Jimbo wrote:I hear that Paul Manafort will soon be off the hook because a federal judge recognized that he was arrested not for his crime but solely to pressure him to dish Trump dirt.
Who told you this? Someone from the Judge’s chambers?
Jimbo wrote:I hear that Paul Manafort will soon be off the hook because a federal judge recognized that he was arrested not for his crime but solely to pressure him to dish Trump dirt.
take5_d_shorterer wrote:If John Bonham simply didn't listen to enough Tommy Johnson or Blind Willie Mctell, that's his doing.
take5_d_shorterer wrote:If John Bonham simply didn't listen to enough Tommy Johnson or Blind Willie Mctell, that's his doing.
LeBaron wrote:There IS a decent argument that the Manafort charges fall outside the scope of Mueller’s mandate.
Davey the Fat Boy wrote:LeBaron wrote:There IS a decent argument that the Manafort charges fall outside the scope of Mueller’s mandate.
Is that true? Mueller has a pretty broad mandate. He was supposed to investigate links to Russia. So wouldn’t Manafort’s finances and foreign connections be squarely within the scope of the intended investigation?
take5_d_shorterer wrote:If John Bonham simply didn't listen to enough Tommy Johnson or Blind Willie Mctell, that's his doing.
Then there's the judge in the Manafort Case, who excoriated a Special Counsel attorney on Friday during a "motion to dismiss" hearing. A leaked transcript of the heated exchange between attorney Michael Dreeben and Eastern District of Virginia Judge T.S. Ellis reveals that the entire Manafort case is in jeopardy if the Special Counsel doesn't produce an unredacted copy of the original order from Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein authorizing the original investigation.
Ellis also said that Mueller shouldn't have "unfettered power" to prosecute Manafort for charges that have nothing to do with collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians, and called out the DOJ's efforts in the case as an attempt by Mueller to gain leverage over Manafort.
"You really care about what information Mr. Manafort can give you that would reflect on Mr. Trump or lead to his prosecution or impeachment or whatever. That's what you're really interested in." -Judge Ellis
The Judge also notes that the Special Counsel's indictment against Manafort doesn't mention:
(1) Russian individuals
(2) Russian banks
(3) Russian money
(4) Russian payments to Manafort
To which Dreeben provided an unsatisfactory lawyerly response about how everything is connected to everything (including, apparently, whether Trump paid a woman to keep quiet about consensual sex)
take5_d_shorterer wrote:If John Bonham simply didn't listen to enough Tommy Johnson or Blind Willie Mctell, that's his doing.
Jimbo wrote:... there are some crimes Manafort himself may be charged with, the article does't say...
GoogaMooga wrote: The further away from home you go, the greater the risk of getting stuck there.
LeBaron wrote:Davey the Fat Boy wrote:LeBaron wrote:There IS a decent argument that the Manafort charges fall outside the scope of Mueller’s mandate.
Is that true? Mueller has a pretty broad mandate. He was supposed to investigate links to Russia. So wouldn’t Manafort’s finances and foreign connections be squarely within the scope of the intended investigation?
That’s the argument they made in response, yeah. I think it’s more likely that Manafort loses the argument, but it’s a fair argument and I wouldn’t be surprised if it gained traction—courts are generally interested in policing the power of these investigations after the Clinton investigations, and the judge in this case appears to be taking it fairly seriously. But to what end? Even if Mueller is barred from pursuing it, the regular US Attorneys could run with it.
Davey the Fat Boy wrote:LeBaron wrote:There IS a decent argument that the Manafort charges fall outside the scope of Mueller’s mandate.
Is that true? Mueller has a pretty broad mandate. He was supposed to investigate links to Russia. So wouldn’t Manafort’s finances and foreign connections be squarely within the scope of the intended investigation?
Jimbo wrote:I guess I am over Graham Nash's politics. Hopelessly naive by the standards I've molded for myself these days.
bobzilla77 wrote:Davey the Fat Boy wrote:LeBaron wrote:There IS a decent argument that the Manafort charges fall outside the scope of Mueller’s mandate.
Is that true? Mueller has a pretty broad mandate. He was supposed to investigate links to Russia. So wouldn’t Manafort’s finances and foreign connections be squarely within the scope of the intended investigation?
I'm just remembering the last inpeachment, which started with investigations into Whitewater and ended with in investigation into false testimony about oral sex. That would seem to fall "outside the scope" of a failed real estate deal.
bobzilla77 wrote:Davey the Fat Boy wrote:LeBaron wrote:There IS a decent argument that the Manafort charges fall outside the scope of Mueller’s mandate.
Is that true? Mueller has a pretty broad mandate. He was supposed to investigate links to Russia. So wouldn’t Manafort’s finances and foreign connections be squarely within the scope of the intended investigation?
I'm just remembering the last inpeachment, which started with investigations into Whitewater and ended with in investigation into false testimony about oral sex. That would seem to fall "outside the scope" of a failed real estate deal.
take5_d_shorterer wrote:If John Bonham simply didn't listen to enough Tommy Johnson or Blind Willie Mctell, that's his doing.
Davey the Fat Boy wrote:There is a difference between a fair argument and a persuasive argument. I have to think that the following logic ultimately holds:
- Mueller was within his mandate to explore Manafort’s financial connections (especially foreign ones) because they might have directly led to evidence of foreign agents attempting to influence our election. He can’t know this unless he investigates.
- Any other (related or non-related) crime he uncovers in the process of doing the above is still prosecutable AND something he can reasonably use to induce testimony relevant to his mandate.
I don’t think anything that judge said the other day makes any of the above untrue. To the extent that he “hurt” Mueller’s investigation, it seems to me that the damage was all public relations. At worst, he validated the feelings Trump loyalists when they argue that Mueller is on a fishing expedition.
So sure. It is a “fair” argument in the sense that it is fair to raise the questions he raised. But there wasn’t really any doubt what the answer was. Am I wrong?
take5_d_shorterer wrote:If John Bonham simply didn't listen to enough Tommy Johnson or Blind Willie Mctell, that's his doing.
Broidy is 60 years old, and has been married for over 25 years to a woman of about his own age, with whom he has had three children. His wife is an attorney who was previously a senior vice-president at 20th Century Fox (she has reportedly been involved in some of Broidy’s more questionable business dealings). While of course it’s not impossible that Broidy chose to pursue a dangerous liaison with Miss November 2010, his biography is not that of a man who has the appearance of a likely candidate to have an affair with a Playboy playmate several decades younger than himself. He is not, in other words, a thrice-married serial adulterer with an established record of sleeping with models, playmates, and porn stars.
GoogaMooga wrote: The further away from home you go, the greater the risk of getting stuck there.
a Russian oligarch with links to Vladimir Putin made a payment into the same bank account Michael Cohen used to finance a $130,000 hush money agreement with Daniels in October 2016. The $500,000 was deposited into the First Republic Bank account within 75 days of the payment to Daniels, whose legal name is Stephanie Clifford, Avenatti said Tuesday, and may have been used to cover the costs of preventing Daniels from talking about an alleged affair with President Donald Trump in 2006.
a Russian oligarch with links to Vladimir Putin