Boom!!!! Judge in Manafort case says Mueller only wants to hurt Trump

[tinydancer]

It's a kick to watch conservative snowflakes act like they know the law.

LOL

The IG gave the goods on McCabe. The Judge basically said what we've been saying all along. Judicial Watch has the other goods that need to be brought into investigation. Not to mention the Full IG report is not out nor the investigation of the FISA warrants from a prosecuter with the DOJ.

Mueller isn't up against amateurs...............And your side just got smacked in the face today whether you like it or not.

McCabe has not a thing to do with this motion, fool.

You can't figure out examples of this investigation being allowed in this precious thread now can you...........

Bottom line.................Judicial Branch is not beholding to the executive branch.........maybe one day you'll understand that.

Beholden? The court has no authority to tell the Deputy AG how to conduct investigations.

Good luck in your quest...

Your about to get a lesson about Scope of Authority...This Judge is about to throw the whole mess out for gross prosecutorial misconduct.

This Judge figured out they had no authority in Manafort's case to do squat.. that is why he wanted to see all memos on the investigations authorities. If he throws these out as not concurring with the laws regulating the special counsel or find they violated their mandate, the judge could kill the investigations outright as being unlawful.

This could not end well.. and if they refuse to give him access to these documents he could kill them with prejudice as being unlawful.. This is one judge who wont screw around with the crap Mueller is doing.

The memo is the key. The fact that Mueller conducted that vile raid on Manafort's home BEFORE the memo was written that authorized him to do so and that anyone supports this action is appalling.

 

[tinydancer]

This Judge is about to throw the whole mess out for gross prosecutorial misconduct.

Haha...wow. pure, delusional, Trumpkin fantasy. If anything, this judge is going to get himself removed from this case with his comments.

In your dreams.

That doesn't make any sense. I don't care if the judge is removed or not. Of the two of us, you are the only one letting your personal fetishes could your judgment.

Personal fetishes? WTF?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

This Judge is about to throw the whole mess out for gross prosecutorial misconduct.

Haha...wow. pure, delusional, Trumpkin fantasy. If anything, this judge is going to get himself removed from this case with his comments.

In your dreams.

That doesn't make any sense. I don't care if the judge is removed or not. Of the two of us, you are the only one letting your personal fetishes could your judgment.

Personal fetishes? WTF?

Correct. Your Trump fetish is making you behave bizarrely. Such as, your hysterical defense of a Russian toadiewho laundered Russian mob money and wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.

I gotta say, it is very odd to watch.

 

[tinydancer]

This Judge is about to throw the whole mess out for gross prosecutorial misconduct.

Haha...wow. pure, delusional, Trumpkin fantasy. If anything, this judge is going to get himself removed from this case with his comments.

In your dreams.

That doesn't make any sense. I don't care if the judge is removed or not. Of the two of us, you are the only one letting your personal fetishes could your judgment.

Personal fetishes? WTF?

Correct. Your Trump fetish is making you behave bizarrely. Such as, your hysterical defense of a Russian toadiewho laundered Russian mob money and wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.

I gotta say, it is very odd to watch.

What Trump fetish? What hysterical defense of Manafort? I've yet seen any evidence whatsoever to declare him guilty of jack shit.

Have you received any evidence that I don't know about to come to your conclusion that he is a Russian toadie?

 

[Billy_Bob]

This Judge is about to throw the whole mess out for gross prosecutorial misconduct.

Haha...wow. pure, delusional, Trumpkin fantasy. If anything, this judge is going to get himself removed from this case with his comments.

This judge exposed gross prosecutorial misconduct. If you think that will get him removed your smoking to much dope... The judge has every right to determine if they were acting within their scope or if they were over stepping their authority.

Gawd you idiots are like sheep with blinders on following the bell..

 

[JakeStarkey]

The conservotopia of the far right stasi-goons are unhappy today. Gross misconduct by prosecutors following the Rosenstein remit to Mueller.

Oh, poor little MAGAs, you day and week and weeks and months are going to get far worse.

Watch it grow unimaginably worse for them by the day after November elections.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

It's a kick to watch conservative snowflakes act like they know the law.

LOL

The IG gave the goods on McCabe. The Judge basically said what we've been saying all along. Judicial Watch has the other goods that need to be brought into investigation. Not to mention the Full IG report is not out nor the investigation of the FISA warrants from a prosecuter with the DOJ.

Mueller isn't up against amateurs...............And your side just got smacked in the face today whether you like it or not.

McCabe has not a thing to do with this motion, fool.

You can't figure out examples of this investigation being allowed in this precious thread now can you...........

Bottom line.................Judicial Branch is not beholding to the executive branch.........maybe one day you'll understand that.

Beholden? The court has no authority to tell the Deputy AG how to conduct investigations.

Good luck in your quest...

Your about to get a lesson in "Scope of Authority"...This Judge is about to throw the whole mess out for gross prosecutorial misconduct.

This Judge figured out they had no authority in Manafort's case to do squat.. that is why he wanted to see all memos on the investigations authorities. If he throws these out as not concurring with the laws regulating the special counsel or find they violated their mandate, the judge could kill the investigations outright as being unlawful.

This could not end well.. and if they refuse to give him access to these documents he could kill them with prejudice as being unlawful.. This is one judge who wont screw around with the crap Mueller is doing.

This Judge figured out they had no authority in Manafort's case to do squat..

How do you figure?

The AG, or Deputy AG in this case, is the only one with the authority to determine the scope of their own investigation.

This could not end well.. and if they refuse to give him access to these documents he could kill them with prejudice as being unlawful.. This is one judge who wont screw around with the crap Mueller is doing.

They already have the documents, dope.

Prosecutors: Rosenstein gave Mueller OK to probe, indict Manafort

"However, Mueller's team submitted a previously undisclosed memo to a federal court in Washington showing that a few months after Mueller was appointed last May, Rosenstein gave him explicit authority to target Manafort over the financial aspects of his lobbying work for the Ukrainian government — in addition to allegations he was linked to Russian interference in the 2016 election.

"The May 17, 2017 [appointment] order was worded categorically in order to permit its release without confirming specific investigations involving specific individuals," Rosenstein wrote in the Aug. 2, 2017 memo. "The following allegations were within the scope of the Investigation at the time of your appointment and are within the scope of the Order: ... Allegations that Paul Manafort: Committed a crime or crimes by colluding with Russian government officials with respect to the Russian government's efforts to interfere with the 2016 election for President of the United States, in violation of United States law. Committed a crime or crimes arising out of payments he received from the Ukrainian government before and during the tenure of President Viktor Yanukovych."

 

[JakeStarkey]

The judge's orders have no legs. Rosenstein's remit cut them off when issued.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

This Judge is about to throw the whole mess out for gross prosecutorial misconduct.

Haha...wow. pure, delusional, Trumpkin fantasy. If anything, this judge is going to get himself removed from this case with his comments.

This judge exposed gross prosecutorial misconduct. If you think that will get him removed your smoking to much dope... The judge has every right to determine if they were acting within their scope or if they were over stepping their authority.

Gawd you idiots are like sheep with blinders on following the bell..

judge has every right to determine if they were acting within their scope or if they were over stepping their authority.

Except Rosenstein determines the scope and approves any actions taken by Mueller before they are taken. You're circle jerking with this one.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The judge's orders have no legs. Rosenstein's remit cut them off when issued.

The motion was a hail mary for the defense. The actions of attorneys with few options.
The weakness of their premise was easily shown.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The defense had to try, and even with a syco judge, it could availeth nothing.

 

[WEATHER53]

Boom indeed
BoomBoom. Out go the lights

 

[Ridgerunner]

shit is about to hit the fan

--LOL

a couple more of the thugs cleared out of the fbi tonight

--LOL

jon sources told me that they just wanted to spend more time with their families...

 

[tinydancer]

This Judge is about to throw the whole mess out for gross prosecutorial misconduct.

Haha...wow. pure, delusional, Trumpkin fantasy. If anything, this judge is going to get himself removed from this case with his comments.

This judge exposed gross prosecutorial misconduct. If you think that will get him removed your smoking to much dope... The judge has every right to determine if they were acting within their scope or if they were over stepping their authority.

Gawd you idiots are like sheep with blinders on following the bell..

judge has every right to determine if they were acting within their scope or if they were over stepping their authority.

Except Rosenstein determines the scope and approves any actions taken by Mueller before they are taken. You're circle jerking with this one.

Tell that to Judge Ellis. And keep in mind whatever is in or not in that memo Ellis can bounce Manafort's case out of court.

 

[WEATHER53]

Mueller thought he was legal ruler of the planet
Figured wrong Bobby

 

[BULLDOG]

Stop believing RW propaganda. Get a fucking brain.

You poor silly RWNJ. You still look at the situation as a competition between Trump and Hillary. Here's a news flash for you. That election was over a long time ago. This is about the criminal activity of our current orange president. Try to catch up.

Use google...............and confirm it your dang self...........He was on that board............They were CHARGED with MONEY LAUNDERING to the drug Cartels..................

He quit and became TOP DOG............and they gave money to the Clinton Foundation.......I've shown that evidence on other threads from multiple sources.............

Now hold your nose and blow as hard as you can and maybe you can dislodge your head from your ass.

Mueller isn't up against Amateurs.............This is a knife fight..................and your side is starting to lose.....Why...because the Truth wins the day..........Only evidence of Collusion is your side.......Lying FBI officials LEAKING everything to the press.................

KARMA...........deal with it.

Ummm, I would like to point out a VERY important point-------->

According to the policy of the DOJ and justice department under BOTH party's, a sitting President can NOT be indicted. He can be impeached, but not indicted. This law/rule, has NOT changed. It was spelled out on multiple occasions that to indict, a President must be out of office.

So you might ask, "so Whosure, you are saying that once Trump leaves office, he is in a world of hurt!"

Maybe yes, maybe no. If they go into his business dealings, I suppose anything is possible.............but I wasn't bringing that statement up thinking about Trump. The key word is "sitting!" Soooooooooo, can you think of any non-sitting Presidents who can now be indicted, possibly for civil rights violations, or money laundering into a foundation-)

Would you mind pointing out which law, or written policy says that?

Sure, and it was decided both in 1972 or 73, and by the DOJ during the Clinton impeachment hearings. The SC will uphold the law, no doubt about it!

So how did they get Clinton into court before his impeachment?

His lawyer said, "no way Jose!" But Clinton basically said, "I got this," and against his lawyers advice, got hosed.

Understand, his lawyer was 100% correct----------> the President has no moral obligation, nor credible compunction under the constitution, to discuss his sex life in public. BJ would NOT listen to his lawyers. He lied in the deposition, which was why he was impeached, basically a process crime also.

Still, he could NOT be compelled to testify, basically he volunteered. Maybe Arkansas is much closer to Tennessee then we are aware of, but New York is not, so unless Trump is as dumb as a box of rocks, he will not be a Tennessean and volunteer.

Remember, and this is key------------->Clinton did NOT get impeached for "having sex with that woman," he got impeached on a process crime of lying about "having sex with that woman," along with other small lies on how he handled "other women."

By the way Bulldoggy, are you male, female, or transgender? Why do I ask? Because if you are FEMALE, you are untrustworthy, and at the whims of your wildly swinging hormones-)

Why would I say that?

What have we found out about Kennedy from the women he was involved with? Can't keep their mouths shut, depending upon the cycle, now can they!

What about Bill Clinton? What was up with all that? He was turned in by the skirt patrol, if as you Leftists believe everything was consensual. So if those chicklets are lying and everything was all "we are horny, lets do it," then you females again threw someone under the bus because they made you feel good. Women are VIPERS, wouldn't you agree! And to think, all the women ole BJ was doing, were working for him, so they are DEMOCRATS! So, I guess Democratic women have no control over their hormonal shifts, or is BJ lying-)

And then we have Trump, and a pornstar, lol. Now, I got a DIFFERENT question than most-------------> is THUNDERSTORM a Leftist, or is she a conservative church goer, lololol? Wait, wait, you mean another Leftist/liberal/Democratic/Socialistic woman who actually signs a NDA, has her hormones rage, and all of the sudden she can't control herself or stick with contracts she has made?!?!?!?! You Leftist women are weak, no wonder you shouldn't be in the military, or in business, or most anywhere else unless a man is there to guide you doing your hormonal time! Of course, when you are over 50 or so and dry up like a prune, I suppose it is ok as your hormones calm down-)

How about good ole Harvey Weinstein-) Why Harvey, Bill, and Hilly, were all friends-) I got tons of pics of the internet with them all together. Want me to post them?!?!?!?! All those Lefty actresses, kept their mouthes shut, kinda like the bimbos did with Clinton. Then all of the sudden, BAM, all the leftist womens cycles got in sync, and they blabbed and blubbered.

Good ole Harveys chicks became the "me too" movement. BJs chicks, became bimbo eruptions. Why is that Mz Hypocrite-)

Truth is----->Lefty women can't control themselves. The hormones are to much for them. Just look at them........they put plastic vaginas on their heads, march around, and act idiotic, sleep with men, then claim it is all the mans fault depending upon their hormonal cycle, they demand they can kill little girls in the womb, they insist they want equal rights, but refuse to give up their SPECIAL rights not to have to qualify for a job as a man does.

You Leftist women are PHONY-BALONEYS!

And as far as Sarah-Huckaby-Sanders..........I got a question for you men--------> you are stranded on an island alone with your 7 year old child for 6 months to a year. Who you want to find on the beach--->

1. Sarah Sanders

2. Thunderstormy

3. Bullsh**dog

I take Mz Sanders 11 times out of 10-)

I'm glad you were able to get that out of your system. Sounds like it;s been building up on you a while, and you just had to spout off or explode. You should feel better now. I think it's funny that you can't tell if I;m a man or a woman, so I'll just let you try to figure that out for yourself. The rest of your diatribe is just crap.

 

[BULLDOG]

Did the FBI indict her? Moron. You think she owns the FBI and every other law enforcement agency in the US? You're an idiot. Your brain is nothing but mush.

They wrote exoneration papers for her before her and other key witnesses even testified.......One business day after her testimony and they cleared her. The Clinton Foundation got over 90 million in laundered money from HSBC.....Bank........and low and behold............guess who used to be on the board there................COMEY........nice job bro..........sit back do nothing and rake in the dough..........quite there to be the top dog at the FBI.............WOOF WOOF..............

This same bank laundered over a 100 million to the drug cartels...........no one went to jail..........Talk about Corruption and LAWLESSNESS...............no justice..............They freaking funded Drug Cartels..............This country is fucked.

Stop believing RW propaganda. Get a fucking brain.

And how long did it take for the voices in your head to convince you of all that?

Nope, lotsa research, and what did I say that was a lie. All facts in evidence. You just aren't paying attention. I watch BOTH sides of the news believe it or not.

So, tell us.........what you got on the collusion/delusion? Tell us 1 thing tied to Trump, anything. They have multiples tied to the Hillary campaign. Now you tell everyone how that statement is a lie!

Did or did NOT the Obama officials DENY their was a FISA warrant pertaining to the Trump campaign? Was that a lie or not-) I can go on, and on, but you already know everything I am going to say........for the most part..........and I know everything you can NOT say, lolol!

You poor silly RWNJ. You still look at the situation as a competition between Trump and Hillary. Here's a news flash for you. That election was over a long time ago. This is about the criminal activity of our current orange president. Try to catch up.

They wrote exoneration papers for her before her and other key witnesses even testified.......One business day after her testimony and they cleared her. The Clinton Foundation got over 90 million in laundered money from HSBC.....Bank........and low and behold............guess who used to be on the board there................COMEY........nice job bro..........sit back do nothing and rake in the dough..........quite there to be the top dog at the FBI.............WOOF WOOF..............

This same bank laundered over a 100 million to the drug cartels...........no one went to jail..........Talk about Corruption and LAWLESSNESS...............no justice..............They freaking funded Drug Cartels..............This country is fucked.

Stop believing RW propaganda. Get a fucking brain.

Use google...............and confirm it your dang self...........He was on that board............They were CHARGED with MONEY LAUNDERING to the drug Cartels..................

He quit and became TOP DOG............and they gave money to the Clinton Foundation.......I've shown that evidence on other threads from multiple sources.............

Now hold your nose and blow as hard as you can and maybe you can dislodge your head from your ass.

Mueller isn't up against Amateurs.............This is a knife fight..................and your side is starting to lose.....Why...because the Truth wins the day..........Only evidence of Collusion is your side.......Lying FBI officials LEAKING everything to the press.................

KARMA...........deal with it.

Ummm, I would like to point out a VERY important point-------->

According to the policy of the DOJ and justice department under BOTH party's, a sitting President can NOT be indicted. He can be impeached, but not indicted. This law/rule, has NOT changed. It was spelled out on multiple occasions that to indict, a President must be out of office.

So you might ask, "so Whosure, you are saying that once Trump leaves office, he is in a world of hurt!"

Maybe yes, maybe no. If they go into his business dealings, I suppose anything is possible.............but I wasn't bringing that statement up thinking about Trump. The key word is "sitting!" Soooooooooo, can you think of any non-sitting Presidents who can now be indicted, possibly for civil rights violations, or money laundering into a foundation-)

Would you mind pointing out which law, or written policy says that?

Key here is that the President has to be impeached and removed from office before he can be put on trial.

Constitutional scholar opinion: In a 1997 paper titled Presidential Privilege Against Prosecution, Michigan State University law professor Brian Kalt and co-author Akhil Reed Amar referred to the presidency as “constitutionally distinct” compared with other elected offices. With such enormous responsibilities, he believes the president’s job cannot be impeded before the president is formally removed from office.

“The president cannot be prosecuted until he has left office, and the impeachment process is the only constitutional way to hasten that day,” Kalt told WikiTribune. “But once he has left office, he is fair game.”

Founding Father opinion: Alexander Hamilton is often cited for his position that a president cannot be indicted while in office. He inferred as much in the Federalist Papers in 1778, a document with no authority, but great legal value.

“The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law,” wrote Hamilton before becoming the nation’s first U.S. Treasury Secretary.'

Can a sitting president be indicted?

We'll see.

 

[BULLDOG]

Stop believing RW propaganda. Get a fucking brain.

You poor silly RWNJ. You still look at the situation as a competition between Trump and Hillary. Here's a news flash for you. That election was over a long time ago. This is about the criminal activity of our current orange president. Try to catch up.

Use google...............and confirm it your dang self...........He was on that board............They were CHARGED with MONEY LAUNDERING to the drug Cartels..................

He quit and became TOP DOG............and they gave money to the Clinton Foundation.......I've shown that evidence on other threads from multiple sources.............

Now hold your nose and blow as hard as you can and maybe you can dislodge your head from your ass.

Mueller isn't up against Amateurs.............This is a knife fight..................and your side is starting to lose.....Why...because the Truth wins the day..........Only evidence of Collusion is your side.......Lying FBI officials LEAKING everything to the press.................

KARMA...........deal with it.

Ummm, I would like to point out a VERY important point-------->

According to the policy of the DOJ and justice department under BOTH party's, a sitting President can NOT be indicted. He can be impeached, but not indicted. This law/rule, has NOT changed. It was spelled out on multiple occasions that to indict, a President must be out of office.

So you might ask, "so Whosure, you are saying that once Trump leaves office, he is in a world of hurt!"

Maybe yes, maybe no. If they go into his business dealings, I suppose anything is possible.............but I wasn't bringing that statement up thinking about Trump. The key word is "sitting!" Soooooooooo, can you think of any non-sitting Presidents who can now be indicted, possibly for civil rights violations, or money laundering into a foundation-)

Would you mind pointing out which law, or written policy says that?

Sure, and it was decided both in 1972 or 73, and by the DOJ during the Clinton impeachment hearings. The SC will uphold the law, no doubt about it!

So how did they get Clinton into court before his impeachment?

Here ya go...

Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997)[1], was a landmark United States Supreme Court case establishing that a sitting President of the United States has no immunity from civil law litigation, in federal court, against him or her, for acts done before taking office and unrelated to the office. In particular, there is no temporary immunity, so it is not required to delay all federal cases until the President leaves office.

Clinton v. Jones - Wikipedia

Anything Mueller comes up with will be related to the office, and if Trump paid the porn star so it wouldn't come out in the election, that is related to the office too.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Good to know the judge is now handicapping the investigation....I wonder if he has any intel on today’s action at Santa Anita

Better action at Churchill Downs today...

 

[eagle1462010]

A year and half ago this began as what................seems the confusion is on your side.

The question isn't about how this began a year and a half ago, dope.

The question is whether or not the indictment of Manafort was within the scope of the special counsel's investigative authority. The Deputy AG says very clearly that it was indeed.

Motion denied.

Whatever bro.........

You still think they are gods...................if so why do we need the Judicial Branch at all.............There is a reason they have to go to the courts to decide, try and proceed with legal matters...........but it just goes over your head............

What the hell do they teach in schools these days.

You still think they are gods.......

Not at all. That is your damaged perspective.

I simply believe that Rosenstein is doing his job and this motion is a desperate attempt to get the charges dropped. IOW, reality.

The Judge said why aren't those cases in a lower court by normal proceedings...............and wanted to know why they thought they had the authority to bring it to a higher court when some accusations were a decade old..........

So he requested the guidelines..................Will they deny him that ...................or he can simply say take it to a lower court and get the hell out of my courtroom......................Yeah...........he can make that decision...........and then you can appeal............and another judge can over rule or sustain................then appeal.....wash rinse repeat

Rosenstein can set guidelines.....doesn't mean his guidelines are legal...........why the courts are the deciding factor.

They already provided the court with the requested material. That was in an exerpt of a link I provided you, fool.

Of course Rosentsein's guidelines are legal. They're set at his discretion.

They did not give all of it......some was deemed classified........which is why he stated it can be sent SEALED.