He sued both Mr. Mueller and Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general who appointed him. The lawsuit said Mr. Rosenstein had improperly given Mr. Mueller the authority to investigate “anything he stumbles across while investigating, no matter how remote.”... The charges against Mr. Manafort date back years, well before he began working for Mr. Trump. His lawyers argue those charges exceed Mr. Mueller’s jurisdiction because he was authorized only to investigate separate matters if they arose from the Russia investigation.
३ जानेवारी, २०१८
"President Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, took the unusual step on Wednesday of suing the special counsel and asking a federal court to narrow his authority."
The NYT reports.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२१२ टिप्पण्या:
212 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»Exactly. Why was Mueller given a 'blank check" in the first place? No one seems interested in getting an answer.
Now, maybe we will.
Frivolous. Will be thrown out.
What is this, the fifth trimester? Finally, someone seeking accountability.
In 2018 dull moments are an endangered species.
Frivolous. Will be thrown out.
Nothing frivolous about it. The fact that you WANT Mueller to be able to investigate into perpetuity doesn't mean the lawsuit is frivolous. What's happening is banana republic stuff, and you should be ashamed of it, if you were capable of having any shame.
Mike's synopsis of this whole mess seems like the most likely one I've ever read. If it's true, and they get away with this, we'll be beyond banana republic territory.
How dare he question the pure heart and intentions of The Honorable Robert S. Mueller III.
Inga said...
Frivolous. Will be thrown out.
To a democrat the law is always frivolous. It is only useful when it gives them more power over other people but is otherwise ignored.
Comey and Hillary are heading to jail. Huma will most likely sell Hillary out to stay out of jail. By the end the collusion(conspiracy) between Mueller and Comey is going to have Mueller facing indictment. Ohr, Strzok et. al will probably cop pleas.
Rosenstein appointed Mueller because Mueller is the one person in the entire world who is most motivated and able to whitewash the FBI. Both men knew already that the FBI had used the Democrat-funded dossier as a bogus excuse to wiretap Trump's associates.
Mueller's gang of Trump-hating lawyers will keep investigating extraneous stuff in order to drag out the "investigation" until the 2018 elections. They hope that the Democrats will win a majority in the House and thus be able to complete the whitewash.
As long as Mueller continues his "investigation", the FBI and Justice Department will be able to continue to refuse to provide information to Congress and to the public.
When Rosenstein testifies to Congress, he always provides a model to all his subordinate officials, who are supposed to refuse likewise to provide information as long as Mueller's "investigation" continues.
Mueller and his gang are really investigating only one problem -- how to get Trump's tax documents in order to leak them all to Trump-hating journalists. Very soon after they do get those tax documents, the gang will leak them all. Mueller himself will decide the leak details -- exactly when and to whom the tax documents will be leaked.
Nicholas Kristof already has been begging publicly for the leak, and Mueller and Kristof already have experience collaborating in the leaking of information about the FBI's supposedly secret investigations.
So, we can expect Kristof to get the scoop -- just like Kristof got the scoop that the FBI was preparing to arrest Steve Hatfill as the anthrax poisoner.
Blogger Inga said...
Frivolous. Will be thrown out.
I'm not a lawyer, so your conclusion is not obvious to me.
Can you please share the legal facts and reasoning behind your statement?
If he got the authority, which I'm pretty sure he did, I don't see how he's got a leg to stand on.
"Matthew Sablan said...
If he got the authority, which I'm pretty sure he did, I don't see how he's got a leg to stand on."
Who is "he?"
Can you please share the legal facts and reasoning behind your statement?
1/3/18, 3:14 PM
That's what Anderson Cooper and Rachel Maddow said!
“A DOJ spokesperson responded with a statement, saying: "The lawsuit is frivolous but the defendant is entitled to file whatever he wants."”
Ask the DOJ.
Yeah. I just read that and it was terrible.
If the investigators got the authority, which it appears they did, Manafort doesn't really have a leg to stand on.
It may be unfair (and, given what we're learning about how the FBI worked to not charge anyone in Clinton's orbit with anything, even when one of her people admitted to lying to them), but... if Manafort did it, and the investigators had the authority to review it (which is a problem with special prosecutions in general--a carte blanche), then... he's stuck.
Well, there's supposed to be an actual crime involved in the appointment. Rosenstein didn't provide one. ("Collusion" isn't.) Manafort has standing to sue, because he's been injured, and doesn't have one of his family members being held hostage, like Flynn's son.
I don't think it is frivolous, but given what we know, I don't think Manafort will win. He'd need to prove there was something improper in how the DoJ/FBI/whoever got given their broad investigative authority. Which, again, while it was clearly misused and used politically, it was within their powers (as far as I can tell with the information available.)
Inga and her pals take time out from pressing "emoluments" insanity to parrot talking points about "frivolous" lawsuits.
And did you know that individuals who are not citizens, have never lived in the US and have no connection to the US have a constitutional right to move to the US?
Shhhhhh, don't tell Inga that they really don't....
Mueller is going to have to take time out from his little coup attempt to tell congress why he whitewashed Hillary and Obama and had the FBI call off an investigation into Russian bribery and extortion while he was FBI director during the Uranium One deal where Hillary was paid 145 million dollars by the Russians and Obama signed off on the export of US uranium.
That is going to be a fun hearing.
I hope they both lose.
I mean the lawsuit is basically "yeah, I did it, but you shouldn't have investigated it, so I (should) get a pass."
I think it shouldn't have been investigated by Mueller, and I think Manafort probably shouldn't get a pass.
If Manafort wasn't a sleezy DC wheeler-dealer looking out for #1 he'd just say it was the price of doing business that was necessarily in the political world (his lobbying for various interests) and STFU.
I don't know why Manafort doesn't simply bleachbit every record he ever had.
Because in the dems/Inga world, that's how you get immunity baby!
And, in the meantime...Hill and Bill's house in Chappaqua just happened to catch fire.
Dear me, there go the hard drives!
David-2: "If Manafort wasn't a sleezy DC wheeler-dealer looking out for #1 he'd just say it was the price of doing business that was necessarily in the political world (his lobbying for various interests) and STFU."
The problem is that Manafort is simply doing what literally thousands of washington operators are doing and have been doing for decades.
My problem is the selective enforcement, once again, always in the democrats favor.
One set of rules. And only one.
Is Manafort sleazier than the Podesta's? Nope. They even worked together. But only one had his door knocked in the wee hours of the morn and had his wife felt up in her nightgown by armed agents.
One. Set. Of. Rules. For. Everyone.
Matthew Sablan said...
I don't think it is frivolous, but given what we know, I don't think Manafort will win. He'd need to prove there was something improper in how the DoJ/FBI/whoever got given their broad investigative authority. Which, again, while it was clearly misused and used politically, it was within their powers (as far as I can tell with the information available.)
The dirty little details are going to be the meetings Comey and Mueller had before Mueller was appointed and before Comey gave testimony.
And don't forget the leaks. A lot of people were leaking classified material to the press. That is going to be a lot of low level swamp critters taking pleas to rat out the higher ups.
2018 is going to be great. Trump is pretty clearly slow playing this to land in September/October.
“("Collusion" isn't.)”
But Conspiracy is.
One potential charge might be conspiracy to violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, says Barak Cohen, a partner and litigation lead at Perkins Coie in Washington, D.C. Mueller's team could reach for that if there is evidence that Trump associates worked with Russia on the hacking of the Democratic National Committee or the emails of Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, John Podesta.
"I think the special counsel would like to be able to charge them as co-conspirators to the hack or accessories after the fact," Cohen said. "It's the most credible and well-established legal theory."
If Trump associates weren't directly involved in the hacks but, say, knew about them and kept them hidden, then they could be charged as accessories after that fact, Cohen said.
Another theory proffered by John Norris and Carolyn Kenney for the liberal Center for American Progress is that Mueller might try to use the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
"More dominoes seem almost inevitable to fall given the special counsel's efforts to secure cooperating witnesses, and RICO statutes give him a powerful card to play if he wishes to do so," they wrote.
Or a more general conspiracy charge — to defraud the United States — could come into play, according to Eliason. Conspiracy of this sort means interfering with a lawful government function by deceit or dishonest means. In this case, prosecutors might try to prove the Trump camp had helped pervert the election.
"Of course, it depends on what the facts show," Eliason said, "but if one worked with the Russians to leak information and create false social media accounts and other such stuff, that could be conspiracy to defraud the U.S."
A third possible endgame is some sort of financial crime such as money laundering.
"My guess is this is all going to center around money — Russian money," Moore said.“
https://www.npr.org/2017/12/10/568929285/as-muellers-russia-probe-forges-ahead-potential-legal-endgames-begin-to-take-sha
given their broad investigative authority. Which, again, while it was clearly misused and used politically
It lifts the veil of privacy obscuring progressive corruption. That's a positive outcome in and of itself.
"My problem is the selective enforcement, once again, always in the democrats favor."
-- I agree; I hope the answer that the country decides on though is to bring the hammer down on everyone instead of letting Manafort skate.
The really interesting question is whether Mueller, Rosenstein, and Comey are guilty of a criminal conspiracy in connection with Mueller's appointment.
Comey has admitted under oath to committing a crime to get Mueller appointed (leaking classified government documents to the press).
The appointment by Rosenstein happened one day after Comey's crime, which Comey testified he committed in order to get a special counsel appointed.
Mueller is a close personal friend of Comey's, and Rosenstein was a former employee of Mueller's in the 1990's.
So given these personal relationships and the timing, what is the likelihood that this is anything other than a criminal conspiracy? Mueller couldn't have even passed a conflicts check in under 24 hours. Rosenstein was talking to Mueller for sure before Comey's illegal leak, otherwise he couldn't have appointed him so quickly.
So did Mueller and Comey talk to one another and say something that prompted the illegal leaks by Comey? Did Rosenstein know? Why would Comey think his crime would result in the appointment of a special counsel unless he had spoken to Mueller or Rosenstein? This sounds like Comey committing a crime to provide Rosenstein cover to make the appointment.
These questions are going to get answered, and it's quite possible that one or all three of these guys end up in jail over this.
Then that should have been mentioned in the appointment. It wasn't. Kind of like all the Obama regs that got nuked because his operatives don't believe the legal processes apply to them.
"Mueller's team could reach for that if there is evidence that Trump associates worked with Russia on the hacking of the Democratic National Committee or the emails of Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, John Podesta."
-- They haven't even let us look at the hacked servers; we're not even sure if they were hacked, accessed by an inside person who handed them out, or simply phished. It is like trying to charge someone with murder without a body.
Matthew Sablan said...
"My problem is the selective enforcement, once again, always in the democrats favor."
-- I agree; I hope the answer that the country decides on though is to bring the hammer down on everyone instead of letting Manafort skate.
I would support that 100%.
But you are going to have to start breaking up the civil service. If it was the Miami branch of the DOJ doing the investigation and prosecution it might work. But no swamp critter is going to seriously investigate another swamp critter they just had cocktails with last weekend. Especially not when they all donate to the democrats are all on the same side.
SDN at 3:20 PM
Manafort has standing to sue, because he's been injured, and doesn't have one of his family members being held hostage, like Flynn's son.
Within days after Mueller's gang did an early-morning surprise search of Manafort's home, the Globe tabloid published information about Manafort's relationship with his mistress.
So, Manafort no longer has to worry about that secret of his being exposed.
Manafort's daughters already know now that he had a mistress.
So, Mueller will have to come up with new information to use to pressure Manafort.
All of Trump's rich associates who likewise have a mistress and some daughters have been warned by what was done to Manafort.
I don’t know if an indictment can be dismissed merely because the prosecutor wasn’t supposed to be prosecuting that particular kind of crime. I’d be surprised.
What I do know is that the NYT has sunk to a very low level of journalistic performance. For example:
“Mr. Trump tries to portray the investigation as a politically motivated witch hunt”. Trump doesn’t “try to portray” it that way – he DOES portray it that way. When I was practicing law one of the first things I had to teach young lawyers was that “try to” doesn’t mean “tried but failed to”.
“Mr. Mueller, a Republican who is regarded as one of the premier law enforcement officials of his time.” This omits the obligatory “regarded BY MANY” (sarc). Of course, no honest reporter would write a statement like this without identifying by name people who actually do regard Mueller that way. A non-hack reporter would probably add a sentence to the effect that “Many others regard Mr. Mueller as a glory hound who will let nothing stand in the way of his crusade to defend the performance of the agency he used to head.”
“Mr. Mueller is investigating the Russian government’s meddling in the 2016 presidential election and whether anyone close to Mr. Trump was involved. AS PART OF THAT INVESTIGATION, prosecutors indicted Mr. Manafort on money laundering charges related to years of foreign lobbying — but not related to Russian election interference or the Trump campaign.” The whole point of Manafort’s motion is that his indictment wasn’t “part of that investigation”, so the Times, in the guise of reporting, is making the ruling on the motion that the court is supposed to make.
I used to have a lot of respect for the NYT. Sad!
Matthew Sablan said...
-- They haven't even let us look at the hacked servers; we're not even sure if they were hacked, accessed by an inside person who handed them out, or simply phished. It is like trying to charge someone with murder without a body.
We know for a fact the DNC was an inside job and not a hack."
We know for a fact Podesta is a retard and clicked on a phish mail." They have the emails and the IT managers discussion of it. Podesta changed his email to P@ssword.
As has been said many times it is obvious to anyone who looks there is no Trump Russia collusion. Only traitors trying to carry off a coup still "believe" it.
They haven't even let us look at the hacked servers; we're not even sure if they were hacked, accessed by an inside person who handed them out, or simply phished. It is like trying to charge someone with murder without a body.
They have one witness: an allegation, perhaps two if you count a widely-available electronic trace, and a bullhorn, "Press", to progress the witch hunt. That's one more than they had for the so-called "reckoning" used to influence the election in another case.
Inga: "Ask the DOJ."
Behold, Inga's natural state when a big cut and paste option is not available.
Unexpectedly.
And Hillarys house is on fire......burning evidence???
Did he file this just for the joy of discovery?
The entire Russian/Clinton/Fusion/DOJ/FBI collusion operation against Trump is illegitimate and was intended as an "insurance policy" against Trump winning.
A cover for dems spying on republicans.
Manafort's lawyers may be thinking this is all a 4th amendment violation/fruit of the poison tree sort of deal.
That's what Dershowitz and Turley have been going on about for some time now.
Why does Ann post such things without commenting? Isn't she some sort of law professor, presumably a lawyer, who might have cogent views on whether the sort of suit Manafort has filed has succeeded in the past? Come on Ann, how about a professional opinion?
We know for a fact the DNC was an inside job and not a hack.
A disgruntled Democrat or perhaps a Pakistani employee.
We know for a fact Podesta is a retard and clicked on a phish mail.
The Nigerian phishing expedition netted a big one.
Then there is Obama spying on the Republican candidate et al, and hunting down unfavorable press and video makers, but, oddly enough, not terrorists (e.g. Benghazi, Libya-Kiev Affair) targeting Americans abroad and forcing catastrophic anthropogenic global climate change.
“Ask the DoJ”
LOL, they won’t even answer Congressional subpoenas.
you should be ashamed of it, if you were capable of having any shame.
It’s about the Democrat Party’s will to power, so shut up because reasons!
Let's just wait till the DOJ IG report and the Senate and House reports come out. We will see who gets indicted or has another SC on their asses. We'll see who worked during the Obama Admin turns. Will Mueller's investigation become null and void? We'll see who goes to prison and fined, who President Trump pardons.
Seems like grandstanding. The issue should be addressed in the context of the existing case - a motion to vacate the indictment
“Why does Ann post such things without commenting? Isn't she some sort of law professor, presumably a lawyer, who might have cogent views on whether the sort of suit Manafort has filed has succeeded in the past? Come on Ann, how about a professional opinion?”
I’ve often wondered the same thing.
Even if his authority was narrow, he would still have an obligation as a DOJ prosecutor o report evidence of criminal conduct to the authorities. So someone else would investigate. If he found evidence hypothetically that someone on Trimp's team murdered someone 20 years ago, it would be wrong for him to ignore it.
Interesting. The DNC denied Democrats the vote and colluded with subversives in the government, foreign intelligence assets, post-coup government in Kiev, and press, in order to disenfranchise Americans. Heads, DNC wins. Tails, Americans lose. It will be a neat trick, if they can pull it off.
"If he found evidence hypothetically that someone on Trimp's team murdered someone 20 years ago, it would be wrong for him to ignore it. "
-- That can't be true as the DoJ turned a blind eye to multiple instances of people lying to them during the Clinton investigation.
Someone on Trump's team may have Vince Fostered somebody 20 years ago.
Robert "The FBI Whitewasher" Mueller never will indict two people:
1) His BFF "Crazy Comey the Leaker", who learned how to leak from Mueller himself.
2) Marcel Lazăr Lehel (aka "Guccifer 2") the Romanian who supposedly hacked the DNC server for Russia.
Lehel did not hack the DNC server. The data was taken off the server by Seth Rich.
Mueller's final report will say that the theft of the DNC data is an unsolvable mystery. Mueller will have to resort to process crimes to get all his scapegoats.
Althouse rarely offers her professional opinion on a legal matter. The exception is where the subject is a matter she has taught or written about. I find her restraint refreshing. Too many 'experts' are far too willing to offer opinions on matters on which they have no particular expertise.
Even if his authority was narrow, he would still have an obligation as a DOJ prosecutor o report evidence of criminal conduct to the authorities. So someone else would investigate.
There you go! Why didn’t he do that? He didn’t do this because this is all a project to smear Trump.
Strzok is supposed to have recommended against charging Hillary for recklessly handling government (i.e. the People's) secrets because the JD could not prove that she knew the law she was breaking. This is the same JD which, under Mueller, is charging Flynn & Papadopolous with lying to FBI agents. I suppose this means that they think they can prove that Flynn & Papadopolous knew that lying to an investigator is a felony.
We have the Clinton campaign giving money to a foreign spy to collect dirt on Trump, and misreporting it on their campaign filings as “legal expenses.” Seems like if Mueller were really interested in every crime that turns up, that would be one right there! Easy peazey, lemon squeezey, lock her up!
But this is only about attacking Hillary’s enemies, and the enemies of the Democrat Party, so all of a sudden, it’s more complicated!
Not only giving money to the foreign spy, but the foreign spy, with Hillary’s campaign funds, and DNC money too, used those funds to get information against Trump from Putin’s spies!
I am still trying to figure out the legalities of this whole “collusion” thing, but isn’t that a textbook case of “collusion”?
And before we talk about the Russians hacking the DNC as central to the “crime,” let’s talk about the fact that the Democrats refused to allow law enforcement to look at the servers, so any claims that the Russians hacked them is speculative, and given what we do know, nonsense. CrowdStrike claims to have kicked out the Russians prior to the writing of the most damaging emails. If it was a leak, the Democrats likely know exactly who did it. One guy who could possibly have done it was killed in a “robbery” in which nothing was taken.
Ask the DOJ.
Why, are they continuing to be the sole source of the law regarding their own actions?
Donna Brazille’s book gives all the motive that anybody would need for disgruntled Democrats to have leaked those emails.
A real Department of Justice would have recognized both the plaintiff's rights to file the suit and the Judicial Branch's rights to determine its merits.
That we get the agency calling its own balls and strikes tells you the depth of the swamp.
Most tax professionals who've looked at the Manafort indictment believe that he has no defense to the very specific charges presented. If he goes to trial he faces a very long prison term.
If you don't have a defense, argue that the prosecutor lacks jurisdiction! Sounds fantastically technical. Why isn't flipping Trump's campaign manager, who along with Donald Junior met with Russians in search of information, a completely legitimate exercise of investigative power? The fact that the flip is based on charges of years of unlawfully concealed activity and income involving a Russian puppet politician in the Ukraine is icing on the cake. But if it's all you've got, and the alternative is flipping on the President or going to jail for many years, and you've got the money, albeit ill-gotten, why not? You might get lucky or at least delay things long enough to make a pardon politically feasible for Trump.
These instant legal opinions on every subject are not really legal opinions but boring pukings of the same old political opinions that the opinion spewer already has. It gives away that you don’t really care about the law but just seeing your side win. If you have a client, you’ve got to do it, and it’s why everyone hates lawyers, but if you don’t have a client, you can shut up until you’ve done the research and worked through it, or you can puzzle through your questions in full view, which I sometimes do.
If you think everyone with legal training knows the answer on any legal question, you are very naive. Who has conned you?
By egging and cheering Mueller on to pursue a crimminal investigation of questionable legality, has Inga opened herself up to the charge of conspiracy to subvert the legal process?
This is something she should carefully consider.
Ann Althouse said...
These instant legal opinions on every subject are not really legal opinions but boring pukings of the same old political opinions that the opinion spewer already has. It gives away that you don’t really care about the law but just seeing your side win. If you have a client, you’ve got to do it, and it’s why everyone hates lawyers, but if you don’t have a client, you can shut up until you’ve done the research and worked through it, or you can puzzle through your questions in full view, which I sometimes do.
If you think everyone with legal training knows the answer on any legal question, you are very naive. Who has conned you?
I agree with every word of this. I was not going to comment on this post. Althouse made it easy to agree with her. The times that I have disagreed with Althouse on law posts could be counted on the fingers of about two fingers.
Yeah, Althouse is right, a well trained lawyer can't really figure out who's right until the check clears.
“One potential charge might be conspiracy to violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, says Barak Cohen, a partner and litigation lead at Perkins Coie in Washington, D.C. Mueller's team could reach for that if there is evidence that Trump associates worked with Russia on the hacking of the Democratic National Committee or the emails of Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, John Podesta.
"I think the special counsel would like to be able to charge them as co-conspirators to the hack or accessories after the fact," Cohen said. "It's the most credible and well-established legal theory."”
The Crazy Cat Lady cuts and pastes this fairly often. Note two things. First, note the law firm involved:
“The law firm Perkins Coie received $5.6 million for "legal fees" from the Clinton campaign and $3.6 million for "legal and compliance consulting" from the DNC while the dossier was written, an unknown share of which reportedly went to Fusion GPS, which paid Steele.”
Second, note the hypothetical: “One potential charge might be conspiracy to violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Mueller's team could reach for that if there is evidence that Trump associates worked with Russia on the hacking of the Democratic National Committee or the emails of Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, John Podesta.“ In short, if the Trump team helped hack the DNC, then they might be guilty of violating that statute. There has, of course, not been any evidence supporting the hypothetical. And, as pointed out above, it is far more likely that the DNC email was leaked, and not hacked. This is equivalent to saying that if the Crooked Hillary campaign had put a hit out on Seth Rich, they might be guilty of being an accessory or accomplice to the murder. Or, maybe worse, if Perkins Coie had known that the Clinton campaign was treating their payments to Fusion GPS as legal fees, they might have violated campaign finance law. Oh, wait - they apparently billed Fusion GPS as “legal and compliance consulting”, so not a hypothetical after all. So, how about this one - if Bill Clinton and AG Lynch discussed keeping her on as AG when they met on the tarmac at Sky Harbor, then maybe the two of them engaged in obstruction of justice.
I would argue that, even if Rosenstein subsequently gave Mueller permission to investigate other matters unrelated to Russian collusion in the campaign, such approval was ineffective because it must be given by, and after consultation with, the “Attorney General.” Sessions’s recusal only extended to the campaign collusion issue, so Rosenstein had no authority to claim to be the acting Attorney General on non-collusion matters.
Ann Althouse said...
If you think everyone with legal training knows the answer on any legal question, you are very naive. Who has conned you?
This pretty much covers it. Any of us can read the statutes and the briefs and know what the words are supposed to mean. But it takes legal training to get the right answer.
In this case legal training tells you the right answer is whatever gives the democrats more power over other people.
Mueller is the head swamp thug it is time he met an opponent he can’t threaten with eternal damnation.
Personally, I want every single victim of a special prosecutor would challenge their legal legitimacy. Question every questionable thing they do. Make it rough on the prosecutor.
If the laws were simple and clear, we wouldn't need lawyers.
Inga thinks the defendant in a lawsuit says, "Yeah he has a good case !"
Saying "Frivolous case" would never be offered a by a guilty defendant, in Inga's world.
Jeeeeez !
I’ve been reading that this is a publicity stunt, that he’s attempting to have this case tried in the court of public opinion. However didn’t the Judge put a gag order on him? This tweet is interesting.
“Fraser MacLeod
Fraser MacLeod
@FraserMacLeod5
·
2h
Replying to @renato_mariotti
He was warned not to try and have this case tried in the court of public opinion. I suggest he has violated his bail conditions by taking this action, & that Mueller should at once seek reinstatment of the original conditions.“
So, what will Trump and Manafort do if and when a Judge rules against Manafort and states that Mueller is acting within his authority? Then what? Sounds like a Hail Mary attempt to wriggle out of Mueller’s grasp.
Jail a man for suing the government. That's a sure fire way to convince everyone the prosecution isn't political.
Liberals believe that Mueller is not on a fishing expedition, and also that his mandate has no limit.
Mueller would also be acting in his authority to indict Abedin for having classified documents on Weiner's computer. If he were just investigating crimes like he said, why hasn't he?
Jackboots, when worn by Democrats get Inga all excited.
Why did Mueller not indict Comey for leaking? It is within his mandate.
Democracy dies in darkness, unless the darkness is helpful to Democrats.
“...and also that his mandate has no limit.”
“...any matter that may arise...”
All of the known crimes involving the two campaigns have been by Democrats.
Then you agree Clinton campaign staffers who illegally hid their funding the dossier should be indicted? Any matter after all.
. . . . Ann Althouse said..."These instant legal opinions on every subject are not really legal opinions but boring pukings of the same old political opinions that the opinion spewer already has. It gives away that you don’t really care about the law but just seeing your side win."
I was under the impression that this was a feature of the blog, not a bug.
Should the person who ordered the unmasking while pretending to be one of Obama's advisors be indicted? What about the people who dis the unmasking without verifying the order was legal?
Any matter.
Mind you. I'm fine with Manafort facing the music. Why though did Mueller give Podesta and his group a chance to become compliant instead of just indicting them for the same could be got Manafort for? Any matter.
I’d have to read the Complaint as I don’t trust the NYT but my first reaction is that this is a serious case. In any lawsuit or legal proceeding, the first issue is jurisdiction. On its face, the indictment of Manafort has nothing to do with the order appointing the Special Counsel. That being said, I would imagine a federal judge would cut Mueller slack as DOJ could have indicted Manafort on its own. A crime is a crime. Not like a Wisconsin County Attorney indicting someone in Iowa for drunk driving in Iowa.
So. Are you fine with Mueller actually using his authority? Because... He also learned that Clinton knew about Abedin having classified material and didn't report it. A crime. Any matter. Right folks? We learned she approved disguising campaign payments to foreign agents. Any matter. Right?
Why is Stzork or whatever being charged for misuse of government property. Using your government phone for sexual trysts is illegal. Any matter.
Were I a judge and Manafort tried to argue he was being selectively be vindictively targeted... I'd be hard pressed to say be wasn't. Whether that matters legally is another issue.
He was warned not to try and have this case tried in the court of public opinion.
This sounds more and more like the WI John Doe case.
“...any matter that may arise...”
So you agree that it is a fishing expedition?
What crime is being investigated, Inga?
Mueller’s mandate.
If people like Mueller are reigned in, how will young attorneys fresh out of law school cut their political teeth for good salary by working under people like him? What if Hillary had not been allowed to persecute President Nixon when she was fresh out of law school? Would the world be a better place?
On ya: Why has Mueller with his mandate refused to indict any of the people I cited? They all fall within his mandate.
Inga. Which my phone auto corrected because it hates me.
"Reined in" not "reigned in". Though Mueller does behave like royalty.
“What crime is being investigated, Inga?”
Some possible crimes being investigated. Who knows, maybe more. If you want to know for sure, write to Special Prosecutor Mueller.
Conspiracy to violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
Obstruction of Justice
Money Laundering
"Conspiracy to violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
Obstruction of Justice
Money Laundering"
Those crimes sound Clintonesque.
The Mueller investigation keeps alive the Hillary butt hurt which Dems need to finally get over if they want to run things again. Hillary still looks and sounds like the annointed candidate in 2020 if she doesn't self-immolate.
Inga said...
Conspiracy to violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
Obstruction of Justice
Money Laundering
It will be fun watching Clinton and Comey and Mueller being brought up on charges for their multiple conspiracies. Did Mueller and Hillary discuss the Uranium One investigation? Hillary got 145 Million dollars while the FBI was investigating the Russians and the investigation just died. Conveniently.
It will be fun watching Huma rat everyone out to keep from going to jail.
It will be classic if the indictments come down oh say... October 20th or so.
Since Bill Cosby had to deal with his past rapes who knows, we might get around to charging another rapist named Bill.
Inga: I’ve been reading that this is a publicity stunt, that he’s attempting to have this case tried in the court of public opinion. However didn’t the Judge put a gag order on him? This tweet is interesting.
Scratch a liberal, you'll find a fascist.
Every. Damned. Time.
Worth a try.
Inga: Ask the DOJ.
This DOJ, dummy?
http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2017/12/rebuke_of_federal_us_attorneys.html
“This DOJ, dummy?”
Trump’s DOJ, dummy.
Remember that this is the same Inga who cheered on the now roundly discredited investigation of Scott Walker. You know, the one where the prosecutors wrote an email saying “this is not democracy” while lamenting that alas, they had to do it anyway for political reasons because the other side is worse. The same prosecutors who used their subpoena power, and, BTW, an armed dark of the night raid, to collect what they labeled as “opposition research” against Republicans.
This is the same Inga who declaimed that “Louis CK is worse that Bill Clinton” while denying that she means that she doesn’t believe all of the under oath witnesses backing up Juanita Broaddrick. So I guess that means that she thinks that masturbating in front of some people who came back to his hotel room voluntarily is WORSE than inveigling a supporter into coming to a private hotel room, Harvey Weinstein style (they were good friend, the two good old boys) and forcibly raping her.
Unless she has some third possible interpretation of her words. Then she posts with a pussy hat avatar. You can’t make this stuff up.
Inga is a partisan troll who has no interest in actual discussion.
It's as if we need to drain a swamp, eh?
“...has no interest in actual discussion.”
Is that a requirement to comment here? Truthfully, I’m not all that interested discussion with you Trumpists. I’m expressing my opinion and/or agreeing with the opinion of others. That you aren’t willing to allow another viewpoint to be expressed is your problem, not mine.
This is a frivolous case. There is zero chance it will not be dismissed and the only question is whether Manafort will be sanctioned under Rule 11. I suppose Manafort brought it solely for the PR value. BTW, I'm not saying this because I think Manafort is guilty of anything - so far as I can see, he has a very good defense on the merits. But this motion is ridiculous.
The only person who isn't willing to allow another viewpoint to be expressed here is the person calling for an American citizen to be imprisoned for the simple act of suing the government to assert his legal rights.
That would be you.
Fascist.
Any matters (not involving Democrats) that may arise, you mean.
Evidence of multiple crimes committed by the DNC/Clinton operatives, no charges.
Publicly admitted collusion between the Clinton operatives/State Department officials and the Ukrainian government, no charges, not even an investigation.
“The only person who isn't willing to allow another viewpoint to be expressed here is the person calling for an American citizen to be imprisoned for the simple act of suing the government to assert his legal rights.
That would be you.”
Don’t be stupid, but maybe in your case that’s not possible. If Manafort violated the terms of his bond, it’s his own fault.
From James Clapper just yesterday...
Just. Yesterday.
As relayed by Kimberly Strassel of the WSJ
"Kimberley Strassel
✔
@KimStrassel
Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper (in a Tuesday CNN interview): George Papadopoulos "was not a name on my radar scope when i left." So head of intelligence had never heard of the dude that the NYT now claims launched the entire Trump-Russia probe?
9:30 AM - Jan 3, 2018"
Poof.
Can't wait to see who the dems roll out next as "The Real Reason The Investigation Of Trump Was Kicked Off Which Had Nothing To Do With the Fake Russian/Clinton/Dems Collusion Dossier"!!!!
Nearly 14,000 special agents currently work for the FBI and they have the same hopelessly conflicted philandering swamp dweller investigating both Clinton and Trump.
That's bullshit on stilts right there.
That you aren’t willing to allow another viewpoint to be expressed is your problem, not mine.
I never said that. I am just pointing out what you are. A defender of a forcible rapist, a fan of using the prosecutorial powers of government for partisan purposes, and a troll not interested in actual discussion.
Jason is right. How is it that this doughty little band of Clinton fixers just happened to be at the top of the Uranium One investigation, the Hillary email investigation, and infesting the Mueller investigations?
It just seems to defy probability... But to ask these questions is to answer them.
Inga: If Manafort violated the terms of his bond, it’s his own fault.
"IF."
Beg the question much, thumbsucker?
Manafort's success or failure, both in the lawsuit and the criminal trial, will depend on the factors that led to his non-indictment in 2014/2015, and what new information Mueller developed during his recent tenure as special counsel. My impression from the news stories is that Mueller hasn't develop any new material on Manafort relating to the charges filed- the only thing that changed between 2015 and this past October was that Manafort worked on the Trump campaign. At the criminal trial, you can expect Manafort to call as witnesses everyone in the DoJ and the FBI who worked on his case during the period before Trump hired him.
I don't think he will win the lawsuit, however, even though I think he has a point about how Rosenstein breeched DoJ guidelines in the assignment and its scope. Those guidelines aren't laws and don't have to be followed to be legal or even just.
“I never said that. I am just pointing out what you are. A defender of a forcible rapist, a fan of using the prosecutorial powers of government for partisan purposes, and a troll not interested in actual discussion.”
You’re entitled to your opinion, however you seem to need to mischaracterize what I have said to give your opinion more weight. Whatever, you are pretty inconsequential as far as I’m concerned.
Jason said.
“Nearly 14,000 special agents currently work for the FBI and they have the same hopelessly conflicted philandering swamp dweller investigating both Clinton and Trump.
That's bullshit on stilts right there.”
Yup.
If you think the lawsuit is frivolous- ask yourself this- how would you feel if a deputy attorney general gave your worst enemy, someone who didn't even work in the DoJ, the power to convene a grand jury, present any evidence he likes, and indict you- all of it being done with little if any oversight by the DoJ? Anyone saying they would find that acceptable is a liar, or nuts.
By the way, the leftist fascists are not only responsible for WI John Doe, but they are pulling some similar shenanigans in Texas on the Lt Gov, just as they did with Rick Perrry...and Tom Delay.
Just as the Deep State is in DC.
What is the makeup of this DC Grand Jury one wonders? about 95% democrats and the rest even further left?
Just as they did with Ted Stevens to get themselves to 60 seats in the Senate (counting the "wow, those are actual ballots in a democrat's trunk that we can get a democrat judge and a democrat Sec of State to allow us to include in the count!" Franken" victory).
One of the things I would like to see written into the law about these special counsels is this- they have to be confirmed by the Senate before they can begin their work.
Where is the Gimp tonight?
however you seem to need to mischaracterize what I have said
So is forcible rape not as. bad as masturbating in front of people, or did all of the witnesses against Bill Clinton risk prison for lying?
It’s a simple question, and it does not “mischaracterize” what you have said. Logically, you believe one thing or the other, but I know, your opinion is “top secret” (Hint: “She’s a lying whore!")
I like to think better of you than to think that you believe that forcible rape is not as bad as. what Lous CK did, so that leaves one choice.
You are defender of a forcible rapist.
"Blogger Jon Ericson said...
Where is the Gimp tonight?"
Exploring the narrow valleys and box canyons of Brokeback Mountain?
Where is the Gimp tonight?
He's working on the math to prove AGW is responsible for Bomb Cyclone and frozen noses
Double snort.
Blogger Yancey Ward said...
One of the things I would like to see written into the law about these special counsels is this- they have to be confirmed by the Senate before they can begin their work.
1/3/18, 7:29 PM
Better yet, give them six months to present their findings, not to a jury, but to the president and congress. This is political, not a criminal matter. Depending on the findings, congress can vote to continue the investigation or end it.
No more fishing expeditions.
Meanwhile, Al Gore has long since retired to spend more time providing "life coaching" services to hotel masseuses.
So as a law professor you don't feel obliged at all to offer the caveat that this douchebag basically has no standing to bring suit whatsoever?
Whatever gets the raving looneys to jump for the red meat, I guess. It's like watching an infested lake of invasive Asian carp jumping up in a feeding frenzy on their daily fix of processed pellets.
My favorite film depiction of a “fixer” is not Michael Clayton, it’s the guy who comes in at the end of “Burn After Reading” and cleans up the mess everybody made. You can just picture it: “Why, this isn’t ‘gross negligence,’ it’s ‘extreme carelessness’! Anybody could see that!”
By the way, the same guy who edited the report on Hillary to change the language to avoid triggering the lay, on the Mueller investigation. He was also involved in Uranium One, which also involved Hillary.
So “whatever issues may arise” is a term of art that really means, whatever we can pin on Republicans.
Legal expert TTR jumps in and starts spewing bong water right away!
Manafort may be a sleaze ball as some have maintained, but from a non-lawyer's perspective I don't see how Mueller has the right to pursue him, given his apparent investigative mandate.
Again, I am not a lawyer, so common sense does not necessarily apply to a field where the best liars and manipulators get the biggest bucks.
The cut and paste queen is a freaking idiot/ex-psych nurse. Sorry for the redundancy. Let's just ignore her.
Shit.
I hope Pedro had time to get a snootful.
Combine that with traffic and I. Can't. Wait.
I can’t believe that TTR has joined up with the side using the police power of the state to further their political power, but there he is, toady to the jackboot!
That’s why I call him the “Bourgeois Revolutionary,” all of the white left are like that, use of police power against their political enemies gets them horny!
It’s easy to do what you do, TTR! That’s why what you do is so boring.
“You are defender of a forcible rapist.”
Tim,
You keep blathering on about some idea that you have regarding my opinion of Bill Clinton. I do not know where you got this idea that I condone rape or that I didn’t believe his accusers. I never said that his accusers weren’t telling the truth. I did however say that Monica Lewinski had sex with Clinton. He didn’t rape her. It was consensual. She has never claimed it was rape and indeed she had said in her memoirs that she was in love with him. Clinton misused his power as President to seduce her, that’s was despicable. Perhaps you will be able to drop your mischaracterization of what I said about Louis CK and Clinton now after reitering what I said, once again. This is at least the third time I’ve done it, yet you continue to cling to some notion you have in your head about what you think I meant.
the leftist fascists are not only responsible for WI John Doe
They are also responsible for the Occupations, trespassing, and the violence on inauguration day. It seems that neo and traditional national socialists, communists, fascists, diversitists, and abortionists cannot be trusted to act civilly without external oversight.
Case in point, Obama spying on the Republican candidate and other Americans, stalking unworthy members of the press, framing video makers to remove focus from affiliated terrorists, the DNC denying Democrats the vote, and Clinton colluding with native and foreign intelligence assets, and the Western-backed post-coup government in Kiev, in order to influence the election, and disenfranchise the People. That, and their witch hunt with dreams to carry out a witch trial (and abortion), in the fifth trimester is just unseemly, and probably a wicked solution.
He wasn’t referring to Lewinsky, dolt.
Good Lord!
Inga refuses to acknowledge the existence of Juanita Broadrick and other women Billy Jeff forced himself upon.
Sorry. I said that we should ignore the idiot. I could not resist commenting.
Legal expert TTR jumps in and starts spewing bong water right away!
What's up, exuberant douchebag!
See, the reason I know some basic things about the American constitution that you don't, is because I took high school civics. It was mandatory. Poor thing, you must have gone to one of those funny "homeschools" instead.
Good thing it was, that. It's the reason I actually know some things about this country and its glorious (usually) legal traditions and rights and privileges and you just come across not much different from any of the many ignorant twerps and hacks making ineffectual noises all over Europe, the Middle East, and the rest of the Old World.
“He wasn’t referring to Lewinsky, dolt.”
In Tim’s and my original discussion that he keeps referring to, Monica Lewinski was a part of that discussion, dolt. If you don’t know about which discussion with Tim that’s in question, don’t stick your big ugly pockmarked Steve Bannon like nose in it...dolt.
This is at least the third time I’ve done it, yet you continue to cling to some notion you have in your head about what you think I meant.
Like most right-wing Republikooks, he reads poorly and believes strongly.
Glad you finally made it, asshole.
Clinton misused his power as President to seduce her, that’s was despicable.
Thufferin' thuccotash.
Glad you finally made it, asshole.
Are you talking to your butt, again?
I know you're lonely, but I heard those conversations aren't really all that great. And be sure to offer it some Listerine.
“Inga refuses to acknowledge the existence of Juanita Broadrick and other women Billy Jeff forced himself upon.”
Are you nuts? Seriously I think you are disturbed. Where have I ever said I did not acknowledge Jaunita Broadderick? Or are you so morally bankrupt that you need to lie? What is wrong with you?
Maybe it’s Trump Derangement Syndrome Derangement Syndrome.
Woah! Blisterin'.
Good thing you don't do this for a living.. or do you?
While Manafort may have to push a rock uphill, this is a long-simmering issue that deserves to be thrashed out. Every "SPecial Counsel" ends as a self-licking ice cream cone and with issues far afield from their appointment. Lawrence Walsh started with Iran Contra and ended with indictments against Cap Weinberger for maintaining a diary having zero to do with Iran Contra 4 days before the 1992 election. Starr began investigating a failed land deal and it ended with a blowjob. Fitzgerald was charged to find out who leaked the name of a CIA employee (which he knew within weeks of his appointment and was probably not illegal since she was no agent) and spent years finding a scalp on unrelated offenses against the SPecial COUnsel to justify his existence.
The Mueller appointment was written so vaguely that there is arguably nothing outside his scope. He could have indicted someone for spitting on a sidewalk and it is arguably within scope. Manafort may lose but that is beside the point.
What is the limiting principle of a special counsel? Right now, there is none. Indicting Manafort on a charge wholly unrelated to allegations of Russian influence on the 2016 campaign tees the issue up nicely. We should not expect the DC District Court or DC Court of appeals to limit government power, but this may end up before the Supreme Court.
TTR,
They’re losing their shit and it’s only going to get worse as more things get revealed. I wonder what they’ll do when Mueller’s investigation results become public and Trump is impeached?
I see both trolls are now here.
Goodnight.
What the fuck is your problem, Inga?
Trump Derangement Syndrome
Hey! That's not fair!
Even neo-Nazis are allowed to believe their many enemies have Hitler Derangement Syndrome.
And what about Genghis Khan Derangement Syndrome? Clearly that man was greatly misunderstood in his time. But luckily we tend to give him more credit now.
That, and his many contribution to raping his way through the human gene pool and leaving a sizable percentage of Asian males with his Y chromosome.
Some people just get no appreciation.
I see both trolls are now here.
Hey. No one mentioned the fact that you were fondling your two little balls just now until you blurted it out. You had to just go and give yourself away, didn't you?
What the fuck is your problem, Pedro?
“Even neo-Nazis are allowed to believe their many enemies have Hitler Derangement Syndrome.
And what about Genghis Khan Derangement Syndrome? Clearly that man was greatly misunderstood in his time. But luckily we tend to give him more credit now.”
LOL! Now that’s funny.
Jon, their problem is that their candidate lost when they were guaranteed that she would win. It is no deeper than that.
It is comments like those of Cronus Titan (among others) that I love about this blog. Smart. Substantive. Historically literate. Thanks, CT.
Was referring to the comment of 8:16
Huh, I've been wondering since forever.
Thanks, guys.
I never would have guessed.
LOL! Now that’s funny.
It's a downright stupid tag. And boringly overused by the hostess. The guy's a textbook, walking, talking, nuclear button pushing NPD case. A book written by 27 mental health experts was published to call him out. That's unprecedented enough without his lackeys looking like asses and calling everyone else the crazy ones. They sound like the inmates who took over the asylum and told all the doctors and visitors and family that they were the crazy ones. It would be insane if it wasn't so obnoxious and adolescent. It's like living in a William Golding novel.
For those who are interested in learned legal commentary on the Manafort suit against Mueller, check out Prof. Blackman's comments on twitter at @JoshMBlackman.
TTR: Calm down buddy.
TTR,
Denial is strong in this bunch, but as the days and weeks go by, we’ll see which of them has the mental health to face the truth, as it comes out.
Inga: you don’t have to admit to failing to acknowledge Juanita Broaderick for the charge of failing to acknowledge Juanita Broaderick to be true.
You just have fail to acknowledge Juanita Broaderick.
Which is, in fact, what happened.
Quit wee-weeing your panties, Inga.
You must be dehydrated by now.
without knowing the legal minutia... Manafort has a point.
...but as the days and weeks go by, we’ll see which of them has the mental health to face the truth...
Most of them don't.
They take pride in seeing how adamantly they can lie to themselves.
They really see it as the only character virtue worth having: Self-deception.
The force is not strong in these ones.
Thanks for the tip Douglas.
Manafort v. DOJ: The Wolf That Didn’t Bark”
Ritmo, your simile at 7:45 raises a fascinating question, not about Manafort's standing - he clearly has standing, but rather - Why Does the Asian Carp Jump out of the Water?
After some research I found that, keeping to form, your assumption of a feeding frenzy was completely incorrect for a number of incontrovertible reasons too obvious to list but beginning with the fact that they're bottom feeders and not big-mouthed bass. That's no fault of yours, as we we may not know yet what your area of expertise is, we can be sure it's not aquaculture.
But why do they do it? We can eliminate spawning behavior as it has no relationship to their breeding preferences. We can eliminate "play" because they're fish and like the feminists they're too stupid for their tiny brain-like organs to contemplate the concept of "play." Is it an escape reflex? It happens frequently when they are agitated by a motorboat in the vicinity but it happens also at seemingly randomly times, but that's my best guess right now.
I'll be sure to follow up with you if I find something more concrete.
There is something obscene about the seemingly unchecked power Mueller is wielding.
The founders would be rolling on beach sand if they knew about it.
MM, I really appreciate your comment. This is a really smart blog occasionally overtaken by silly snark. I figured you were talking about the 8:16 comment. The latter comment was just irritation that trolls sabotage a thoughtful discussion. For grins, I looked up the list of Special Counsel and Independent Counsels and was unable to find one that did not end on matters far afield of their appointment.
Obama was the only President to not appoint one, although there were worthy matters comparable to other issues causing a Special COunsel, e.g. Fast and Furious, IRS targeting political groups, Benghazi, etc. Personally, I have no problem with that. Time has proven these counsels to cause more consternation and problems than they solve. Mueller is no different.
It's too bad Judge Hogan does not take many cases anymore in the DC district. Now THAT would a fascinating proceeding.
Hyperlink not working, so here’s the article. It’s short, it won’t burn a hole in your brain to read it.
“Manafort v. DOJ: The Wolf That Didn’t Bark
By Josh Blackman Wednesday, January 3, 2018, 9:00 PM
Paul Manafort’s suit against the Department of Justice, Rod Rosenstein, and Robert Mueller, is perplexing for (at least) three reasons. First, even if the suit is successful, and the Court sets aside all actions taken by Muller, nothing would prevent the Department of Justice from appointing another special counsel who could simply follow the exact same prosecution strategy. In other words, Manafort’s suit would not remove from collective consciousness the evidence unearthed by Mueller’s investigation. It would not be difficult for him to be indicted again.
Second, why did Manafort lodge these arguments as part of a collateral attack on his indictment, rather than directly as a motion to dismiss the indictments? Under Younger abstention, a federal civil rights action will usually be put on hold while the criminal matter is ongoing in state court. Because the criminal prosecution here is in federal court, Younger’s federalism concerns are somewhat inapt, but the guiding principles remain: defendants should challenge the legality of the indictment in the criminal proceeding through a motion to dismiss. This is especially appropriate where a criminal trial has not yet even begun. Finally, this parallel action runs the risk of the district court blessing the basis Mueller’s investigation, which would make it much harder to challenge it on appeal.
Third, there is a wolf that didn’t bark: Manafort did not include a challenge to the Special Counsel’s appointment under the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, as a means to overturn Morrison v. Olson. (This was the basis of Ted Olson’s motion to quash the subpoenas issued by Alexia Morrison.) Manafort cited Justice Scalia's Morrison dissent only in passing. I've written that the regulations under which Mueller was appointed are unconstitutional. Manafort does not even suggest this is a possibility. To the contrary, he refers to the regulations as “carefully crafted” and “binding.” Finally, Manafort makes no reference to the most vulnerable aspect of the regulations: the restrictions on the ability of the Attorney General to remove the Special Counsel. This initial complaint undermines a frontal assault on Morrison.
Unless there is an amended complaint forthcoming, this suit is less a wolf dressed as a sheep, and more a sheep dressed as a wolf.“
Republican-Conservative Character Test:
Q. How easy is it for you to believe something that makes no sense at all, against all odds, just because it would emotionally trouble your deepest held political beliefs?
A. Not very
B. Somewhat
C. Quite a bit
D. Kill all non-Republicans! The revolution is here! We are the Three Percenters! Major Kong! The apocalypse is upon us! This country's ours and no one else's!
I am saving some of Inga's addled comments.
I can't wait to throw them back at her, like the smug, gloating ones she made on Election night 2016 when she thought Hillary would win. She was indulging her sadistic rape fantasies, telling us to "lie back and enjoy it." So much for her phony feminism. Just a few hours later she was choking on her ugly words. What fun that thread was!
.
She learned nothing from prematurely gloating over Walker's recall and Hillary's election because vicious and dull ancient hags learn nothing from past mistakes. So I'm prepared to have a great deal of fun at her expense once again.
That's no fault of yours, as we we may not know yet what your area of expertise is, we can be sure it's not aquaculture.
Definitely not. I saw something lately with a feeding frenzy of I believe pangasius being farm fed in Vietnam and was probably thinking of that instead.
But if you are thinking of supporting or pursuing aquaculture, I recommend RDM shrimping. They've perfected a really cool operation for a major market and without any antibiotics or other crap, either. Pretty remarkable given how low to the bottom feeders shrimp actually are anyway.
Toothless Fuckhead:
Dude, You're just a fucking bore.
Jack yourself up on whatever it was you used to jack yourself up on.
You were interesting then.
“She learned nothing from prematurely gloating over Walker's recall and Hillary's election because vicious and dull ancient hags learn nothing from past mistakes. So I'm prepared to have a great deal of fun at her expense once again.”
Even Trump was shocked he won. Ask Bannon, your heartthrob. He who laughs last, my dear.
Josh Blackman's analysis is interesting but may be irrelevant. Manafort's lawyers are seeking an injunction and declaratory relief claiming that DOJ, Rosenstein and Mueller's actions are arbitrary and capricious -- a classic admin law claim to keep the focus on the appointment and not the indictment. That is a clever and innovative attack. Challenging the indictment is playing on the Special Counsel's turf. DoJ and Mueller may be on the defensive explaining what their limits are rather than why they indicted Manafort.
Blackman may be right and it may not matter. In theory, if Manafort prevails all that happens is the case goes back to DoJ to process in the normal course of business. As he points out, DoJ already reviewed the case, long before the 2016 campaign and Trump was even a candidate, and decided it did not warrant an indictment. It will be very interesting to follow and see what the courts do with it.
Rabel, I have a place in Door County right on Green Bay and when I sit on my deck or on the beach in the spring and early summer I hear the Asian carp jumping and slapping the water constantly. I always assumed it had something to do with mating because I don't hear them in the late summer or fall. And it seems to be much more prevalent in the morning then in the afternoon or evening. The presence or absence of motor boats do not seem to make any difference. That's just my observation.
Who said Steve Bannon was my heartthrob? Not I. You're imagining things again.
I think Bannon imagined himself to be a king maker and thought he could pull Roy Moore over the finish line first even though Trump did not initially endorse more. After Moores loss, Bannon undoubtedly got an earful from Trump and is now butthurt. It's petty and silly and I don't think it's at all important.
By the way did you hear that there's a bit of a disturbance going on now in Iran? And some of the bravest demonstrators are women who are worth 10,000 spoiled pussy hated leftist crybabies. I think that's a bit more significant.
One more point touching on the scope of the SPecial COunsel's appointment: DoJ declined prosecution against Manafort on the same operative facts in 2014. Mueller took it upon himself to re-open the case and over-rule DoJ's decision (which was headed by Loretta Lynch at the time). If Mueller has that authority, it means that Mueller (and DoJ and Rosenstein) think there are no limits to the Special Counsel. Mueller can reverse any decision DoJ has made based upon his own self-serving opinion that it is within his scope.
Al that said there is nothing stopping Rosenstein from clarifying the appointment to say Mueller's authority is limited to Russian interference in the 2016 election and nothing else, and that his appointment expires on a date certain.
I do not believe people in the US farm carp and so as much as they, the fish, might like pellets for chow they are not likely to get them, especially as they feed on the bottom. That said I caught some big ones below the dam in Iowa City. They are like catching a volkswagen if you use a flyrod. All muscle.
I don't know about these Asian ones but I expect they wallow around in the shallows mating like their US compatriots.
A pro-tip. If you witness a crime like money laundering or collusion with a foreign power you are probably better off not to make that revelation in a book you are selling. You might instead blackmail the colluder or launderer or go to the cops. The book approach is not the way to go.
Inga: "Even Trump was shocked he won. Ask Bannon, your heartthrob. He who laughs last, my dear."
******************
Hearsay, naked hearsay. Some guy... claims Bannon.... told him that.... Trump was shocked...SHOCKED...
And Inga of Counsel accepts that hearsay as a FACT.
Snort!
If Inga laughs last, does that mean Hillary is president?
Manafort is defending himself. That is his right. He should pursue any avenues available to defend his rights. Anybody who starts from any other set of assumptions is a partisan unable to set aside prejudice or unfamiliar with the American legal system.
Further, the power of the government in this and every other prosecution must be constrained. That is plain whether reading The Constitution or statutory law. Mueller cannot operate outside the law if we have a system of laws - not men. All Americans should guard against overbroad governmental power lest it someday be turned against them.
Whether Manafort is successful in this or other motions is a secondary issue.
Process is much more important than results.
Imagine supporting a candidate that could not beat a guy who didn't think he could win? A guy who goes on to win. Who goes on to send the stock market into new territory. Who proceeds to provide a confidence level to business not seen in 8 years or more. Who is filling the courts with conservative judges, who has passed a tax law that is already providing companies with the enthusiasm to shell out bonuses to line employees who haven't seen them in years. How miserable would you be to see this through the fury of your own stupid choice.
Even Trump was shocked he won. Ask Bannon, your heartthrob. He who laughs last, my dear.
1/3/18, 8:59 PM
Bannon says the story is a lie.
Even Trump was shocked he won.
You think Trump was shocked? Last I heard Hillary still hasn't stopped hitting the bottle!
Yeah, and nobody much believes Wolff, including Wolff himself.
Walter I believe those tweets are fake.
Ok
So many dickheads, so little time.
NOT addressed to anyone commenting here.
Well, except for Inga and Pedro, that is.
an-ˌti-sə-ˈpā-shən
Keeps 'em goin'
"Is she a goer? eh? nudge nudge wink wink."
Bill Priestap will have something to say about all of this.
Ham radio licence.
Snort.
The Toothless Revolutionary said...
They really see it as the only character virtue worth having: Self-deception.
The DNC "hack" was an inside job. That is why the DNC wouldn't let the FBI look at it's servers.
Here are the Phish mails and the discussions with the IT department. Podesta wasn't hacked by Russians. He is a fucking idiot.
McCabe is retiring. Ohr was demoted. Strzok has been fired. The DOJ, after being threatened with contempt, is releasing the Steele Dossier interviews and paperwork to congress tomorrow. The NYT is shitting itself trying to deflect. Expect Mueller to be facing congress and answering questions about why he called off the investigations of Russian bribery and extortion in 2010 while Hillary was raking in 145 million dollars in "donations" and Obama was signing off on export exemptions on US uranium exports.
There was no "russian hacking." There was nothing to "collude" about. Only douchebags and idiots are still trusting that story.
Obama and Clinton and the FBI colluded to create crimes that they knew never existed. And Trump has the goods. He is stringing you idiots along and he is going to dump the goods on you most likely in September/October.
2018 is going to be better than 2017.
If Trump didn't want to win, why did he collude with the Russians to beat Hillary?
Last I heard Hillary still hasn't stopped hitting the bottle!
Obama, Clinton, the DNC, and the liberal press, too. They deny dignity, life, labor, and the vote, and their principles were exposed by Democrat insiders to America and the world in a multi-trimester progression. So, the special counsel has contributed something positive to stop abortion of democracy at the twilight fringe.
There was no "russian hacking." There was nothing to "collude" about.
There was something to collude about. Obama spying on the Republican candidate and Americans. DNC denying the vote. Clinton colluding with the press and domestic and foreign assets to influence the election, disenfranchise Americans, and fleece the taxpayers in a multi-trimester witch hunt.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा