Ha left out the going to jail part that will follow the IG report, and of course his own resignation to avoid being fired or impeached. Eff this guy

Does this guy ever work? He seems to speaking at events more than behind his desk these days.

(Psst! Rod! Here's a hint! It's a lot easier for your ass to get fired when you are not in your office working.)

The supplemental memo just highlights that they knew that Mueller andnhis team had gone rogue and exceeded their already questionable scope and mandate, and Rosenstein tried to help them cover it up clumsily.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

The supplemental memo just highlights that they knew that Mueller andnhis team had gone rogue and exceeded their already questionable scope and mandate, and Rosenstein tried to help them cover it up clumsily.

---

Post hoc expansion of Mueller's jurisdiction after Mueller raided Manafort's home and storage unit does not cure the original lack of jurisdiction. Particularly so since Ukraine was not in Rosenstein's purview, that remained with Sessions.

Principal/agent. A principal cannot devolve legal authority to an agent of that which he does not possess.

The "supplemental" memo is just a brazen bootstrap attempt to change the scope to match the findings after the fact, like trying to bootstrap a search warrant after you're through the door. The time stamp won't allow it if it's challenged.

My knees knock when Dixie breaks out the latin

Just ask Comey

Are you telling me just because sessions recused himself from all things Russia, he can't have a look at that memo? That just doesn't sound right.

Not sure where Mueller goes from here, because he knows damn good and well that if those redactions are removed, it will expose Mueller using a preexisting FISA Title-1 Warrant against Manafort Instead of Title 3 authority he should have done and thus had to show probable cause if the judge is straight, and that was the tip of the spear that drove this thing. The fruit may be ruled rotten. It's the only thing I can think of that would justify Mueller stonewalling an Article 3 Judge's request to see it. If Rosey was bold/stupid enough to spell it out to expand to reaching back on the FISA warrant, after the fact, they are toast

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

Not sure where Mueller goes from here, because he knows damn good and well that if those redactions are removed, it will expose Mueller using a preexisting FISA Title-1 Warrant against Manafort Instead of Title 3 authority he should have done and thus had to show probable cause if the judge is straight, and that was the tip of the spear that drove this thing. The fruit may be ruled rotten.

---

If our mutual suspicions (and some reporting) are correct and there was a FISA warrant on Manafort during the time he was on the Trump campaign, all holy hell will break loose.

ETA: Manafort worked and lived in Trump Tower during that time, IIRC.

It's the only thing I can think of that would justify Mueller stonewalling an Article 3 Judge's request to see it. If Rosey was bold/stupid enough to spell it out to expand to reaching back on a FISA warrant, after the fact, they may be toast.

Correct

I hear something too. But it's more like the sound of very runny diarrhea running down someone's leg.

The cat fight continues between Comey and McCabe.

That seriously has to be it. They are hiding a second FISA warrant based off the same crap evidense. There has been such blowback on the Carter Page warrant that they are willing to walk on hot coals to keep anything getting out that they had a second one. That's the only reason that they have kept it from the Senate and House intel committees, and are now trying to stonewall an Article 3 judge. That's buevos grande

One too many book signings he can't keep on point

blindey said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

It's the only thing I can think of that would justify Mueller stonewalling an Article 3 Judge's request to see it. If Rosey was bold/stupid enough to spell it out to expand to reaching back on a FISA warrant, after the fact, they may be toast.

---

Here's the other thing that pops into mind regarding Article III judges.

They may prefer to outright dismiss the entire case above giving up the unredacted memo. But the judge has the authority to tell them to go **** in their collective hats and give me the memo anyways.

If nothing else because they have the authority to control their own courts and the conduct of counsel that appear in their courts. Especially when counsel appears purporting to have the power of the United States government.

---

True. But if they don't actually have the unredacted version with them in court, the lawyers present will be sent to jail. Who will take one for the team?'

Joking, sort of. Ellis has practically accused them of lying to him already. The leash is short with him. BUT, can Mueller move to dismiss the indictment in the intervening two weeks? The reason could be obvious but they also have a legitimate cause that they don't have sufficient admissible evidence to support continuing with the case? If Manafort's lawyers are high-fiving themselves and give full throated support?

I've dealt with pettifoggers trying to run away from this sort of situation before trying to dismiss or nonsuit. Problem is that Article III judges have a vast leeway in controlling the practice of law in front of them. So the cut-and-run isn't going to solve their problems.

Other thing is that the party withholding the unredacted document is the U.S. Government.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-the-justice-department-is-defiant-1525388245

Quote:

---

...Two House sources confirm for me that the Justice Department was recently delivered first a classified House Intelligence Committee letter and then a subpoena (which arrived Monday) demanding documents related to a new line of inquiry about the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Trump investigation. The deadline for complying with the subpoena was Thursday afternoon, and the Justice Department flouted it. As the White House is undoubtedly monitoring any new congressional demands for information, it is likely that President Trump's tweet Wednesday ripping the department for not turning over documents was in part a reference to this latest demand.

The Justice Department rejected the latest subpoena request in a letter delivered to the Intelligence Committee after our Thursday deadline. The letter divulged that the committee had been asking for information about a "specific individual," and stated it would not be complying on grounds that to do so risked "potential loss of human lives, damage to relationships with valued international partners, compromise of ongoing criminal investigations, and interference with intelligence activities." The letter noted this decision had been made after consultation with the White House, though my reporting suggests the White House wants the Justice Department to find a way to comply....

---

"specific individual"??? potential loss of human lives"??? "compromise ongoing criminal investigations"??? "interfere with intelligence activities"???
Who can this important individual be since it's obviously not Trump??? HRC???? Comey???

Yeah, that's pretty special. I will say that to the DOJ and State, any Dem's life is measurably more important than someone who supports freedom and liberty---a Republican or Libertarian.

So yes, it's possible we are hiding VERY, VERY important people!!!

drcrinum said:

---

.... on grounds that to do so risked "potential loss of human lives, damage to relationships with valued international partners, compromise of ongoing criminal investigations, and interference with intelligence activities."

---

UK intel via their Russian source(s)?

I call bs on the DoJ 's refusal. Rowdy knew they would want the letter so it intentionally crafted in such a way to protect the DOJ.

BS Roses. You work for the American people not George Soros.

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

My knees knock when Dixie breaks out the latin

---

LOL.

When I first started practicing law, we had dictabelts. Lawyers dictated everything into a microphone and a belt recorded it. Then our secretaries transcribed them for review and edits before the final draft.

I had a very young secretary, unfamiliar with the legal terms, but did the best she could make out. Examples not only included Latin phrases but English ones as well.

For instance, "the rule of comity" became "the rule of comedy"; "stare decisis" became "starry nights"; "scintilla of evidence" became "chinchilla of evidence"; and "prima facie" became "prime face"; "res ipsa loquitor" became "race is locator". I would save some to share for the nightly scotch hour with the partners. They had all trained new secretaries and knew what I was talking about. One even made it onto a plaque presented to us by a client after we won a big case for him. ("Chinchilla of evidence" in case you were wondering. I was drafting the jury instructions.)

I quickly learned to spell those terms as I was dictating my pleadings and briefs. (Oh God, don't get me started on the punctuation, capitalization, italicization instructions when citing cases.)

Yeah I call BS on that reason. The republicans get blown over with a feather again.