Below is my column in the Hill newspaper on the filing by Paul Manafort challenging the scope of the Special Counsel investigation. Manafort’s filing of a civil action is quite telling in this circumstance. As a criminal defendant, he can challenge the basis for the charges. This seems like an effort to make a public case with little likelihood of legal success. However, the public tends not to be particularly sympathetic with accused felons complaining that they were arrested by the wrong cop. It is true that Manafort would likely not have been charged absent the Special Counsel investigation. However, that is like complaining about the weather in Washington.
Here is the column:
“Forget it, Jake. It’s Chinatown.” Those were the words from the iconic scene in “Chinatown” when detective Lawrence Walsh stops a grieving Jack Gittes, played by Jack Nicholson, after the death of his love interest. The point was that it is not about fairness. It is about special rules of the seedy and sinister world of Chinatown.
That same advice could be given to Paul Manafort, who just filed a lawsuit against special counsel Robert Mueller, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and the Department of Justice. He is arguing that the charges against him have nothing to do with the original purpose of the special counsel investigation. He is right, but this is Washington.
Manafort is challenging the mandate given to Mueller by Rosenstein as “completely unmoored from the special counsel’s original jurisdiction.” If one were to read the Manafort indictment back on May 17, 2017 when Mueller was appointed, you could see his point. Mueller was appointed after President Trump fired then FBI Director James Comey who was in the midst of investigating Trump and his campaign for Russian collusion. The timing and context of the termination led many of us to support the appointment of a special counsel to guarantee an independent investigation to answer the rising concerns of the public.
Now fast forward five months to Oct. 27, 2017 when Mueller brought down the first indictments in the investigation. The indictment of Manafort and his former partner Richard Gates include 12 counts of conspiracy, money laundering, being an unregistered foreign agent, and failure to pay taxes. All of those crimes allegedly occurred before the campaign and focus on Manafort’s shady business ties.
Manafort is not claiming that the underlying acts are not crimes but that Mueller would not have found them if he stayed focused on Russian collusion. Again, he is probably right, but this is Washington, Paul. It is like complaining about the weather. The long-standing lament in Washington is “One day on the cover of Time, next day doing time.” When you rise above the crowd, everyone gets a long and close look. Manafort is one of those figures who looks much better from afar than close up.
The question for the court is less likely to be where these crimes are related to Russian collusion, but rather whether it really matters. Many of us noted that the Mueller mandate was especially broad. Rosenstein’s primary language is not the problem. He defined the scope of the investigation as “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump.”
He also added that Mueller could investigate “any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a) — including perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses.” That is broad but not undefined. However, he then added eleven words that made that narrow construction irrelevant in allowing Mueller to investigate “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation.” That is like confining commercial fishing to a 100 mile radius “unless any fish are spotted outside of the zone” — whether it is a foot or thousand miles.
Independent counsel investigations have been previously challenged for this type of mission creep, particularly the Whitewater investigation that began with a shady real estate deal in Arkansas and ended with a stained blue dress in Washington. The original mandate given to Robert Fiske and later Ken Starr was fairly specific and well-defined at the time of his appointment.
Fiske understood that he was confined to “investigate whether any individuals or entities have committed a violation of any federal criminal law relating in any way to President William Jefferson Clinton’s or Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s relationships with Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan Association, Whitewater Development Corporation, or Capital Management Services.” However, that mandate also included the right to investigate “any federal criminal law by any person or entity developed during the independent counsel’s investigation referred to above and connected with or arising out of that investigation.”
Starr would seek an expansion of his authority and receive that expansion from the judicial panel. The time and scope of the investigation led irate members of Congress to block the renewal of the independent counsel law. Such investigations in the future would be handled by a new independent counsel guideline. However, those investigations continued with the same killer catch-all provisions that made limitations virtually irrelevant.
For example, in 2003, Patrick Fitzgerald was appointed to investigate leaks that led to the public identification of former CIA officer Valerie Plame. His mandate would seem comfortably narrow given the very specific disclosure of this one CIA officer. However, the mandate included the “plenary” powers and “all the authority of the Attorney General.” The man who signed that sweeping appointment was James Comey.
Faced with challenges to these unlimited mandates, courts have deferred to the prosecutors and Congress in confining the scope of criminal investigations. For example, when Starr handed down indictments against James McDougal, Susan McDougal, and former Arkansas Gov. Jim Guy Tucker, they challenged his mandate. Even though none of the defendants were named in the original appointment, the court said that Starr had the authority to pursue them for crimes that were uncovered by his investigation. The court found that there was “no question” that the indictments “involved the subject matter” of the appointment.
Manafort can argue that, unlike the Whitewater case, his charges are not on the same planet, let alone the same continent. However, there was ample reason for Mueller to investigate Manafort’s finances to look for foreign influence in business arrangements preceding or during the election. He found crimes unrelated to the Russians but they are still properly alleged crimes.
Manafort insists that Mueller’s “appointment order purports to grant authority to the special counsel to expand the scope of his investigation to new matters without the consent of — indeed, without even consulting — any politically accountable officer of the United States.” However, Rosenstein retains the authority to limit that authority or seek the termination of Mueller. In other words, Manafort’s chances of winning in this lawsuit are as remote as Steve Bannon being invited to the next Trump family vacation at Mar-A-Lago.
In the end, most people are not overwhelmed by accused criminals objecting that they were caught by the wrong cop. That does not mean that Manafort is without defenses to these allegations, but he should focus on the trial not the investigation. In other words, “Forget it, Paul. It’s Washington.”
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
Pleased you are back, Paul.
David Benson – thank you, but I am not completely up-to-speed yet. Typing is still a slow process, but my mind seems to be working. 😉
My one finger keying on this mobile device is always slow.
I’m no lawyer but didn’t Professor Turley recently publish and imply support for precisely this position taken by Manafort?
“Judge Dismisses Bundy Case With Prejudice After Finding of Extensive Unethical Conduct By Federal Prosecutors”
OT:
“Darrell Issa, a California Republican, Will Not Seek Re-election to House”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/10/us/politics/darrell-issa-retirement.html
New Speaker in da year of 2019.
Caution: Ten Red Herrings Posing as Strawmen Straight Ahead Just After Natacha’s Post.
Make that an even dozen red herring or twelve strawmen in a row.
They are trained to attack their prey like vultures.
Ken, I love mixed metaphors. They’re one of my favorite things. Stuff a school of red herring in a scarecrow, then wait and see what the vultures have to say about the confounded crows.
LOL! Those sneaky vultures, always ready to attack prey that are already dead. Great metaphor! 🙂
A hit. A palpable hit. I do declare it.
Even da ones dat say they live in California get up early early in da a m to respond. One need not be a trained observer to see da patterns. They are boring and predictable but a reality on social media when it comes to da political discourse.
Yes, Ken, I’ve noticed. But I’m pretty sure Chief Olly’s retort to the vulture barb was impromptu–also known as extemporaneous delivery. As for predictions, The Chief might soon enough twit us for not waking up earlier in the morning than a Californian, or some other variation on that theme.
Let’s see now: are you arguing that if a special prosecutor discovers evidence of a crime in addition to or different from the crime anticipated when the investigation started, he or she should not pursue the matter, and they should ignore the evidence?
No one is disabusing poor Paulie Manafort. If he committed crimes, he should be charged. Ignoring evidence of other crimes would be wrong.
If he committed crimes, he should be charged. Ignoring evidence of other crimes would be wrong.
I agree with the exception that no rights are violated leading to the evidence of a crime.
Olly, that is my fear. Did Mueller utilize powers that would not be allowed if Manafort had been charged and investigated in the normal fashion?
You probably heard of a recent phenomena called swatting. So what happens when someone falsely claims someone has/is committing a crime that leads to LE breaking into the victims home and discovers the alleged crime is false; but they discover other crimes unrelated to reason they broke into the home? I would imagine LE cannot ignore the other crimes but what about the rights of the “victim”? I doesn’t take much of an imagination to see how this could be abused.
If Manafort, President Trump or anyone is discovered to have committed crimes, I would want them prosecuted like everyone else. But regardless of our political passions, we have to defend the rights of everyone equally or we will have no expectation of the security or rights…ever.
“security of rights
It is these types of abuses that tells us we need to have the highest of standards of our judiciary and investigative agencies. That is one of the reasons think the Mueller investigation is wrong. As usual, the target is clean or felt to be clean while someone else goes to jail. With enough depth, one can find wrongdoing in everyone no matter how clean they try to be.
Look at the crooks that are being discovered and their relationship to the real reason for the investigation. Then look at the investigators. Too many have intentionally gone over the line and what are we finding out? That our law enforcement isn’t clean. I recently heard Rothstein and he presents law enforcement as agencies that have many controls and therefore honest actors and an honest system that can be trusted. This type of person hides behind the law but doesn’t enforce it equally. He stated that judges aren’t supposed to look at outcomes when deciding the law which is true, but despite what he said on the same podium on earlier dates two US Supreme Court Judges stated the opposite.
Madison writes in Federalist 48: After discriminating, therefore, in theory, the several classes of power, as they may in their nature be legislative, executive, or judiciary, the next and most difficult task is to provide some practical security for each, against the invasion of the others.
What this security ought to be, is the great problem to be solved. Will it be sufficient to mark, with precision, the boundaries of these departments, in the constitution of the government, and to trust to these parchment barriers against the encroaching spirit of power?
This encroachment of power is not theoretical but proven throughout history. It’s this same abuse of power that will set the state against the people What is most distressing is the people who enable this abuse ignorantly assuming that power will not be a threat to them and their rights.
“What is most distressing is the people who enable this abuse ignorantly assuming that power will not be a threat to them and their rights.”
Totally correct. The Democratic visions of the past involving speech and privacy seem to have vaporized under the Clintons and Obama.
The Democratic visions of the past involving speech and privacy seem to have vaporized under the Clintons and Obama.
Allan,
There are no clean hands here. We do not have a major political party that has cornered the market on respecting the rule of law and separation of powers.
We don’t, but the Democrats of the past seemed more interested in rights than they are today and more recently have become quite autocratic in their concern over the rights of citizens when it suits them politically. I’ve criticized the Republicans for the same type of actions, but in today’s world, I blame the Democrats and their demagoguery a lot more. Presently the Democrats are a greater danger to our personal freedom than are the Republicans.
Here is another example.
However, as we have learned from the Andrew Scott case, there’s an inherent danger in such heavy-handed police requests. If the courts continue to sanction such aggressive, excessive, coercive tactics, it will give police further incentive to terrorize and kill American citizens without fear of repercussion.
https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/on_the_front_lines/u.s._supreme_court_refuses_to_rein_in_aggressive_knock_and_talk_policing_pr
This is an area where “line drawing” enters a discussion and it is very difficult to draw a line. If I am correct Scott was one of the multiple mistakes made and wasn’t even the intended individual to be questioned. This type of mistake will never totally disappear and nor will any killing of a similar nature totally disappear. The best we can do is limit the circumstances where such a problem can occur and thereby eliminate a few deaths. One shouldn’t be using the techniques used to apprehend one who is not violent. Same goes for the entry of Mueller into Manafort’s house in the middle of the night.
Nutchacha,
are you saying the “Special Prosecutor” is not special at all?
Can we turn a “Special Prosecutor” loose on Obama, Hillary, Power, Abedin, Rice, Lynch, Holder, Comey, McCabe, Ohr, Strozk, Page, Lerner, Yates, Farkas, Schultz et al.?
How about Obergruppenfuhrer Mueller himself?
Why stop at President Donald J. Trump?
This just in over the wire from the USA Today way back machine:
“2008: Trump’s son, Donald Trump Jr., told investors in Moscow that the Trump Organization had trademarked the Donald Trump name in Russia and planned to build housing and hotels in Moscow, St. Petersburg and Sochi, and sell licenses to other developers, the Russian daily Kommersant reported. “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets,” Trump Jr. said at the time. “We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.”
Trump Jr. traveled to Russia a half-dozen times in 18 months looking for deals, but none materialized. He said there were plenty of investment opportunities, but the business environment was dangerous and trustworthy partners hard to find. “It really is a scary place,” he said, according to eTurboNews, an online business publication.”
Intriguing. A scary place with a dangerous environment and a shortage of trustworthy partners whose citizens nonetheless make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of the Trump Organizations assets with lots of money pouring in from Russia. Intriguing. Unless, that is, it was just so much bluster off the old block. Which it very well might have been. All the same, since we’re constantly being reminded of how Obama, Clinton and The DNC got us all to where we all are today, surely we can all scooch over a bit to make room for Don Jr.’s blast from the past. After all, he wants us all to let America be America.
Get a “Re-set Button” – Oh, Hillary, WE’RE SAVED!
_________________
“Russian People Got No Reason To Live”
SHORT PEOPLE
Short people got no reason
Short people got no reason
Short people got no reason
To live
They got little hands
And little eyes
And they walk around
Tellin’ great big lies
They got little noses
And tiny little teeth
They wear platform shoes
On their nasty little feet
Well, I don’t want no short people
Don’t want no short people
Don’t want no short people
Round here
Short people are just the same
As you and I
(A fool such as I)
All men are brothers
Until the day they die
(It’s a wonderful world)
Short people got nobody
Short people got nobody
Short people got nobody
To love
They got little baby legs
And they stand so low
You got to pick ’em up
Just to say hello
They got little cars
That got beep, beep, beep
They got little voices
Goin’ peep, peep, peep
They got grubby little fingers
And dirty little minds
They’re gonna get you every time
Well, I don’t want no short people
Don’t want no short people
Don’t want no short people
‘Round here
if they find evidence about other crimes then they should pass those over to the regular FBI and DOJ channels for investigation. in this scenario Mueller and his “crack team” of Hillary supporters are just hogging up taxpayer dollars with their extended fishing expedition. Rosenstein should correct this. He’s an idiot.
Natacha said, “No one is abusing poor Paulie Manafort. If he committed crimes, he should be charged. Ignoring evidence of other crimes would be wrong.”
Olly said, “I agree with the exception that no rights are violated leading to the evidence of a crime.”
Given that Manafort laundered money for the sake of evading taxes on income that he didn’t have to report because he had converted (“laundered”) that income into home equity loans and second mortgages to the tune of $18 million, an estimated $12 million of which is still owed, it supposedly follows that The Special Counsel’s investigation has violated Manafort’s right to default on loans obtained through fraud in just such a way as to renegotiate a more favorable repayment schedule those debts that might allow Manafort to avoid bankruptcy, which is also his right; except that Mueller is forcing Manafort to exercise his right to go bankrupt in the very act of charging Manafort with money laundering etc. And then the federal government can seize the properties that were used as collateral to secure the loans that laundered the money.
Perhaps that’s what Donald Trump Jr. was getting at when he said something like “there are people at the highest levels of government who won’t let America be America.” Because Americans have to report their income. Because Americans have to pay taxes on their reported income. “During the campaign, ” Trump Jr. also said something like, “my father talked about a rigged system and people were like ‘What are you talking about,’ but it is. And you’re seeing that now.” Why does America need a Special Counsel to make a Holy Tax Martyr out of Paul Manafort or anyone else whose name we won’t mention?
It’s so unfair. If Trump pardons Manafort, then the State of New York prosecutes Manafort. If Trump doesn’t pardon Manafort, then Robert Swan Mueller III prosecutes Manafort. Either Trump pardons Manafort or Trump doesn’t pardon Manafort. Either Manafort is prosecuted or Manafort is prosecuted. Surely that is not what The Framers intended by guaranteeing the several States sovereign rights. Is it???
About that IV bag shortage:
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20180103/NEWS/180109976/iv-bags-in-short-supply-across-us-after-hurricane-maria
“About 45 percent of electricity customers still don’t have power on the island, where 30 percent of the gross domestic product comes from medical and pharmaceutical products like IV bags, sophisticated cancer drugs, glucose monitors and cardiac pacemakers.
“A California man took to social media, posting on Twitter about how the medical supply shortage affected hospital care for his wife, who has an inoperable brain tumor. His Dec. 28 tweet brought public attention to the issue, a fact check from the website Snopes, and an update from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
“The man, Ben Boyer, tweeted: “My wife’s nurse had to stand for 30 mins & administer a drug slowly through a syringe because there are almost no IV bags in the continental U.S. anymore. See, they were all manufactured in a Puerto Rican factory which still isn’t fixed…””
The rest of Ben Boyer’s tweet:
“My wife’s nurse had to stand for 30 mins & administer a drug slowly through a syringe because there are almost no IV bags in the continental U.S. anymore. See, they were all manufactured in a Puerto Rican factory which still isn’t fixed. Meanwhile that stupid swollen prick golfs.
“This is true. Hospitals in both Puerto Rico and the mainland United States have reported shortages of intravenous fluids and bags since Maria tore through the island — where several medical manufacturing plants are located — in September 2017. According to a Food and Drug Administration analysis released in November 2017, medical manufacturing is a significant part of the island’s economy…”
https://www.snopes.com/did-maria-cause-an-iv-bag-shortage/
The FDA exerts a lot of control on the sale of these IV bags along with where they can be bought. Is government incompetence involved? I think so. We had a shortage recently around 2014.
Yes, Allan. Hurricanes are obvious instances of government incompetence, given the profound unwillingness of The Food and Drug Administration to prepare contingency plans for the foreseeable effects of global warming upon the size, severity and frequency of hurricanes. Why else would the FDA have backed out of The Paris Climate Accord??? Quod erat daimonsterandum.
Stupidity doesn’t permit preparation for events that are known to occur. What makes such stupidity even more stupid is placing all of one’s eggs in a single basket. When the stupidity doesn’t stop there and we were forwarned in 2014 of shortages of IV bags at that time it makes one wonder about what those who are supposed to watch out for these problems are doing. In the past, we have had the same problems with many other things some quite common such as flu vaccine and tetanus vaccine. One should question these failures, but that requires a bit of knowledge larger than a sound bite.
To you, preparedness means little because you depend upon a government agency to pick up after your mistakes. Who picks up after the government’s mistakes?
In 2004, former Colorado Governor Richard Lamm (D) gave a speech that foretold the events happening today.
A Plan to Destroy America.
https://www.truthorfiction.com/lamm/
https://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/payn_c15497420180106120100.jpg
Olly. thanks for posting this. Just a few minutes ago I read an article about Switzerland’s new civil rights law pertaining to people residing there (primarily refugees/economic migrants) who seek citizenship.
If they have received welfare for the last 3 years they must pay back the state
They must demonstrate a defined level of fluency
To ensure they are integrated into their new country they have to prove they have a number of friends/acquaintances
A new civil rights act has come into force in Switzerland that prevents residents who have been on welfare in the past three years from becoming citizens unless they pay back the money they received to the state.
Switzerland has four official languages and certain cultural distinctions, BUT they are all Swiss citizens first and foremost.
There has been some predictable outcry from the EU globalists, but Switzerland is determined not to allow the country to disintegrate into Balkanized regions.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/01/10/switzerland-rejects-citizenship-bids-residents-welfare/
Thanks Autumn. I wonder if issac considers Switzerland to be one of the more advanced democracies he’s fond of touting?
The primary question that remains about the investigation is if Republicans and right wing media will put country first, now that the richest 0.1% have their tax giveaway.
Conservatives generally put the country first more than leftists.
Maybe the following video will help you better understand taxes. It is short and simple to understand.
Allan believes this: “Conservatives generally put the country first more than leftists.
…which is total BS.
And he loves to post his little tax story.
Anonymous = toxic BS
“And he loves to post his little tax story.” If you had a brain you would explain why the story is good or bad. But it appears you do not have one so you post drivel.
“Never wrestle with a pig…” applies. You want an “argument?” Go have it with someone else.
Murdoch, the Mercers, the Koch’s, Gates and their cronies wield a lot of power to concentrate wealth, by exploiting the proudly ignorant among the 99%.
“Never wrestle with a pig…”
Anonymous, I think that aphorism is overplayed. I wrestle with you all the time and it hasn’t seemed to cause me any problems porkchop.
“Porkchop”? Allan, that sounds like a term of endearment =)
“Porkchop”? Allan, that sounds like a term of endearment =)”
LOL
You forgot to add Stalinist to Porkchop, Ezekiel Bulver.
I don’t know if porkchop has the intellectual ability to be considered a Stalinist. Not much is needed for as we have seen you have risen in the ranks enough so that your blindfolds are secure.
They have to cut da Medicare and Security before they are voted out next year. A year from now you could be talkin Madame Speaker again.
That’d be fine, Ken; so long as Grandma Nancy restores the benefits to Medicare and Social Security just so soon as she could. Otherwise . . . Yikes. We’ll need sixty votes in the Senate to override a veto. Wait a second. We’d need that either way. Better make our stand now. But how???
CV Brown – I have in the hospital with pneumonia since last Weds. They carted me out by ambulance to Emergency at 4 am. Got \back last night.
If you are feeling better, Paul, we’re all glad.
Good to hear you are back. Was this caused by the flu?
Allan – the ONE thing they all agreed on was that I did not have the flu. It took several days of in-fighting between various doctors representing various parts of my body to finally decide it was pneumonia, and only because it showed up on the CT scan of my chest. They were giving me a broad-spectrum antibiotic which changed to a target antibiotic when they made the final decision.
We are having a flu epidemic right now and the hospitals are stacking patients in the corridors until they get them a room, The patients are still getting nursing care.
Paul understood. It wasn’t the “flu”, but did you first have the flu and then get secondary pneumonia or did you just get pneumonia without any previous flu.
“in-fighting” That sounds peculiar.
Allan – I never had the flu, but had some kind of cold that just went bonkers. I was so out of it, the infighting was kind of funny.
Maybe that was the flu. I’m glad you are better.
Paul: you can have influenza AND pneumonia. The flu weakens your immune system, allowing bacteria or other organisms to take hold. It’s just like a viral cold–you can also acquire strep throat for the same reason, and therefore, a strep test early on in an illness might be negative at first but positive later on, requiring an antibiotic. So, please don’t be upset with your doctors. Also, as to the flu, the vaccine is only 10% effective, so maybe the tests they use for identifying proteins of the flu virus are similarly not effective or accurate. Flu virus has an amazing ability to mutate, which is why vaccines are often ineffective. (P.S.: I used to work for the health department of a major city).
Natacha – I got exceptional care, just the food fight over what I might or might not have was an issue. They were treating me with a broad-spectrum antibiotic anyway. They just switched to a targeted antibiotic when they decided.
Sounds like you’re getting very prudent care. Hope you recover quickly.
Welcome back, Paul. Glad to hear that you’re on the mend.
Did you ever get the pneumonia vaccine?
Tom Nash – I have had 2 pneumonia shots, supposedly the legal limit. However, there are variant strains of pneumonia, just like flu,
Paul, Good to have you back. I’ve read a lot about a critical IV bag shortage because a factory in Puerto Rico is off line. Any observations?
I visited P.R. before the hurricane and was surprised to learn that medical equipment was such a large component of their economy.
Linda, It was news to me as well.
Nick – they more than used up their share of IV bags on me. I didn’t overhear anything while I was hospitalized about a shortage
Glad to see you are out of the hospital and on the mends.
Paul, glad to hear you are okay. You have been missed!
Autumn – thanks. Right now I feel like the barely walking wounded.
My question is would all the methods of discovery by Mueller have been legal if this investigation was performed through normal means? If not my guess is that there is a major problem.
I agree, it IS “Chinatown”, but I find it disturbing anyway. In a “clean” justice system, the issue of “the right cop” shouldn’t count. But the appointment of an independent counsel is NOTHING if not a political act. An independent counsel would never be appointed if the DOJ could be counted on to be unbiased. That means the issues to be explored by the independent counsel are expected to be clearly limited to issues that made the appointment NECESSARY. When we allow the IC to expand the area of inquiry, it tends to justify the appointment, even if nothing comes from the investigation where bias was ever thought to be a threat. Manafort has a right to point out that the DOJ never investigated him for what he was eventually charged with because it saw no reason to go there in the first place.
igpres said, “An independent counsel would never be appointed if the DOJ could be counted on to be unbiased.”
The presumed bias of the DOJ presumably explains Ken Starr’s Whitewater investigation.
igpres also said, “That means the issues to be explored by the independent counsel are expected to be clearly limited to issues that made the appointment NECESSARY.”
That last constraint no longer explains Ken Starr’s Whitewater investigation. It is a fascinating curiosity though. If we can’t count on the DOJ to be impartial because they work for The POTUS. And If we can’t count on any Office of The Special Counsel to stay within the scope of an investigation, because it works for the DOJ who work for The POTUS. Then The Congress has the only remaining bodies that we can count on to investigate the executive branch. But does that mean that Congress is impartial??? Ask Trump today; he’d probably say yes. Ask Trump again in 2019; he’ll probably say no.
Hey! Wait a second. Why can’t we count on Mueller to stay within the scope of the investigation? Because he works for the DOJ? But the DOJ works for The POTUS, which is why they can’t be trusted to be impartial to The POTUS, which is why we need an Office of the Special Counsel to investigate the executive branch in an impartial manner. Is staying within the scope of the investigation “partial” or “impartial” to the executive branch? Or is it just the latest thing about which the supporters of The POTUS are grousing?
This whole cluster coitus, when broken down to the lowest common denominator, is a-hole v a-hole.
Mr. Spinelli, Sir, don’t be upset, but at least one of those a-holes needs to be a capitalized A-hole.
Is the name “Mueller”of German origin? Scot? Irish? English?
We could call the storyi Germantown.
He is not Chinese.
As for Mueller: call him Fruitloops.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/08/us/politics/mueller-trump-interview-russia-investigation.html
Honorable President Donald J. Trump,
tell that corrupt, “deep state” traitor to go pound sand.
Obergurppenfuhrer Mueller’s next stop is not the White House,
it is the “Big House.”
George, don’t stop thinking about tomorrow. Don’t stop. It’ll soon be here. It’ll be better than before. Yesterday’s gone. Yesterday’s gone.
Good for Manafort. Hey, Clive Bundy won. I hope Manafort wins too – even if it is only by exposing the Goliath corruption in the process.
When your client has no interest in rolling over, and your client has the means to throw Hail Mary passes like this lawsuit, you go for it. Been there, done that. It is a Hail Mary pass inside or outside of the beltway, notwithstanding Turley’s DC – centric explanation.
I hope that Manafort gets what he deserves.
David
I deal with tax related controversies, civil and criminal, including potential FBAR violations, every day. Barring a lightning strike or a pardon, Manafort will go down.
Don, why won’t Manafort roll over on . . . who-knows-who???
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/10/30/paul-manafort-and-rick-gates-timeline-links-between-trumps-campaign-and-Russia/812567001/
https://theintercept.com/2017/10/30/paul-manafort-money-laundering-scheme-was-identified-months-ago/
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/24/fbi-investigates-russian-linked-cyprus-bank-accused-of-money-laundering
Possibly Because he does not want to be Jimmy Hoffa’s neighbor.
Oh! That’s different. Never mind.
P. S. Might that theory work for Trump as well???
OMG! Who does this Oleg Deripaska fella think he is, anyhow???
Off topic.
That brain of yours is not very nimble. Most of the contributors here are likely capable of reading posts and moving on without comment. You on the other hand seem to find it your duty to monitor these threads and run traffic control. Are you on the spectrum?
Off rocker.
🙂
There were agencies available to catch or release Manafort on each of the crimes alleges. They did not do it, for whatever reason. I think Manafort might strike a blow against Mueller and his minions with this suit.
Paul:
Your keyword is “might,” and I agree. For one thing, I have a different interpretation of the specific language of Mueller’s mandate than Turley , where Turley quotes that is says that Mueller can investigate/prosecute “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation.”
Without reliance on legal precedents that Turley is likely familiar with but I’m not, I would interpret matters arising “directly from the investigation” to mean crimes committed DURING the investigation — such as lying, concealing evidence, etc. — and I wouldn’t interpret matters “arising directly from” the investigation to mean matters UNCOVERED BY the investigation, unless they were related to the Russian election-interference or collusion matter — something that concerned both Russians and the election.
Language is everything — unless, of course, it is ignored — and most people use language very sloppily, to the point where what they actually say — the words they use — aren’t actually what they MEAN to say.
My experience is that statutory issues can be overcome due to the precise language used in the statute — that if a case is brought upon somewhat loose interpretation of statutory language, then that case can be defeated by arguing about the language of the statute having been misinterpreted by the prosecutor. I don’t know that the mandate given to a special counsel can be subjected that same analytical process as can be applied to statutory language, but I know of no reason that it shouldn’t be — and that might be what Manafort’s doing. I’d do it, too.
Even in guilt of some offense, a person can help clean up the system by making the government play by a fixed set of rules instead of allowing them to make up the rules as the go along. It was a bootlegger bringing a case against the government for unlawful wiretapping — he lost the case — Olmstead vs. USA 277 U.S. 438 (1928) — which lead the Supreme Court to first consider the issue of electronic surveillance (wiretapping) by the government. As I said, he WAS a bootlegger and he DID lose the case, but it began the process of formulating electronic surveillance law, and by the next electronic surveillance issue the show up at the Supreme Court, the tide had turned and the need for restrictions on electronic surveillance by the government had become more clear.
So, go for it, Manafort. Tell them what “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation” is SUPPOSED to mean.
“Manafort will strike a blow against Mueller”… because Paul’s reputation for honorable behavior is remotely similar to that of Mueller’s?- only in Fox world.
William Bayer said, “I would interpret matters arising “directly from the investigation” to mean crimes committed DURING the investigation — such as lying, concealing evidence, etc. — ”
That is precisely what Manafort’s alleged crimes entail–an ongoing conspiracy to conceal ill-gotten income that was not reported for tax purposes, because it had been laundered through home equity loans, second mortgages and mortgages to pay off mortgages obtained by fraud for the purpose of evading taxes as well.
There’s a link downstream to The Intercept that explains Manafort’s money-laundering scheme.
Make that link to The Intercept upstream from here, instead.
PCS,
“They did not do it, for whatever reason.”
They were busy enhancing and expanding the “deep state,” llater, preparing for a coup d’etat in America.
To wit,
LEAKING:
The Hill
“In one exchange, FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok and bureau lawyer Lisa Page engaged in a series of texts shortly before Election Day 2016 suggesting they knew in advance about an article in The Wall Street Journal and would need to feign stumbling onto the story so it could be shared with colleagues.
“Article is out, but hidden behind paywall so can’t read it,” Page texted Strzok on Oct. 24, 2016.
“Wsj? Boy that was fast,” Strzok texted back, using the initials of the famed financial newspaper. “Should I ‘find’ it and tell the team?”
____________________
STRATEGIZING:
On a potential Trump 2016 election victory:
“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office – that there’s no way he gets elected – but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk,” Strzok texted on Aug. 15, 2016. “It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”
– Peter Strzok to his paramour Lisa Page in the office of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.
“However, the public tends not to be particularly sympathetic with accused felons complaining that they were arrested by the wrong cop.”
____________________________________________________________________________________
Are the “right cops” who apparently failed to nab Manafort on the dates of his crimes and/or in the proper jurisdictions of his crimes going to be prosecuted for dereliction, negligence, favoritism, corruption, abuse of power under color of authority, incompetence, malfeasance, racketeering, etc., etc.? And what of the related regulators and adjudicators? These are all compensated positions I presume; perhaps they’re all unpaid volunteers.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wKjxFJfcrcA
“When you’re taking the heaviest flak, you’re directly over the target.”
Bombs away!