Federal judge accuses Mueller's team of 'lying,' trying to target Trump:' (FOX)
“I don’t see what relationship this indictment has with anything the special counsel is authorized to investigate,” U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis in the Eastern District of Virginia said.
"You don't really care about Mr. Manafort,” U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III told Mueller’s team. “You really care about what information Mr. Manafort can give you to lead you to Mr. Trump and an impeachment, or whatever."
Mueller’s team says its authorities are laid out in documents including the August 2017 scope memo – and that some powers are actually secret because they involve ongoing investigations and national security matters that cannot be publicly disclosed.
Ellis seemed amused and not persuaded.
He summed up the argument of the Special Counsel’s Office as, "We said this was what [the] investigation was about, but we are not bound by it and we were lying."
At tense hearing at the federal courthouse in Alexandria, Virginia, the judge said Mueller should not have “unfettered power” in his Russia probe and that the charges against Manafort did not arise from the investigation into Moscow’s alleged meddling in the 2016 U.S. election.
The hearing, where Manafort’s team fought to dismiss an 18-count indictment on tax and bank fraud-related charges, took a confrontational turn as it was revealed that at least some of the information in the investigation derived from an earlier Justice Department probe – in the U.S. attorney’s office for the Eastern District of Virginia.
The judge questioned why Manafort’s case there could not be handled by the U.S. attorney’s office in Virginia, rather than the special counsel’s office.
He also asked the special counsel’s office to share privately with him a copy of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosentein’s August 2017 memo elaborating on the scope of Mueller’s Russia probe. He said the current version he has been heavily redacted.
Now, where this eventually goes is anybody's guess. Manaforts original complaints were oddly filed in civil court, and were basically tossed on the grounds that it really wasn't under the jurisdiction of a civil case. This particular Judge is echoing much of the criticism people have had with Special Counsel's handling of Paul Manafort's case.
While I doubt that a Judge would actually throw out a case such as this, it's possible that he could decide that Mueller does not have authority to prosecute it. Perhaps the Judge could send it to the U.S. attorney's office in Virginia for review and possible prosecution. The problem with that (for Mueller) is it takes away certain leverage that they have probably accumulated, and also put the case under the financial and resource strains of a normal prosecutor's office. Certainly this situation would be preferable for Manafort, rather than going up against the unlimited financial powers and resources of Special Counsel.
But with the proven reality that the Manafort investigation did not (in fact) come out of the scope of Mueller's investigation, coupled with the fact that Rosenstein provided the grounds for the raid against Manafort "after" the raid had already been completed... leaves open the possibility that a Judge (such as Ellis) could find reason to invalidate the evidence from that raid, or possibly do even more damage to the Mueller case.
61 comments:
It's an argument over jurisdiction. The judge wants to turn the prosecution over to the US Attorney's Office in a Virginia district. To make that work he'll have to determine that the Special Counsel lacks jurisdiction to prosecute Manafort but it's not clear how he would justify it, even if he decided that it was outside of the scope of the probe.
I'll be very curious to see his eventual legal reasoning.
To make that work he'll have to determine that the Special Counsel lacks jurisdiction to prosecute Manafort
From what I have been reading, the idea of getting the case tossed into the jurisdiction of the US Attorneys office and away from Special Counsel seems to be the most popular possible outcome.
I know that as pro-Mueller supporter, you are no doubt looking at it as if the Judge is the one on the defensive that must show some legal justification for making this move.
But in essence, all he would have to do to justify the ruling is declare that Mueller and Rosenstein failed to show that this particular investigation was part of the scope or that the prosecution is part of Mueller's jurisdiction.
Certainly it very hard to argue that a cold case from the US Attorney's office in Virginia is within the scope of this Special Counsel. I think you might even have to agree?
Well of course the judge has to show some legal justification to remove. Sure in theory a judge can just dismiss or transfer the case without giving any reason, but that basically never happens and it won't happen in a case this prominent.
The question in my mind, which I'd like to see resolved in the Judge's legal reasoning, is this: does having authorization to investigate automatically mean that Mueller also has authorization to prosecute?
The other question is, why does Mueller even want to? Why would he even object to a US Attorney prosecuting Manafort? Reading between the lines, that seems to be behind some of Judge Ellis' questioning and remarks.
I don't see much issue in having previous investigations looking into it (your "cold case"). New investigation, new information, new prosecution. But the interesting question is, Why? The Judge suggested "Leverage", but he's really just guessing there and that's why he's demanding more information such as the unredacted Rosenstein memo.
Seems to be more than just a jurisdictional dispute. Looks like Ellis is laying the ground for malicious prosecution and dismissal with prejudice. From CNN:
Although Mueller's authority has been tested in court before, Friday's hearing was notable for District Judge T.S. Ellis' decision to wade into the divisive political debate around the investigation.
"You don't really care about Mr. Manafort's bank fraud," Ellis said to prosecutor Michael Dreeben, at times losing his temper. Ellis said prosecutors were interested in Manafort because of his potential to provide material that would lead to Trump's "prosecution or impeachment," Ellis said.
"That's what you're really interested in," said Ellis, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan.
Ellis repeated his suspicion several times in the hour-long court hearing. He said he'll make a decision at a later date about whether Manafort's case can go forward.
"We don't want anyone in this country with unfettered power. It's unlikely you're going to persuade me the special prosecutor has power to do anything he or she wants," Ellis told Dreeben. "The American people feel pretty strongly that no one has unfettered power."
When Dreeben answered Ellis' question about how the investigation and its charges date back to before the Trump campaign formed, the judge shot back, "None of that information has to do with information related to Russian government coordination and the campaign of Donald Trump."
At one point, Ellis posed a hypothetical question, speaking as if he were the prosecutor, about why Mueller's office referred a criminal investigation about Trump's personal attorney Michael Cohen to New York authorities and kept the Manafort case in Virginia.
They weren't interested in it because it didn't "further our core effort to get Trump," Ellis said, mimicking a prosecutor in the case.
Remember, the FBI went over this with Manafort years ago and no charges were filed at that time.
I don't see much issue in having previous investigations looking into it (your "cold case"). New investigation, new information, new prosecution.
I see an issue with a Special Prosecutor hired to investigate the 2016 election, deciding to pursue a cold case that has nothing to do with his jurisdiction. If there was good reason for the Manafort case to be reopened, then the US Attorney of Virginia should have taken it up. There certainly doesn't appear to be anything associated with the Russia investigation that bled into the Manafort cold case. At least that is what the Judge (who reviewed everything) is suggesting.
I also take issue with Special Counsel leaks that suggested there "was" a connection between Russia and Manafort that might have justified this... when in fact, according to sources, there was never such a connection found.
Either way...
Robert Mueller should have seen himself as having better things to do. Assuming he is still supposedly investigating the 2016 election, all the upcoming prosecution/trial does is take away resources from the rest of the investigation.
It would be prudent (if the real goal was to investigate the 2016 election) to pass this prosecution off to the Virginia Attorney's office.
There is no reasonable excuse at this point not to.
Not unless they want to admit that the Judge is correct and they really just want to prosecute Manafort to try to get to Trump.
I really don't get the "cold case", "already went over it" objection. If an investigator finds information, which suggests that the old case should be opened and prosecuted, I just don't understand how that is anything but "a good thing". It suggests that he avoided prosecution earlier because there wasn't enough information, but now he's caught. Is it that you think it's unfair? Are you prejudging his guilt or innocence?
I also don't get how someone could be upset about a leak that Manafort was connected with the Russians, because of another leak that he wasn't. How are you determining which leak is more credible, which leak you choose to get upset about? Once it's being prosecuted, the issues are facts and evidence. And apparently, jurisdiction. Are you hoping that Manafort gets off on a technicality regarding jurisdiction? Why would you want that?
But, I agree with you that I see no reason NOT to have the Virginia Attorney handle the prosecution, and I'd like to see that clarified. "Secret authorization" doesn't quite cut it for me. Once this is in court, I say ALL of the evidence should be public and if that inconveniences some other aspect of the investigation, well that's part of your calculus in deciding to pursue it. In short, at some point it's time to fish or cut bait.
A Public Bitch slapping!!
If an investigator finds information, which suggests that the old case should be opened and prosecuted, I just don't understand how that is anything but "a good thing"
Okay... are you still working under the assumption that Mueller (by investigating the 2016 election) stumbled onto something that determined they needed to look further into the old US Attorney Virginia case?
Because that doesn't appear to be the facts as they are being presented, nor does it appear to be the argument being presented by Special Counsel. Special Counsel seems to be arguing that they had some sort of "secret authority" (that cannot be disclosed due to security concerns) to investigate Manafort's previous dealings.
This authority was generically provided "retroactively" in a memo by Rosenstein sometime "after" Special Counsel raided Manafort's home, residence, etc... without (of course) disclosing the secret reasons surrounding it.
Let me ask you this:
So would it be even remotely possible to work under the assumption that a Special Counsel investigation has actual tangible limits to jurisdiction?
Could we assume that in this particular case that the jurisdiction is limited to the 2016 election, Russian Hacking, and any possible Russian/Trump campaign ties?
Can we admit that these bank fraud charges from years prior to the 2016 election have nothing to do either with the Election, Russian hacking, or any tangible 2016 election collusion between Manafort and Russians?
Or are you still trying to argue that the Manafort bank fraud is 2016 election related?
Or are you still trying to argue that Mueller's authority is actually only limited to what he wants to do?
I really don't get the "cold case", "already went over it" objection.
It really not that hard. The initial judgement of the US attorney in this matter was that there was not enough evidence for a crime.
Now the special counsel going over the same evidence determined there were several crimes that can be charge.
The only x-factor is Trump. Therefore, this may be a malicious prosecution.
The operating assumption has to be that more information DID come to light. In fact, the chances that it didn't are vanishingly small.
Secret authority would not necessarily refer to Manafort's prior dealings specifically, but with other vectors of the investigation that would be jeopardized if made public. That authority could be related to other individuals involved in Manafort's business, and/or other dealings which may have been related. That's the problem with "secret" - you don't know what it's about. Once further information came to light about Manafort's business, as a consequence of this authorized investigation, then Mueller has jurisdiction to investigate it.
That's why the Judge is interested in it, that's his question: What exactly IS this authorization and how does it relate to Manafort? If Mueller just decided, let's put Manafort (and some other Trump guys) under the screws and see what oozes out that's one thing. If he was investigating the Russian scheming and Manafort came out of that, that's another thing entirely.
Either way, with more damning information from the investigation that builds a prosecutable case against Manafort, he should be prosecuted. There's nothing wrong with that part, legally or morally.
You ask, do bank fraud charges from years prior to the 2016 election have anything to do with the 2016 election? Possibly, depending on who was involved and why. Maybe not. But the fact remains that bank fraud is illegal, and if he did it he should pay the price. If he's guilty, and only got caught because of his involvement with Trump, then he really has only himself to blame for that. Regardless of what you think about the Mueller probe.
And incidentally, even if the remote possibility were true that it is the exact same case against Manafort now as it was earlier, even that wouldn't make it malicious or ill-conceived. Two prosecutors may reach different conclusions about how winnable a case may be. Just because one attorney doesn't prosecute, doesn't mean that you're cleared.
Bautista will be in an ATL Bravos uni tonight, hope to see a nice bat flip or two.
The operating assumption has to be that more information DID come to light. In fact, the chances that it didn't are vanishingly small.
But that is not what Special Counsel argued before the Judge.
The Reagan-appointed judge asked Mueller’s team where they got the authority to indict Manafort on alleged crimes dating as far back as 2005.
The special counsel argues that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein granted them broad authority in his May 2, 2017 letter appointing Mueller to this investigation.
So not even Special Counsel is arguing that this was about new information, but rather they had authority (based on their original appointment) to investigate Mueller's past dealings.
Why would you assume something like this, when Special Counsel is basically admitting the opposite?
If Mueller just decided, let's put Manafort (and some other Trump guys) under the screws and see what oozes out that's one thing.
And what exactly would that thing be?
Because by all logical accounts, that is exactly what this is. Mueller is claiming that is May 2nd appointment provided him with exactly this authority. They (by their own admission in court) went back to the Virginia case, used that information to eventually bring charges to Manafort, while pretty much acknowledging that it really has no ties to Russia at all.
We all remember the speculation at the time was that Manafort was going to be the guy who turned on Trump, and that Mueller was doing exactly what you are suggesting (putting the screws to him to get him to talk).
This is also exactly what the Judge (who obviously has reviewed everything provided to him) suggested. That Special Counsel was using Manafort to try to get to Trump.
What makes you believe that your assumption is correct, and that both Special Counsel and the Judge are wrong?
"So not even Special Counsel is arguing that this was about new information, but rather they had authority (based on their original appointment) to investigate Mueller's past dealings. "
That's bizarre reasoning, that because he isn't arguing the merits of the case here (he can't actually) that he's "admitting" that he has no new information. Why do you think it would be appropriate for him to say anything about that, when he's asked about his authority to investigate?
"Because by all logical accounts, that is exactly what this is. Mueller is claiming that is May 2nd appointment provided him with exactly this authority. "
You are misinterpreting what that means.
"If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters. "
If it pops up as a result of the investigation, literally "arising from the investigation", he is authorized to prosecute. If he just decided to probe Manafort, not as a result of the investigation, then no. He is claiming that information about Manafort came up as a result of the investigation.
WP...
I assume you either haven't read the various reports, or are simply choosing to ignore the parts that don't conform to what you want to believe.
The Judge (who was provided with all of their information including the redacted August "scope memo") made a pretty black and white assessment of Special Counsel's argument.
"We said this was what [the] investigation was about, but we are not bound by it and we were lying."
They have already brought charges and are getting ready to go to court. There would be no obligation to keep evidence secret from a Judge who is ruling on the case. Much less, as you suggest, keep the simple fact of whether or not there even is new evidence from the Judge.
Moreover, if your argument is that their authority comes from new evidence, then they would likely be required to provide that new evidence. Certainly you are not suggesting that they would have some obligation to remain "mum" on the whole subject?
No, WP... if they didn't provide the Judge with their "new information" then it's because there was no new information. Likewise, if they didn't argue that they uncovered anything new, it's because they didn't.
By all accounts (other than yours) Special Counsel is arguing that broad powers were provided in the original May appointment. But that not all of the subjects of authority were actually "explained" to the public, because some of them were "secret". They then argued that the internal memo from August (well after the raid on Manafort) was a summation of internal discussions where Rosenstein supposedly provided Mueller with verbal authorization to go after Manafort. They admitted in court and to the Judge that their information for investigating Manafort's Ukrainian business dealings came from the earlier DOJ probe (rather than from new information).
Ellis openly stated in court that the main reason he is questioning the authority is that the information being used to prosecute Manafort did not arise from the probe.
So again, why is it that you continue to argue something that nobody else is arguing. While there may be some things found out since (from the raid, etc) there doesn't seem to be any argument what-so-ever from Special Counsel that there was anything "new" that prompted the reopening of the Manafort investigation.
Perhaps (and I paraphrase) you might want to admit that the cognitive dissonance compels you to accepting logical impossibilities by thrusting the contradictions downstream?
Or do you have another explanation?
"We said this was what [the] investigation was about, but we are not bound by it and we were lying."
Again, I think you are misinterpreting what this means. He is talking about the jurisdiction, not the specifics of the evidence. You are making wholly unwarranted conclusions about what the Prosecution didn't say - this is not the time to discuss specifics of the evidence. He is not keeping secrets; he is answering questions about jurisdiction and not making a case yet.
To me it looks like you've made up a fictional account of a court hearing, and then tried to wedge various statements into your narrative.
Hey, asshole liberals of CHT. Fuck you losers.
"GLOBE STAFF MAY 04, 2018
WASHINGTON — John Kerry’s bid to save one of his most significant accomplishments as secretary of state took him to New York on a Sunday afternoon two weeks ago, where, more than a year after he left office, he engaged in some unusual shadow diplomacy with a top-ranking Iranian official.
He sat down at the United Nations with Foreign Minister Javad Zarif to discuss ways of preserving the pact limiting Iran’s nuclear weapons program. It was the second time in about two months that the two had met to strategize over salvaging a deal they spent years negotiating during the Obama administration, according to a person briefed on the meetings.".
Again, I think you are misinterpreting what this means. He is talking about the jurisdiction, not the specifics of the evidence.
No WP... I am not misinterpretation anything.
This was a court case specific to jurisdiction.
That is why we all understand that the judge is talking about jurisdiction.
Actually in this particular court hearing, the only question of evidence is specifically whether or not there was evidence that "arose" from the Russian investigation.
Unless Special Counsel are a bunch of idiots, they would understand that they needed to provide proof that there actually was something that "arose" from the Russian investigation. Otherwise they would be rebuked exactly as they were.
Now, they have bad press. They gave their critics all sorts of ammunition. They may even receive a negative ruling from this Judge and lose the case.
Certainly they wouldn't withhold it (as you suggest). That makes absolutely no sense at all.
House Intel report: Comey testified FBI agents saw no 'physical indications of deception' by Flynn"
Dear leftist, fuck all of you.
Dems hero
"by DYLAN GWINN
4 May 2018
10,173
Porn star Stormy Daniels slammed Roseanne Barr on Twitter Friday, calling the actress an “ignorant twat” for saying that she had taken part in anal pornography.
The feud started when Barr made the claim that Daniels was “known for anal porn scenes"
"He is talking about the jurisdiction, not the specifics of the evidence."
LOL.
Annnnd, here we go...
...the judge really didn't say what he said, lol.
"Dear leftist, fuck all of you."
They're mentally defective.
WP is smarter then the judge.
You don't really care about Mr. Manafort,” U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III told Mueller’s team. “You really care about what information Mr. Manafort can give you to lead you to Mr. Trump and an impeachment, or whatever."
Mueller’s team says its authorities are laid out in documents including the August 2017 scope memo – and that some powers are actually secret because they involve ongoing investigations and national security matters that cannot be publicly disclosed.
Ellis seemed amused and not persuaded.
He summed up the argument of the Special Counsel’s Office as, "We said this was what [the] investigation was about, but we are not bound by it and we were lying."
JD WP, STFU
Annnnd, here we go...
...the judge really didn't say what he said, lol.
and in today's episode of wp hamilton's "what he really meant was..."
I'm going by specifically what Judge Ellis did say, and what the arguments are. He asks whether the Manafort inquiry truly arose from the investigation, which would place it within the probe's jurisdiction. That should be simple and straightforward enough.
It's all of you who are trying to inject extra into it. That's why you have to come up with nonsensical "didn't say what he did" type arguments. You can't really specify anything, because it isn't actually there to support you, so you have to attack it indirectly.
But believe what you want, it's nothing to me. We'll know soon enough what Judge Ellis has in mind.
Unless Special Counsel are a bunch of idiots, they would understand that they needed to provide proof that there actually was something that "arose" from the Russian investigation. Otherwise they would be rebuked exactly as they were.
Isn't that what I've been telling you, over and over again ... and now you realize that I am right and yet phrase it in a confrontational way.
Even if nothing *new* arose, the Judge won't dismiss it with prejudice and he knows that. All of these arguments revolve around whether and how the investigation of Manafort arose from the probe's mandate. Mueller wants to give as few specifics as possible, because it relates to other potential prosecutions, and because evidence is not discussed in this phase.
The judge wants to have it removed to another court, and he wants the prosecution taken away from the Mueller probe. He might dismiss without prejudice and order that the prosecution is referred. But it's not clear at all how he's going to do that without citing political grounds.
We'll know soon enough what Judge Ellis has in mind.
we already do -
"You don't really care about Mr. Manafort,” U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III told Mueller’s team. “You really care about what information Mr. Manafort can give you to lead you to Mr. Trump and an impeachment, or whatever."
"and in today's episode of wp hamilton's "what he really meant was...""
Bingo.
he's going to do that without citing political grounds.
Isn't that what he has already done???? Isn't one of the main beefs of our sycophant friends of that any judge is making political rulings should be impeached ????
All of these arguments revolve around whether and how the investigation of Manafort arose from the probe's mandate
the sole reason for charging manafort with anything was to hold the prospect of total financial and personal ruin over his head to get him to implicate trump. even if it means manafort lies through his teeth to do so, those lies will be accepted as fact. the destruction of trump has always been the singular focus of this shitshow. nothing else truly matters, including whatever nickledick offenses manafort or anyone else might have committed 15 years ago.
"You don't really care about Mr. Manafort,” U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III told Mueller’s team. “You really care about what information Mr. Manafort can give you to lead you to Mr. Trump and an impeachment, or whatever."
That's a scolding, not a legal reasoning. I'll be curious as to what place that takes in his decision on the jurisdiction.
Technically, what Mueller cares about doesn't help resolve the question of jurisdiction either way. Therefore, this scolding relates to the question of why did Mueller look into Manafort's bank fraud, if he "doesn't really care about" it. The distinction is that it's not an argument that a case should be dismissed, as people here seem to take it, but demanding to know, "Why?" Depending on that answer, he'll have a further deliberation.
the sole reason for charging manafort with anything was to hold the prospect of total financial and personal ruin over his head to get him to implicate trump.
Naw, the main reason is that Meuller determined that Manafort was a crook and deserved to be prosecuted for his crimes.
It's weird that you want to defend him so badly. If he COULD implicate Trump, then you could be defending two criminals. If he cannot, because Manafort doesn't actually have anything to implicate Trump, then you're defending Manafort for no particular reason.
What is it about Manafort that makes him such a sympathetic figure to you? Is he one of the "good guys" in your world-view?
he's going to do that without citing political grounds.
Isn't that what he has already done???? Isn't one of the main beefs of our sycophant friends of that any judge is making political rulings should be impeached ????
It could be interpreted that way, out of context, and ironically that's how CH et. al, ARE seeing it.
They think that the Judge saying that Mueller's target is Trump means that it's reason to dismiss, which would indeed be dismissing based on political grounds. But they fail to realize that he's just demanding to know what gave rise to investigating Manafort's prior business dealings.
"But they fail to realize that he's just demanding to know what gave rise to investigating Manafort's prior business dealings."
A process crime.
Congrats.
It's not political for a Judge being asked to rule on jurisdiction to explain why he believes that the prosecutor is out of his jurisdiction.
it's obvious to anyone (that doesn't have politically partisan blinders on) that there was zero reason for Mueller to go after Manafort.
And NO... it wasn't Mueller's job to just generically go after bad guys (as simplistic and stupid as this argument is) - it was his job to investigate the 2016 election and Russian involvement.
Which has zero to do with Manafort's work in Ukraine years prior.
I guess this particular judge was not dumb enough to fall for the media driven narrative that the Ukrainians Manafort was working for were Pro-Russia and there for, they must have something do to with the 2016 election. Because, of course, if you can even throw the term "Russia" into it, it must be collusion.
My yellow lab is too smart to fall for that nonsense.
Your yellow lab likely knows as much about jurisdiction as you do, so it wouldn't surprise me if he agrees with you.
Get him to howl once or twice, that would clear your bar on "quotes" that support your opinion.
It's 50-50 for the judge to dismiss the case outright.
If he doesn't, it's a near certainty that the case will be transfer to a US attorney.
gave rise to investigating Manafort's prior business dealings.
I think the judge failed to read Mueller'a charter which clearly delineates that any crime uncovered could be chased. Just my own naive reading of the dispute.....probably wrong, but a hell of a lot better than what I've seen from the yellow lab...chuckle
from the DAG
The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation con nned by then-FBI Director James 8. Co ey in testimony be re the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:
(i) any links an or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly om the investigation; and
(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).
(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is
authorized to prosecute deal crimes arising om the investigation of these matters.
Me thinks the judge should learn to read....OOOPS!!!!
thanx for pointing CH's problems.....
https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download
If you doubt, try here....LOL
I think the judge failed to read Mueller's charter which clearly delineates that any crime uncovered could be chased.
The problem is that it wasn't a new crime uncovered by the their investigation.
The circumstances are already known and dismissed far before the special counsel was appointed.
A twitter user call Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) has the entire transcript of the procedings.
The judge was pretty tough on the special counsel.
Time for Ca to become its own country.....since the south and the right think they are worthless POS's
ACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) -- California's economy has surpassed that of the United Kingdom to become the world's fifth largest, according to new federal data made public Friday.
California's gross domestic product rose by $127 billion from 2016 to 2017, surpassing $2.7 trillion, the data said. Meanwhile, the UK's economic output slightly shrunk over that time when measured in U.S. dollars, due in part to exchange rate fluctuations.
The data demonstrate the sheer immensity of California's economy, home to nearly 40 million people, a thriving technology sector in Silicon Valley, the world's entertainment capital in Hollywood and the nation's salad bowl in the Central Valley agricultural heartland. It also reflects a substantial turnaround since the Great Recession.
"We have the entrepreneurial spirit in the state, and that attracts a lot of talent and money," said Sung Won Sohn, an economics professor at California State University Channel Islands. "And that's why, despite high taxes and cumbersome government regulations, more people are coming into the state to join the parade."
All economic sectors except agriculture contributed to California's higher GDP, said Irena Asmundson, chief economist at the California Department of Finance. Financial services and real estate led the pack at $26 billion in growth, followed by the information sector, which includes many technology companies, at $20 billion. Manufacturing was up $10 billion.
The problem is that it wasn't a new crime uncovered by the their investigation.
The charter does not delineate the age of any crime it says any matters!!!!...Nice try though
For the willfully stupid.
Your own quote:
I think the judge failed to read Mueller's charter which clearly delineates that any crime uncovered could be chased.
They didn't uncover this, it was already uncover by a previous FBI investigation.
Therefore it is outside their authority.
Except that "his own quote" is his paraphrase, not the order, so that nit-picking "they didn't uncover this" misses.
It is any "arising from", not "uncovered for the first time". But even that is moot, because it also specifies "within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a)", which allows him to obtain jurisdiction to investigate from the Attorney General. Which he did.
And since we're on that subject, § 600.6 Powers and authority applies per the Order, which means that the Special Counsel has the full powers to prosecute as any United States Attorney for any matter within the scope of his jurisdiction. That's why "scope of jurisdiction" is the question, because it ends all questions about Mueller prosecuting if it's within his scope.
Loretta opined: "A process crime. Congratulations"
Literally a "process objection", looking for a process technicality to dismiss.
wp "But they fail to realize that he's just demanding to know what gave rise to investigating Manafort's prior business dealings."
Or are you stipulating that "a process crime" led Mueller to investigate the multiple felony fraud and money laundering allegations? That's more than likely the connection, which spurred the Special Counsel to look into it. Looking into the wire fraud crimes arose from Manafort lying to Investigators.
The moral of that story is, if you've been engaging in financial crimes, don't lie to the FBI or Special Investigators about other things.
Therefore it is outside their authority.
How does "any matters" fall outside the authority menstral????? Lying has its consequences in spite of you all thinking it is a trivial matter....Sad...depends on the definition of "IS IS" remember those days sycophants????
Lying has its consequences
Except if you're a current or former member of the FBI.
Or a special counsel.
It is any "arising from", not "uncovered for the first time".
Another stupid semitic argument.
Tell it to the judge because he's not buying any argument that says Mueller has "unlimited powers to do anything" Mueller wants.
Actually, the Government's lawyer DID tell it to the Judge, and no one took it as "a stupid semantic argument" including Judge Ellis. And as I mentioned above, the argument that (b)(ii) of the Order (which is what we're talking about) ALSO says "any matters that AROSE" from the investigation, which includes the already ongoing investigations that the probe inherited.
The diffrence between arise and uncover is your stupid semitic argument.
The point is the judge is not buying the indictment AROSE from the investigation:
THE COURT: All right. I think you would
agree that the indictment that we have before the Court is not triggered by (i), which says, "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump." Bank fraud in 2005 and other things had nothing whatever to do with that.
So then you go to number two. It says, "any" matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation." Well, this indictment didn't arise from your investigation; it arose from a preexisting investigation even assuming that that (ii) is a valid delegation because it's open-ended.
And then, after extended discussion, he appeared to accept that the preexisting investigations were part of the investigation.
Seriously, I'm not going over every trivial mistake that arises from someone not reading or understanding transcript.
Yeah because there's nothing in the transcript that supports your contention.
The judge said several times that the indictment didn't arise from the investigation and that it's part of an investigation "predated or preceded" the special counsel appointment.
Yes I did read the transcript and you're the only "expert" that has come out with that cockamemi intrepratation.
I would say that put you on rather shakey ground.
Wait a couple of weeks, when the Judge has the document he ordered the Government to produce, and rules on the motion, and then you'll see that I'm right.
Oh, and stop relying on "journalist" experts who want to sensationalize sound-bite excerpts if you want to know actual expert opinion.
Post a Comment