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

[JasperL]

Dershowitz has always been one to criticize and be suspicious of abuse of governmental and law enforcement power and authority. So this is nothing new with him.

Yeah, he's playing devil's advocate here, and the point is valid enough, but his argument on this case was pretty weak IMO, and won't change many minds. He'd be on much stronger ground arguing this line if it was Flynn or PapaD on the docket.

I've recounted before a case close to me where the feds put the screws big time to a guy who threatened to assassinate a federal judge - put him back in prison for almost a decade for making a series of what in most cases would be nit picky violations - perjury because he didn't disclose a retainer held by his attorney, for example, of about $25k. The guy is a real nutjob, who is IMO dangerous as a free person, but the fact remains the feds when they want can get people on what are often minor charges. But that argument with Manafort isn't persuasive...

 

[JasperL]

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.

I've been arguing the "merits" of Manafort's prosecution for an entire thread, and did so in what you just quoted, so save the straw man for someone else.

 

[vesper]

Can you post a link to judges calling the Mueller investigation a "witch hunt", please? i don't remember that, and can't find it anywhere.

Mueller's team got an indictment against Manafort already. The Grand Jury indicted him. You don't go to Federal Judges to get an indictment.

The Grand Jury indicts solely on witnesses called by the prosecutors.

“Any good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a HAM sandwich.”
―Sol Wachtler

While you try to paint Judge Ellis as feeble, many see him provide a compelling response “What we don’t want in this country, we don’t want anyone with unfettered power … It’s unlikely you’re going to persuade me the special counsel has unlimited powers to do anything he or she wants.”

He also pointed out the copy of the August memo Rosenstein sent to Mueller was so heavily redacted that he would not rule until he saw a unredacted version.

Ellis isn't the first judge to have problems with Mueller's team of elves.

The first one to have problems was Rudolph Contreras. presided over the case of former national security adviser Michael Flynn, accepting Flynn's guilty plea but was later abruptly recused himself from the case. He is also serving as a judge on the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Many believe it had to do with the texts IG Horowitz discovered where Strzok told Page that he and Contreras were good friends and wanted to have a dinner party and invite him over where he could discuss some things with him without drawing any attention. In their conversation Page said she found out the Contreras was on the FISC and that is when Strzok told Page he knew and he was a friend. Maybe it was Contreras that signed off on the FISA warrant to spy on Trump's campaign and transition team using the notorious Trump dossier composed by Christopher Steele, opposition research paid for by the DNC and Clinton campaign to justify issuing the warrant. We will have to wait of IG Horowitz's report for that one. But nevertheless Contreras abruptly recused himself from the Flynn case.

The next judge to be chosen at random to handle the Flynn case was Judge Sullivan. Judge Emmet Sullivan issued an order in United States v. Flynn that, while widely unnoticed, reveals something fascinating.... A motion by Michael Flynn to withdraw his guilty plea based on government misconduct is likely in the works.
A week before Sullivan quietly directed Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team to provide Flynn’s attorneys “any exculpatory evidence,” Washington Examiner columnist Byron York detailed the oddities of Flynn’s case. Former assistant U.S. attorney and National Review contributing editor Andrew McCarthy connected more of the questionable dots. Together these articles provide the backdrop necessary to understand the significance of Sullivan’s order. This all happened in February and since Flynn's sentencing phase has been delayed twice by Mueller's team.



https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...idnt-think-michael-flynn-lied/article/2648896
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018...aised-about-fbi-robert-mueller-investigation/

This thread is about Ellis questioning Mueller's team. He isn't the first.

And late Friday another judge ruled against Mueller's elves trying to get a postponement on the Russian Troll trial. Concord one of the companies listed in Mueller's case claimed that Mueller's team have not complied with their requests for discovery. The judge ruled against Mueller's team and the arraignment will proceed this Wednesday.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/04/mueller-russia-interference-election-case-delay-570627

Now there's 4 judges that have had problems with the handling of Mueller's investigation.

 

[apdst]

I've been arguing the "merits" of Manafort's prosecution for an entire thread, and did so in what you just quoted, so save the straw man for someone else.

You aren't the least bit interested in how the Manafort case can be linked to President Trump? Be honest!

 

[tres borrachos]

The Grand Jury indicts solely on witnesses called by the prosecutors.

“Any good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a HAM sandwich.”
―Sol Wachtler

While you try to paint Judge Ellis as feeble, many see him provide a compelling response “What we don’t want in this country, we don’t want anyone with unfettered power … It’s unlikely you’re going to persuade me the special counsel has unlimited powers to do anything he or she wants.”

He also pointed out the copy of the August memo Rosenstein sent to Mueller was so heavily redacted that he would not rule until he saw a unredacted version.

Ellis isn't the first judge to have problems with Mueller's team of elves.

The first one to have problems was Rudolph Contreras. presided over the case of former national security adviser Michael Flynn, accepting Flynn's guilty plea but was later abruptly recused himself from the case. He is also serving as a judge on the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Many believe it had to do with the texts IG Horowitz discovered where Strzok told Page that he and Contreras were good friends and wanted to have a dinner party and invite him over where he could discuss some things with him without drawing any attention. In their conversation Page said she found out the Contreras was on the FISC and that is when Strzok told Page he knew and he was a friend. Maybe it was Contreras that signed off on the FISA warrant to spy on Trump's campaign and transition team using the notorious Trump dossier composed by Christopher Steele, opposition research paid for by the DNC and Clinton campaign to justify issuing the warrant. We will have to wait of IG Horowitz's report for that one. But nevertheless Contreras abruptly recused himself from the Flynn case.

The next judge to be chosen at random to handle the Flynn case was Judge Sullivan. Judge Emmet Sullivan issued an order in United States v. Flynn that, while widely unnoticed, reveals something fascinating.... A motion by Michael Flynn to withdraw his guilty plea based on government misconduct is likely in the works.
A week before Sullivan quietly directed Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team to provide Flynn’s attorneys “any exculpatory evidence,” Washington Examiner columnist Byron York detailed the oddities of Flynn’s case. Former assistant U.S. attorney and National Review contributing editor Andrew McCarthy connected more of the questionable dots. Together these articles provide the backdrop necessary to understand the significance of Sullivan’s order. This all happened in February and since Flynn's sentencing phase has been delayed twice by Mueller's team.



https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...idnt-think-michael-flynn-lied/article/2648896
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018...aised-about-fbi-robert-mueller-investigation/

This thread is about Ellis questioning Mueller's team. He isn't the first.

And late Friday another judge ruled against Mueller's elves trying to get a postponement on the Russian Troll trial. Concord one of the companies listed in Mueller's case claimed that Mueller's team have not complied with their requests for discovery. The judge ruled against Mueller's team and the arraignment will proceed this Wednesday.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/04/mueller-russia-interference-election-case-delay-570627

Now there's 4 judges that have had problems with the handling of Mueller's investigation.

It's hard to discuss this serious issue when you're posting about "elves".

I don't know what the comment about the ham sandwich has to do with my post, vesper. That poster who I responded to say Mueller needed the federal judge to help him get an indictment against Manafort. No he didn't, as I pointed out to him. He already has the indictment against Manafort.

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what 3 judges called the Mueller investigation a "witch hunt". So far nobody can tell me that.

 

[vesper]

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.

True story. And Weissman is also the prosecutor that told the informant for the FBI that took detailed reports, tapes, recordings of Russia's efforts to obtain Uranium around the world/ Well he was put under a gag order and could not speak of his findings. The Uranium One deal went through. The person that informed him was Weissman. And of course all his evidence showed why it would be a bad deal. There were several in Congress against it in the Republican party. But this past October Session's lifted that gag order and he has been singing to Congress.

 

[vesper]

It's hard to discuss this serious issue when you're posting about "elves".

I don't know what the comment about the ham sandwich has to do with my post, vesper. That poster who I responded to say Mueller needed the federal judge to help him get an indictment against Manafort. No he didn't, as I pointed out to him. He already has the indictment against Manafort.

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what 3 judges called the Mueller investigation a "witch hunt". So far nobody can tell me that.

Wow you didn't address one serious thing in my post instead reflected to "elves". What a piece of work.

 

[Athanasius68]

First of all, you said they're not DoJ but the SC is born of regs established by DoJ, etc.

As to authority, what's different?



Can you cite regs or laws that illustrate your point?



The argument I'm making is the AG has the authority to establish and expand the scope, Rosenstein has tesstified he is actively overseeing the investigation, and there is NO evidence anywhere Mueller has stepped outside the lines approved in regular consultations with Rosenstein. That's what all the testimony indicates.

Then why bother with an SC?

 

[Atomic Kid]

Yeah, he's playing devil's advocate here, and the point is valid enough, but his argument on this case was pretty weak IMO, and won't change many minds. He'd be on much stronger ground arguing this line if it was Flynn or PapaD on the docket.

I've recounted before a case close to me where the feds put the screws big time to a guy who threatened to assassinate a federal judge - put him back in prison for almost a decade for making a series of what in most cases would be nit picky violations - perjury because he didn't disclose a retainer held by his attorney, for example, of about $25k. The guy is a real nutjob, who is IMO dangerous as a free person, but the fact remains the feds when they want can get people on what are often minor charges. But that argument with Manafort isn't persuasive...

Yes Dershowitz likes to play devil's advocate. Especially when it comes to criminal law and he has made a pretty good living for himself with doing so. Although he hasn't had a major case in over ten years now and seems to be sadly reduced to appearing on Fox News in order to keep his face and name in the public eye. And yes, you're absolutely right that when it comes down to protecting the country or the public from serious threats to it's safety that the government and law enforcement has shown that it will employ all the tools they have in their box to accomplish that goal. This 'putting the screws' to somebody is really pretty standard stuff. Much like arresting someone for selling drugs on the street and then threatening prosecute him or her aggressively unless he or she can provide them with the their supplier and when they arrest that supplier they pressure him him or her to reveal who their supplier is so they can continue to work their way up the chain to the big fish. That's the way it has worked for a long time.

 

[apdst]

Yeah, he's playing devil's advocate here, and the point is valid enough, but his argument on this case was pretty weak IMO, and won't change many minds. He'd be on much stronger ground arguing this line if it was Flynn or PapaD on the docket.

I've recounted before a case close to me where the feds put the screws big time to a guy who threatened to assassinate a federal judge - put him back in prison for almost a decade for making a series of what in most cases would be nit picky violations - perjury because he didn't disclose a retainer held by his attorney, for example, of about $25k. The guy is a real nutjob, who is IMO dangerous as a free person, but the fact remains the feds when they want can get people on what are often minor charges. But that argument with Manafort isn't persuasive...

Dershowitz is wrong, or lying?

 

[tres borrachos]

Wow you didn't address one serious thing in my post instead reflected to "elves". What a piece of work.

I'm a piece of work because you keep talking about elves when I'm having a serious discussion here? Interesting.

Address what in your post? I told that poster that Mueller didn't send his guy in front of that judge to get an indictment, which is what he claimed. He already had the indictment. That has nothing to do with how easy or hard it is to get an indictment. It has to do with me correcting that poster who incorrectly stated something that was not true. It doesn't have a thing to do with the texts between Strzok and Page, or Clinton, or anyone else.

If you'd like to discuss this situation, I would too, but not with juvenile name calling. Mueller's staff are not "elves". I'm not Donald Trump. I can post without the childish nonsense.

 

[vesper]

I'm a piece of work because you keep talking about elves when I'm having a serious discussion here? Interesting.

Address what in your post? I told that poster that Mueller didn't send his guy in front of that judge to get an indictment, which is what he claimed. He already had the indictment. That has nothing to do with how easy or hard it is to get an indictment. It has to do with me correcting that poster who incorrectly stated something that was not true.

If you'd like to discuss this situation, I would too, but not with juvenile name calling. Mueller's staff are not "elves". I'm not Donald Trump. I can post without the childish nonsense.

The term 'elves' is to reflect that Mueller is running this investigation. Get over yourself.
I gave you 4 solid judges that have had a problem with what Mueller is persuing through his elves!

Four judges including Ellis you like to refer to as old and maybe kinda slow over his questioning of Mueller's intent simply because he wants to read the memo he received that was heavily redacted in unredacted form.

Four judges...... it should make anyone who upholds civil liberties even if their name is Trump to insure justice is received should be welcomed. But not you.

 

[tres borrachos]

The term 'elves' is to reflect that Mueller is running this investigation. Get over yourself.
I gave you 4 solid judges that have had a problem with what Mueller is persuing through his elves!

Four judges including Ellis you like to refer to as old and maybe kinda slow over his questioning of Mueller's intent simply because he wants to read the memo he received that was heavily redacted in unredacted form.

Four judges...... it should make anyone who upholds civil liberties even if their name is Trump to insure justice is received should be welcomed. But not you.

Get over myself because I want to post like an adult and not call other adults "elves"? Nope, sorry.

Four judges didn't call the Mueller investigation a "witch hunt", did they? That's all I've been asking. The poster claimed they called it a witch hunt and your posts aren't helping his case. You did jump in the middle of the conversation and go off that discussion. I didn't post anything about Strzok and Page, nor do they have to do with what Manafort is going through, or what Ellis said on Friday. Even a little.

Were you upset when Anthony Weiner's laptop was seized because a 15 year old accused him of sexting her, and they found emails from Hillary Clinton on his laptop which prompted Jim Comey to re-open his investigation into her emails, 2 weeks before the election? Because that was evidence found in the course of looking at something that had nothing to do with the investigation into Weiner's sexting. You my have expressed outrage on this board at the time and i just don't remember it.

 

[Atomic Kid]

Dershowitz is wrong, or lying?

No, he's just exaggerating a little when said this;

This tactic is as old as Adam turning against Eve. But, as the judge correctly pointed out, it risks the possibility that the squeezed witness will not only sing, he will compose.

Yes it's old tactic but it really quite a stretch that he would believe that any career federal prosecutor would not be aware that a squeezed witness might sometimes say anything to save his or her own ass. That's why you have out build upon the evidence that can collaborate the witnesses statements. It like when people say that foreign intelligence agencies sometimes plant 'sources' in order to spread disinformation. To which any seasoned intelligence officer would reply; "Duh! No kidding. Really? Didn't know that."

 

[NonoBadDog]

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.

What I think hasn't changed. I am not going to change my mind just because Dreeben said so. The judge didn't appear to agree with Drebeen either. If regulations can't "regulate" then there is no need for a regulation.

 

[JasperL]

Then why bother with an SC?

I don't really understand the question - it's to establish an independent team, but its independence is limited by design, so that this team still operates effectively at the pleasure of the AG and at all times under his supervision.

 

[Common Sense 1]

I am not sure why that's a problem. He says it like it's a bad thing. Any prosecutor who has worked with gangs or criminal mobs knows that you start out with the little guys, and use them to work your way up gradually to the head honchos at the top. This judge does not sound like he has much experience with how criminal prosecutors actually work.

The judge has more than a little experience!

Thomas Selby Ellis III (born May 15, 1940) is a Senior United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. August 6, 1987 to present

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.

 

[Athanasius68]

I don't really understand the question - it's to establish an independent team, but its independence is limited by design, so that this team still operates effectively at the pleasure of the AG and at all times under his supervision.

The argument being made is that there is no substantive difference between Mueller investigating and prosecuting and the local federal district attorney doing the same.
So whats the advantage in using an SC? What are the disadvantages in using the local guy?

 

[Athanasius68]

Were you upset when Anthony Weiner's laptop was seized because a 15 year old accused him of sexting her, and they found emails from Hillary Clinton on his laptop which prompted Jim Comey to re-open his investigation into her emails, 2 weeks before the election? Because that was evidence found in the course of looking at something that had nothing to do with the investigation into Weiner's sexting. You my have expressed outrage on this board at the time and i just don't remember it.

Neither Weiner or Clinton were being investigated by a special prosecutor.

 

[tres borrachos]

Neither Weiner or Clinton were being investigated by a special prosecutor.

I don't recall saying they were.

 

[JasperL]

What I think hasn't changed. I am not going to change my mind just because Dreeben said so. The judge didn't appear to agree with Drebeen either. If regulations can't "regulate" then there is no need for a regulation.

That's fine but what you're saying is that you don't care about the law binding on the judge, or for some reason believe the case is inapplicable. He's obligated to follow the rationale of the case I cited unless he can distinguish the facts in a way that makes the cited case inapplicable. The district court judge has no options about that, any more than a district court judge can ignore SC precedent on a given case.

And I'd look at it differently. Basically the DoJ established some rules that effectively touch on delegations of tasks within the DoJ, and if they break the rules they impose on themselves, it creates a right for the defendant to, I guess, squash the investigation. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. What difference does it make to the defendant or the court which section of the DoJ takes on this prosecution, if the prosecution is otherwise within the law.

Furthermore, again, the AG can establish the scope and expand the scope, so this division of power is his prerogative, not the court's. Unless the argument can be made that Mueller didn't properly consult with the AG, and I haven't seen that and the Manafort attorneys didn't argue it, then what prohibits the AG from saying to Mueller - "You keep this one."

 

[vesper]

I'm a piece of work because you keep talking about elves when I'm having a serious discussion here? Interesting.

Address what in your post? I told that poster that Mueller didn't send his guy in front of that judge to get an indictment, which is what he claimed. He already had the indictment. That has nothing to do with how easy or hard it is to get an indictment. It has to do with me correcting that poster who incorrectly stated something that was not true. It doesn't have a thing to do with the texts between Strzok and Page, or Clinton, or anyone else.

If you'd like to discuss this situation, I would too, but not with juvenile name calling. Mueller's staff are not "elves". I'm not Donald Trump. I can post without the childish nonsense.

No you are not one bit interested in the seriousness only anything that can bring down Trump through hook and crook.

Spare me your BS.

Four judges have had problems with Mueller's investigation. That's a fact! Deal with it.

 

[Athanasius68]

No, he's just exaggerating a little when said this;

Yes it's old tactic but it really quite a stretch that he would believe that any career federal prosecutor would not be aware that a squeezed witness might sometimes say anything to save his or her own ass. That's why you have out build upon the evidence that can collaborate the witnesses statements. It like when people say that foreign intelligence agencies sometimes plant 'sources' in order to spread disinformation. To which any seasoned intelligence officer would reply; "Duh! No kidding. Really? Didn't know that."

Its kind of amusing that you would mention the probabability that foreign intelligence agencies would be spreading false information...

 

[Athanasius68]

I don't recall saying they were.

I didnt say you did.
However, there are rules governing the appointment of an SC.

 

[tres borrachos]

No you are not one bit interested in the seriousness only anything that can bring down Trump through hook and crook.

Spare me your BS.

Four judges have had problems with Mueller's investigation. That's a fact! Deal with it.

Oh brother. Now you're just spitting and hissing, and not posting.

You weren't following along with the discussion I had with him that you jumped in on. If you had, you wouldn't be posting this hyperbole now, and posting about Strzok and Page.

Spare me your faux outrage. I have no interest in it. I didn't post to you. You chimed in and didn't even know what was being discussed. Next time you should know before embarrassing yourself, as you did here.