Warner must be worried he is going to be exposed in the upcoming OIG Report and wants to earn bonus points with someone who may know where more of his skeletons are buried.

Quote:

---

...On the same day, Simpson's lawyer, Joshua Levy, sent a short reply letter to Senator Grassley, stating:

Quote:

---

I am writing in response to your letter, dated January 11, 2018, in which you have asked about the August 22, 2017 testimony from our client Glenn Simpson that Christopher Steele in the fall of 2016 said he believed the FBI had another source within the Trump organization/campaign. Mr. Simpson stands by his testimony.

---

If there ever was a retraction, it has been retracted.

---

The above via Andrew McCarty. So Simpson stands by his claim that Steele told him the FBI said they had a source within the Trump Campaign. When the so-called retraction saying that Steele was apparently referring to Papadopoulos was found to be non-credible, Simpson had to 'retract the retraction'.

Beginning to look like all fingers are pointing at Halper as being the CIA/FBI 'spy'.

Mueller's Team spent two days in closed door testimony with Steele in February of this year. I wonder why no House or Senate Committees have ever subpoenaed Steele to testify. That would certainly clear up a few matters in short order.

Okay from all I've been able to read, On on June 26 2017, Mueller obtained an ex parte order from federal magistrate Judge Claude M. Hilton, to suspend the statute of limitations on Count Eleven that Manafort failed to to file a Foreign Bank Account Report (FBAR). Mueller did not inform Manafort of the ex parte order until after Manafort had requested that charge be thrown out. Looks like the statute of limitations was set to run out on June 29, 2017, so they had it suspended.

Blaming the slow production of documents by the Bank of Cyprus, evidently they didn't respond to the request until April 30 this year. So Hilton stayed the time clock on SL on the FBAR charge.


https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ot2QnGUihtSTFqZEq05TfDLmxrfAIoSD/view

aggiehawg said:

---

Mueller's day is getting worse.

Quote:

---

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson questioned whether Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's order to appoint Mueller granted him more authority than DOJ regulations appear to permit, after Manafort's counsel pointed out how Rosenstein's order in May said the special counsel can look into anything of consequence that "arose or may arise" in his investigation.

"That's a fair point," Jackson reportedly replied.

---

Quote:

---

A top DOJ attorney working with Mueller's office, Michael Dreeben, argued in response that an investigation "naturally moves forward" and can morph as new information is uncovered.

Manafort's team, Dreeben noted, wants to restrict Mueller to such a degree that it would "intrude" on the special counsel's ability to carry out an independent investigation without constant DOJ oversight. He specifically argued that examining Manafort's ties to Ukrainian officials are relevant to the probe because it may be somehow connected with his ties alleged to Russia.

Dreeben went one step further and said that Manafort may have served as a back-channel to Russia.
Jackson, who said she will continue to consider Manafort's case, grilled both sides for more than two hours about Manafort's efforts to dismiss the superseding indictment against him as well as three other motions. The exchanges at times waded into nuanced analysis of legal text and past court precedents.

---

LINK

---

She's now ruled Mueller can proceed against Manafort.

https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2018/05/15/mueller-is-not-out-of-bounds-judge-says-in-upholding-manafort-charges/

That's a pay site. Can you post the rationale from Judge Berman Jackson? Thanks in advance.

aggiehawg said:

---

That's a pay site. Can you post the rationale from Judge Berman Jackson? Thanks in advance.

---

Quote:

---

"The case did not arise in a vacuum, and the special counsel did not create his own job description," Jackson wrote. "He was appointed to take over an existing investigation, and it appears from the chronology and the written record that the matters contained in the superseding indictment were already a part of the ongoing inquiry that was lawfully transferred to the special counsel by the Department of Justice in May of 2017."


Manafort's defense lawyer, former MIller & Chevalier partner Kevin Downing, has stressed that the alleged misconduct predated the 2016 presidential campaign and therefore was outside Mueller's authority. In his bid to dismiss the indictment, Downing took aim at a portion of an order establishing Mueller's office that gave the special counsel the power to probe "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation."

Jackson said the charges fell within even a separate portion of Mueller's authority that Manafort has found "unobjectionable: the order to investigate 'any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign.'"

Manafort, Jackson said, was not merely associated with President Donald Trump's campaign but served as its chairman for a time. And his past ties to Ukrainian and Russian figures was a matter of public record, she noted.
"It was logical and appropriate for investigators tasked with the investigation of 'any links' between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign to direct their attention to him," Jackson wrote.

"Given what was being said publicly, the special counsel would have been remiss to ignore such an obvious potential link between the Trump campaign and the Russian government," Jackson said in the 37-page opinion. "Thus, the indictment falls well within the authority granted to the special counsel to conduct the ongoing investigation."

Jackson said the case against Manafort should proceed even if scrutiny of his past activity came about not from the investigation of "links" to Russian but rather as a "matter that arose" from that probe. It appeared from the record, the judge said, that the conduct at issue in the indictment was already part of an ongoing U.S. Department of Justice inquiry that was transferred to the special counsel.

Jackson's ruling also offered support to the Justice Department regulations that gave rise to Mueller's appointment to lead the Russia investigation.

"When it promulgated the regulations, the department anticipated that a special counsel, like any other prosecutor, could become aware of, and could have legitimate reasons to explore, paths that branch out naturally from the original investigation, as well as entirely new and disconnected allegations," Jackson wrote.
Those regulations, Jackson said, "place no boundaries on who can be investigated or what charges can be broughtwhat they address is who decides who the prosecutor will be."

Manafort is facing separate fraud charges in Alexandria, Virginia, federal court. In that case, U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis of the Eastern District of Virginia expressed skepticism earlier this month of the scope of Mueller's authority. Ellis has not yet ruled on Manafort's challenge to the indictment there.

---

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4463435/Manafort-Indicment-Ruling.pdf

First, thanks, Roscoe. Been a hectic day for me.

Now there's this:

Quote:

---

"The case did not arise in a vacuum, and the special counsel did not create his own job description," Jackson wrote. "He was appointed to take over an existing investigation, and it appears from the chronology and the written record that the matters contained in the superseding indictment were already a part of the ongoing inquiry that was lawfully transferred to the special counsel by the Department of Justice in May of 2017."

---

Things that make you go, "Hhhmmm."

The Feds had been investigating Manafort for several years but never brought the matter before a grand jury. Then Mueller sweeps in with an unlimited budget, takes their cases away, sees the Statute of Limitations issue coming up and acts to avoid the legal consequences. Was there even a grand jury convened when he applied to a Magistrate for the suspension of the Statute of Limitations?

How many bites at the apple does the government get? Sure, Manfort is sleazy as hell but get him according to the rules and honestly.

I think this falls under the old parent/HR that's you don't ask questions unless you already know the answer.

Haven't had chance to read it yet.

But I learned I have subscription to law.com. Thought they stopped paying that long ago

aggiehawg said:

---

First, thanks, Roscoe. Been a hectic day for me.

Now there's this:

Quote:

---

"The case did not arise in a vacuum, and the special counsel did not create his own job description," Jackson wrote. "He was appointed to take over an existing investigation, and it appears from the chronology and the written record that the matters contained in the superseding indictment were already a part of the ongoing inquiry that was lawfully transferred to the special counsel by the Department of Justice in May of 2017."

---

Things that make you go, "Hhhmmm."

The Feds had been investigating Manafort for several years but never brought the matter before a grand jury. Then Mueller sweeps in with an unlimited budget, takes their cases away, sees the Statute of Limitations issue coming up and acts to avoid the legal consequences. Was there even a grand jury convened when he applied to a Magistrate for the suspension of the Statute of Limitations?

How many bites at the apple does the government get? Sure, Manfort is sleazy as hell but get him according to the rules and honestly.

---

True Bill was returned 10-27-17 and assigned to Judge Jackson.

On on June 26 2017, Mueller obtained an ex parte order from federal magistrate Judge Claude M. Hilton, to suspend the statute of limitations on Count Eleven FBAR

Manafort Indictment

How can Rosey give the preexisting charges to Mueller? They are about financial crimes involving the Ukraine. Sessions' recusal was as to Russia. I don't understand how those charges can be given to the SC as having anything to do with Russian collusion.

About those money laundering charges. Doesn't the money have to be illegally obtained to be laundered? I get they could have tax evasion charges, but I don't understand money laundering. (Edit - sorry if this was already discussed, I'm fairly new to the thread).

For those feeling deflated by this latest ruling, get used to it.

It's a stacked deck and the government isn't playing for funsies.

For all you lawyers I am just repeating what I heard what Randall Dale Adams' attorney and Michael Morton day when I heard them speak. Something about:

All you need is witnesses willing to lie, prosecutors that have no problem skirting the law and a judge that turns a blind eye to it all. If those things happen you are going to prison. Except in Adams' case it was death row.

No idea if that is happening here but found that pretty powerful and I don't think Mueller would mime pushing the legal envelope and I am sure a bunch of people will lie to save their ass.

sam callahan said:

---

For those feeling deflated by this latest ruling, get used to it.

It's a stacked deck and the government isn't playing for funsies.

---

Amy Berman Jackson has a competitor in E.D. Va. Just because she's happy to do as the democrats please doesnt mean that Ellis will do their dirty work. There are two cases. Only one has an Obama sycophant for a judge.

blindey said:

---

Amy Berman Jackson has a competitor in E.D. Va. Just because she's happy to do as the democrats please doesnt mean that Ellis will do their dirty work. There are two cases. Only one has an Obama sycophant for a judge.

---

What part of her ruling was wrong?

Quote:

---

How many bites at the apple does the government get? Sure, Manfort is sleazy as hell but get him according to the rules and honestly.

---

As many as they want. Mueller doesn't care if in the end all of the convictions/guilty pleas get tossed out a few years from now. He wants scalps NOW in an effort to take down Trump.

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/the-russians-call-out-mueller-file-request-to-view-secret-grand-jury-instruction/

You legal beagles may be interested in reading the above write-up in Law & Crime concerning the Concord pleading. This is the concluding section:

Quote:

---

...The footnotes also contain a sarcastic reference to "Casablanca" and increase the rhetorical reach of Concord's potshots at Mueller's initial indictment.

One such footnote alleges, "Count One of the Indictment is devoid of any specificity about what any officer or employee of Concord actually did other than to generally allege that Concord funded an 'Organization' that the Special Counsel imagined and created." Ouch.

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

blindey said:

---

Amy Berman Jackson has a competitor in E.D. Va. Just because she's happy to do as the democrats please doesnt mean that Ellis will do their dirty work. There are two cases. Only one has an Obama sycophant for a judge.

---

What part of her ruling was wrong?

---

This part:

Quote:

---

"When it promulgated the regulations, the department anticipated that a special counsel, like any other prosecutor, could become aware of, and could have legitimate reasons to explore, paths that branch out naturally from the original investigation, as well as entirely new and disconnected allegations," Jackson wrote.

Those regulations, Jackson said, "place no boundaries on who can be investigated or what charges can be broughtwhat they address is who decides who the prosecutor will be."

---

That's Lavrenti Beria territory. And completely wrong. Where is the predicate crime for the appointment of a Special Counsel? There is none, except the still uninvestigated "hack" of the DNC computers.

What's the case law or regulation that backs up her being wrong?

Manafort wasn't challenging the appointment, so your argument about no predicate crime doesn't matter here. (Though I do admit it's an argument I find compelling, just has no bearing on saying Berman Jackson was wrong here)

BMX Bandit said:

---

What's the case law or statute that backs up her being wrong?

---

Isn't it a jurisdictional issue, RR didnt have the power to indict Manafort in this case, so he can't pass that "power" to the special counsel.

Short video. Nunes lays out where they stand in clear terms. Another meeting at the crossroads tomorrow.

Quote:

---

"When it promulgated the regulations, the department anticipated that a special counsel, like any other prosecutor, could become aware of, and could have legitimate reasons to explore, paths that branch out naturally from the original investigation, as well as entirely new and disconnected allegations," Jackson wrote.

---

That is just factually wrong. And Judge Berman Jackson knows it is. Judge Ellis honed in on it pretty quickly.

Huge difference between a pre-existing investigation for acts over a decade ago and "new...allegations...."

If Manafort has the money, this is going to the Supreme Court, in my view.

There is no statute like Ken Starr <spit> was operating under. Different circumstances.

sam callahan said:

---

For those feeling deflated by this latest ruling, get used to it.

It's a stacked deck and the government isn't playing for funsies.

---

As a general rule of thumb, cynicism is a rotton way to look at life. I certainly don't try to view most things like my post on page 363, which was basically full of victimhood regarding the legal industry, and in particular, judges.

In this case, it does seem to be correct, but it's a setback, not an ender. I kind of figured we were getting a little cocky, or at least some of our posts suggested a certain hubris. I still believe judges like Jackson, which are apparently legion, do have a very cavalier attitude towards the law as it's written.

Time will tell, but let's see what the OIG say, and how "really bad a person" Horowitz is getting ready to be. It's likely his wife and children will become hoarders, *****s, and racists.

Quote:

---

Isn't it a jurisdictional issue, RR didnt have the power to indict Manafort in this case, so he can't pass that "power" to the special counsel.

---

That is also a valid argument. The pre-existing Manafort investigations had nothing to do with Russia nor the 2016 elections. Hence were not covered by Sessions' recusal.

drcrinum said:

---

Short video. Nunes lays out where they stand in clear terms. Another meeting at the crossroads tomorrow.

---

Hannity just said it has been postponed by the DOJ.

Next week. Kinda sounds familiar doesn't it. Stretch to midterms.

For Aggies especially: Well, we'll get 'em next year! So yes, it sounds familiar.

You know I love you, but your arguments are all emotion on this latest ruling.

One mans cynicism is another mans pragmatism I suppose.

There isn't a sector of government absent corruption or ineptitude, yet precious little is done to root it out.

The more power a government agency has, the more abuses they flagrantly commit.

How many scandals have we seen where no corrective action occurs?

How many scandals never see the light of day?

One can choose to pretend it's the country we all thought we grew up in, where we are a nation of laws and justice wins.

Or we can be honest with ourselves and admit there are no angels in our ruling class and should one ever end up there by accident, his/her wings will surely get clipped quickly.

BMX Bandit said:

---

You know I love you, but your arguments are all emotion on this latest ruling.

---

Maybe, maybe not. There is still so much we do not know. That the judges don't even know. So many redactions and misdirections.

I think it is entirely possible that Judge Jackson's and Judge Ellis' rulings contradict each other in certain respects. Ellis is old school, letter of the law. Jackson, not so much. When presented with the same question, they easily could reach opposite conclusions. We'll see.

You can grant me that point, at least?

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

Andrew McCarthy's latest




The Strzok-Page Texts and the Origins of the Trump-Russia Investigation


https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/strzok-page-texts-trump-russia-investigation-origins/

---

Long read. Good stuff. I'd love to think lots of big fish will be perp walked. That may or may not end up happening, but there are going to be perp walks, to be sure.

---

I hope someone tips off the media and paparazzi so these treasonous criminals lose any shred of dignity they may still have.