Federal judge goes off on Mueller’s team

[concha]

1 minute ago, HawgGoneIt said:

You guys expect the cop to walk by a sack of cocaune on the way to what his scope of work was. 

I agree. Let's apply this across the board for all citizens.

Like people who delete subpoenaed evidence and lie before Congress?

[HSFBfan]

3 minutes ago, noonereal said:

If he sees them through your window... so the post is indeed silly. 

If you have drugs in plain sight than your just a moron

[zulu1128]

The traffic stop analogy is simply terrible. C'mon guys...do better. 😐

[HawgGoneIt]

11 minutes ago, HSFBfan said:

If you have drugs in plain sight than your just a moron

Manafort had wrong doings in plain sight in his paperwork. 

Maybe he's a moron. 

So is the judge that expects Mueller to walk by crimes in plain sight while investigating something else. 

I say if it's ok to walk by this guy's crimes, while investigating something, then it's ok to walk by everyone's crimes while investigating something different too then. 

Analogy smanalogy. Ya know what was meant in spite of your contrarian attitude on it @zulu1128

No law enforcement will walk by a crime in plain view if his other investigation led him by it. Not happening and you all know it. 

The judge is being a partisan hack. I'd put money on that he has adjudicated or prosecuted oordinary folks for shit that was outside the scope of a cops actual investigation many times. This one should be no different. 

[Bormio]

If the judge believes the SOLE reason Manafort is being prosecuted is to coerce testimony vs Trump, he can toss the indictment.  That is not out of the question at all.

[HSFBfan]

2 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said:

Manafort had wrong doings in plain sight in his paperwork. 

Maybe he's a moron. 

So is the judge that expects Mueller to walk by crimes in plain sight while investigating something else. 

I say if it's ok to walk by this guy's crimes, while investigating something, then it's ok to walk by everyone's crimes while investigating something different too then. 

Analogy smanalogy. Ya know what was meant in spite of your contrarian attitude on it @zulu1128

No law enforcement will walk by a crime in plain view if his other investigation led him by it. Not happening and you all know it. 

The judge is being a partisan hack. I'd put money on that he has adjudicated or prosecuted oordinary folks for shit that was outside the scope of a cops actual investigation many times. This one should be no different. 

Did he have a subpoena for these said crimes?? Did the subpoena he have cover these crimes? 

How in plain view was it? 

[Bormio]

10 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said:

Manafort had wrong doings in plain sight in his paperwork. 

Maybe he's a moron. 

So is the judge that expects Mueller to walk by crimes in plain sight while investigating something else. 

I say if it's ok to walk by this guy's crimes, while investigating something, then it's ok to walk by everyone's crimes while investigating something different too then. 

Analogy smanalogy. Ya know what was meant in spite of your contrarian attitude on it @zulu1128

No law enforcement will walk by a crime in plain view if his other investigation led him by it. Not happening and you all know it. 

The judge is being a partisan hack. I'd put money on that he has adjudicated or prosecuted oordinary folks for shit that was outside the scope of a cops actual investigation many times. This one should be no different. 

He is a federal judge and you are not.  If he tosses the indictment, I suspect we will find out if the DC Court of Appeals thinks he is a partisan hack.

[zulu1128]

47 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said:

Manafort had wrong doings in plain sight in his paperwork. 

Maybe he's a moron.

Maybe he is. Still...in this case, a better analogy would be in his trunk, not "in plain sight." I guess if he posted his tax returns and financial transactions on Facebook, you might have a point.

 

47 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said:

So is the judge that expects Mueller to walk by crimes in plain sight while investigating something else.

Well, as stated above, "plain sight" is a reach. (One of the several reasons why the traffic stop analogy is complete garbage...but if you want to roll with it, go ahead) That said, not one person has claimed that Mueller is supposed to ignore said alleged crimes. He is, however, supposed to refer them to the proper prosecutorial authority if they fall outside the scope of his investigation. Hence Ellis requesting an unredacted copy of the memo, asking Bob to prove his authority to prosecute this case.  Does this honestly seem unreasonable? 

 

47 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said:

I say if it's ok to walk by this guy's crimes, while investigating something, then it's ok to walk by everyone's crimes while investigating something different too then.

Again, no one is saying this but you. But since you bring it up...it does in fact happen all the time. Police regularly pass on stuff that may divert focus from their prime investigation. 

 

47 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said:

Analogy smanalogy. Ya know what was meant in spite of your contrarian attitude on it @zulu1128

No law enforcement will walk by a crime in plain view if his other investigation led him by it. Not happening and you all know it.

See above. It's actually not uncommon. Try googling it. But again, that's still not the question at hand here. 

 

47 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said:

The judge is being a partisan hack. I'd put money on that he has adjudicated or prosecuted oordinary folks for shit that was outside the scope of a cops actual investigation many times. This one should be no different. 

He simply asked Mueller to prove that Manafort's financial dealings fall within the approved scope of his investigation. I highly doubt that Manafort is going to walk away scot free, if he was in fact laundering money and not paying his taxes. I'm sure he'll still be charged and convicted...just not as part of Mueller's investigation. 

He'll still be punished for his crime...is that not what's really important?

HINT: That's a rhetorical question. I'm not naive enough to think that's what is really important to you here.

[HawgGoneIt]

50 minutes ago, zulu1128 said:

Maybe he is. Still...in this case, a better analogy would be in his trunk, not "in plain sight." I guess if he posted his tax returns and financial transactions on Facebook, you might have a point.

 

Well, as stated above, "plain sight" is a reach. (One of the several reasons why the traffic stop analogy is complete garbage...but if you want to roll with it, go ahead) That said, not one person has claimed that Mueller is supposed to ignore said alleged crimes. He is, however, supposed to refer them to the proper prosecutorial authority if they fall outside the scope of his investigation. Hence Ellis requesting an unredacted copy of the memo, asking Bob to prove his authority to prosecute this case.  Does this honestly seem unreasonable? 

 

Again, no one is saying this but you. But since you bring it up...it does in fact happen all the time. Police regularly pass on stuff that may divert focus from their prime investigation. 

 

See above. It's actually not uncommon. Try googling it. But again, that's still not the question at hand here. 

 

He simply asked Mueller to prove that Manafort's financial dealings fall within the approved scope of his investigation. I highly doubt that Manafort is going to walk away scot free, if he was in fact laundering money and not paying his taxes. I'm sure he'll still be charged and convicted...just not as part of Mueller's investigation. 

He'll still be punished for his crime...is that not what's really important?

HINT: That's a rhetorical question. I'm not naive enough to think that's what is really important to you here.

Nah. As long as he gets prosecuted for obvious wrong doing, I'm good. 

For serious. 

[zulu1128]

1 minute ago, HawgGoneIt said:

Nah. As long as he gets prosecuted for obvious wrong doing, I'm good. 

For serious. 

Then we have an accord. 👍

[BUFORDGAWOLVES]

1 hour ago, GardenStateBaller said:

The Greatest Crime Family. Ever. This can not be argued by any educated, rational human being. 

 

Like

[noonereal]

1 hour ago, HawgGoneIt said:

Analogy smanalogy. Ya know what was meant in spite of your contrarian attitude on it @zulu1128

@zulu1128 is just butt hurt because he has been humiliated the last two days. 

[noonereal]

15 minutes ago, BUFORDGAWOLVES said:

Like

How is Obie or Mueller , for example, a criminal? 

[noonereal]

1 hour ago, zulu1128 said:

Maybe he is. Still...in this case, a better analogy would be in his trunk, not "in plain sight." I guess if he posted his tax returns and financial transactions on Facebook, you might have a point.

ROTFLMAO

what a girl you have become...

[BUFORDGAWOLVES]

2 hours ago, noonereal said:

How is Obie or Mueller , for example, a criminal? 

C’mon Nooner!!! Obie is a political gangster, his resume screams implode America from within and as Pol, he lied more than a man going to jail. 

[concha]

2 hours ago, noonereal said:

@zulu1128 is just butt hurt because he has been humiliated the last two days. 

 

The ChipDumbRacist imitation is not flattering.

[noonereal]

11 hours ago, BUFORDGAWOLVES said:

C’mon Nooner!!! Obie is a political gangster, his resume screams implode America from within and as Pol, he lied more than a man going to jail. 

Oh yeah, I forgot. 😂

I heard he killed and maimed thousands of new born's just for fun too. 

[BUFORDGAWOLVES]

1 hour ago, noonereal said:

Oh yeah, I forgot. 😂

I heard he killed and maimed thousands of new born's just for fun too. 

Biblical indeed!

Hahaha, not quite but I get your point.

[HSFBfan]

Another judge ruled against Mueller

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

[HawgGoneIt]

Found a neat little tidbit that came from the exchange between Ellis and the Mueller team...

The judge pushed the prosecutors on why they were bringing the case focusing on bank and tax fraud and against Manafort, President Donald Trump's one-time campaign chair, when it was so far afield of the original mandate that led to the creation of the special counsel.

 

Quoting from the prosecutors' response to these types of questions "'The special counsel's office takes very seriously the primary mission it was assigned in examining Russian interference in the 2016 election.'" It added that it would refer unrelated criminal activity to an unrelated office.

 

So, if they said that they would refer any unrelated criminal activity to an unrelated office, why did they not do so with Manafort's case? Could it be that they totally think it is related in some way? 

Seems like that could be the angle. 

[concha]

9 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said:

 

So, if they said that they would refer any unrelated criminal activity to an unrelated office, why did they not do so with Manafort's case? Could it be that they totally think it is related in some way? 

Seems like that could be the angle. they are full of shit.

FIFY

[zulu1128]

14 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said:

Found a neat little tidbit that came from the exchange between Ellis and the Mueller team...

The judge pushed the prosecutors on why they were bringing the case focusing on bank and tax fraud and against Manafort, President Donald Trump's one-time campaign chair, when it was so far afield of the original mandate that led to the creation of the special counsel.

 

Quoting from the prosecutors' response to these types of questions "'The special counsel's office takes very seriously the primary mission it was assigned in examining Russian interference in the 2016 election.'" It added that it would refer unrelated criminal activity to an unrelated office.

 

So, if they said that they would refer any unrelated criminal activity to an unrelated office, why did they not do so with Manafort's case? Could it be that they totally think it is related in some way? 

Seems like that could be the angle. 

Well, they indicted him for transactions as far back as 2007...so it will be fun to see how that's related to the 2016 election.

So if that's their strategery, then it looks like we have a hot date with the 4th Circuit, as Ellis will for sure toss the current indictment.

[HawgGoneIt]

1 minute ago, zulu1128 said:

Well, they indicted him for transactions as far back as 2007...so it will be fun to see how that's related to the 2016 election.

So if that's their strategery, then it looks like we have a hot date with the 4th Circuit, as Ellis will for sure toss the current indictment.

I agree timing and whatever is a part of this all, but, it does seem like they are insinuating some relation with their actions and response to the judge when pressed. 

Not sure how they are connecting dots, but seems like an interesting angle at the minimum. 

[zulu1128]

3 minutes ago, HawgGoneIt said:

I agree timing and whatever is a part of this all, but, it does seem like they are insinuating some relation with their actions and response to the judge when pressed. 

Not sure how they are connecting dots, but seems like an interesting angle at the minimum. 

In all honesty, it sounded to me like the team was pretty damn rattled during the hearing, and was mostly just throwing shit against the wall by the time it was over.

Wouldn't surprise me in the least to see them punt this round, and head off for the 4th circuit and some home cooking. 😎

[15yds4gibberish]

20 hours ago, zulu1128 said:

In all honesty, it sounded to me like the team was pretty damn rattled during the hearing, and was mostly just throwing shit against the wall by the time it was over.

Wouldn't surprise me in the least to see them punt this round, and head off for the 4th circuit and some home cooking. 😎

I've been travelling quite a bit lately, was this on TV?  Cuz I finally got a chance to read the transcript here, and if Dreeban was rattled it didn't really translate to paper -- For example, Judge Ellis asks him a question and he extemporaneously responds something like 'there's four key points to consider,' and then proceeds through the points despite being interrupted and side tracked by Judge Ellis multiple times...so he's focused, but I can see how the constant interruption by the judge would be annoying...

I don't know jack about Judge Ellis, and I'm not an attorney, so I have no idea if he is the kind of judge that likes to telegraph his opinions through his questioning, or if he just like to hear himself talk or whatever...He does say at one point "I reminisce a lot" (on page 18, and yeah no shit..) and somewhere around about page 30 he seems to go on walkabout...so I wouldn't bet more than a nickle on whether or not I think this case gets moved the the 4th, but if I had to, I would put my nickel on it won't.  But you think it will be moved, and the President is on record saying how great he thinks Judge Ellis is (hint...The President doesn't know crap about him), so it will be fun to watch and see what happens (and watch the President change his mind about Ellis if the case proceeds).

The transcript itself is 48 pages long, but it's a quick read and a pretty interesting look into relatively recent American history, Independent Counsel vs Special Counsel, limits of power including the President etc....Some references to Iran Contra that I didn't really remember, but appear important to the Judge....also funny the way the Judge at one point stops using the descriptor "alleged" before 'Bank Fraud,," but it isn't in the transcript if anybody reacted.  But if this get's punted to the 4th and Manifort loses, it's not going to be because of home cooking, it'll be because he's guilty.

Finally, for @HawgGoneIt, your money quote starts on page 42...

• MR. DREEBEN: They're factually linked to the areas of our investigation because in trying to understand the activities of Mr. Manafort in Ukraine and associations that he may have had with Russian individuals and the depth of those, we needed to understand and explore financial relationships and to follow the money where it led. So the logic of the investigation has factual connections to the indictment. I think in Your Honor's hypothetical, that would not have been so, and that's the fundamental difference.

Personally, I appreciate the subtle undertones of Watergate in the part I underlined (he say's 'follow the money' again on pg 43)...and somehow with this President the name 'Deep Throat' is funny too, but I didn't see that in the transcript...

We'll know more in about 10 days I guess...

Quick Edit to add: Did not know Manifort's attorney worked for Rosenstein at one point, but he tried to leverage that in the questioning...judge didn't seem to have any of it though...