct of his or her duties and responsibilities.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/part-600

The order appointing the special counsel states that they have the authority to investigate, "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation". The transcript clearly states that this investigation was "inherited" and did not "arise directly from this investigation".
 

If I was in court on behalf of one of my clients, and a judge said to me "You don't really care about (insert what case is all about here). Your boss has a grudge against (insert name of person not on trial).", I'd be hard pressed not to point out his unprofessionalism and ask if we can get back to the discussion at hand, and I would show him the courtesy of not deciding I can read his mind or that of his boss.
 


Justice my ass. If this was somebody leading to HRC it would be lock her up all over again.

The hypocrisy of the right is getting close to a pathology.

When can liberal judges impugn the motives of those going after HRC with much greater and more obvious political motives.

You might howl like pig to slaughter.
 

And your case might get dismissed, too. A good lawyer would never be that bold.

If a judge questions the legitimacy of your case, which he absolutely has the authority to do, it's up to you to prove your case is legitimate.
 
tres borrachos said:
So then why exactly did you bring it up? You did - not me.

Are you backtracking on your claim now?
Click to expand...

No, you are the one going on about it, not me. You have latched on to it for some reason. And, it's already been posted that they knew about it. And they know about it now. So why continue on something that has no bearing on the judge wanting to clear up what Mueller is allowed to do, and the concern that he is operating in an unfettered manner? A common tactic of the left.
 


I know we really shouldn't engage in "what ifs", but it occurred to me this weekend, I wonder what the reaction from Trump Fan Nation would have been last year if the judge in the Anthony Weiner sexting case had said to the prosecutor "I know damn well you don't care about Weiner texting a teenage girl. You and your boss only wanted to take him down because he's Huma Abedin's husband and you want to get Clinton charged with a crime, so you seized his laptop hoping to find evidence of something on her. Instead you only found evidence of his crimes and you got access to Clinton emails in the bargain."

Do you think the reaction to the judge opining on such a thing would be the same as what we see today?
 

I asked you to back up your claim. I didn't "go on about it". You shouldn't post on here if you aren't interested in backing up your own posts. This board isn't called "Trust Everything Other Posters Say". I'm sorry you didn't know this.

It does appear you realize now how wrong you were, but you won't admit it. Is that a tactic of the alt-right - just make things up and then pretend you didn't? I know Trump does that, but now he's got his loyal fan base doing it too. How sad.
 

Judge Ellis and Weissman (head of the Mueller investigation) have a history. Weissman had to resign from the DOJ Enron Task Force for a number of reasons. Later it was found that he hid exculpatory evidence from the defendant. Years later the defendant found out. Maybe that is why Judge Emmet Sullivan is so adamant about Mueller's team turning over all the evidence to Flynn. The case was thrown out by SCOTUS with a unanimous vote. Weissman doesn't have a stellar reputation with judges.
 

First of all, I get all that. But at the end of the day, the Dreeben argument was IMO compelling, and it was that the SC is part of DoJ, operating under DoJ regulations with the power of a US Attorney, at all times under the AG's supervision who can establish or expand the scope. There is no argument that the SC didn't regularly consult with the AG, apprise him as required of significant developments, and get the AG's sign off on, for example, the Manafort search warrant. Rosenstein has testified he is actively overseeing it. No one is making the argument that the crimes alleged aren't properly brought before the court, the argument is which part of the DoJ brings them. That is outlined in the regs, but even if you successfully argue the appointment violated the regs, which wasn't compelling in my reading, then the same regs say this:


The point being what's in dispute are internal allocations of manpower within DoJ which is properly the authority of the AG, or acting AG in this case. Manafort's team is effectively arguing their client can walk because the AG assigned the investigation and prosecution to the wrong team in DoJ. I can't square that circle. Seems to me at the end of the day the judge DID recognize those as compelling and Manafort's team had no good response.
 

Alan Dershowitz does a great job of explaining why Mueller's tactics are coming under fire.

http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciar...htly-rebukes-mueller-for-questionable-tactics
 
tres borrachos said:
If Manafort did in fact commit the crimes the Grand Jury of his peers indicted him for, you don't want him convicted of these crimes after getting a fair trial?
Click to expand...
Tres, a grand jury is only presented one side of a case. You seem to be inferring that since a GJ indicted, then he's guilty.

That's not how it works, for good reason

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
apdst said:
Alan Dershowitz does a great job of explaining why Mueller's tactics are coming under fire.

http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciar...htly-rebukes-mueller-for-questionable-tactics
Click to expand...

Here's where he loses me:


The crimes Manafort is alleged to have committed and those BEFORE THE COURT are not 'highly technical, elastic charges' - they involve financial frauds involving $10s of millions. If that judge wants to editorialize about actions not before his court, fine, he's got a lifetime appointment and can do whatever the hell he wants in his courtroom, but they have no bearing on the proceeding in front of him and we don't have to pay them any mind if we're discussing the Manafort case.

He goes on:


Mueller is working under the authorization and supervision of a Trump appointee in the DoJ. The idea he has "unfettered power" is ludicrous. A political appointee confirmed by the Senate and who can be removed by Trump is the check on 'unfettered power.'

It's disappointing Derschowitz is making such poor arguments there. At the least he should acknowledge the other side of the arguments here and address them, but he doesn't. It read like an editorial by a Trump lawyer.
 
Last edited:

Then we disagree. I think the judge will see the argument that the regs don't apply because they create rights as a sham to avoid following their (the DOJ) own guidance. I also agree with the judge that it isn't in the scope of the SC to investigate this charge against Manafort. It should have been transferred to another district just as they did with Cohen.
 
Last edited:

The problem for the judge is the judicial precedence cited by Dreeben in the transcript that internal DoJ rules in fact do NOT create rights for defendants. So the notion isn't a sham - that's what the courts have ruled! See page 38-39 here: https://www.scribd.com/document/378...ull-Text-Transcript-Hearing-Motion-May-4-2018

I'll add that the decision was in the 4th Circuit and therefore binding on this judge, who sits in the 4th circuit.

He'll also have to deal with the fact that the regs do allow the AG to establish and expand the scope, and what's at issue is the internal allocation of duties within the DoJ, properly decided by the AG, not the judge.
 
Last edited:
NonoBadDog said:
Yeah, that's why he brought on Weissman. He wanted to have someone that will do whatever it takes when it comes to prosecution, even if they have to bend or try to slide by the law. Weissman has a history of that kind of conduct.
Click to expand...

Mueller thought he was untouchable and looks like he thought wrong.
 

If the objective is to press Manafort into testifying against President Trump it opens the possibility that Manafort says whatever Mueller wants to hear, even if it isn't true. That's Dershowitz's point.
 
apdst said:
If the objective is to press Manafort into testifying against President Trump it opens the possibility that Manafort says whatever Mueller wants to hear, even if it isn't true. That's Dershowitz's point.
Click to expand...

But he doesn't just make that argument, which is OK as it stands, although before we know the extent of Manafort's cooperation if any, we can't know if the point is valid. If Manafort "sings" by producing a paper trail or other EVIDENCE outside "well, Trump told me X" then the worry might be valid that he's only saying such things to get out of trouble.

And in the meantime he pollutes that decent point with garbage ones, like the notion that a prosecutor operating at all times under the supervision of a Trump appointee has "unfettered power" etc. He objectively does not have "unfettered" power, and the charges against Manafort are objectively NOT these fluid, technical violations - he engaged in a massive, deliberate, sophisticated fraud scheme to hide $milions in taxes and engage in defrauding banks by among other things presenting fraudulent financial statements as a basis for loans. Those are serious crimes by any definition.
 

His point has been made valid because the Trump haters say only one thing when someone gets charged: "he's going to flip and testify against Trump".

Never do we here y'all cheer these investigations on based on the merits of the case, but instead, how it will effect President Trump.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…