- Right off the bat, the attorney representing Special Counsel concedes that the information from the previous Manafort investigation was turned over to Special Counsel at the beginning of the investigation. Dreeben (Attorney for Special Counsel) states that the Manafort case was "inherited".
- Dreeben also argues that the fact that Special Counsel was taking over a counterintelligence probe (rather than a criminal probe) is the reason that not all of the areas of Special Counsel jurisdiction was permitted in the original May appointment letter. Not that he explains why this would have anything to do with Manafort.
- Dreeben also as his last point, cites previous court decisions that suggest that whatever regulations are in place for Special Counsel would not actually protect any individuals who may be effected by Special Counsel going rogue. Dreeben basically argues that regulations are not legally enforceable. So even if they did not follow the "letter of the law" here (yes, pun intended), Manafort should still be prosecuted. Not sure they would have brought up this point, had the rest of the hearing gone better for them.
Saturday, May 5, 2018
Transcript of the US v Manafort Hearing
A couple of notes:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
45 comments:
TRANSCRIPT OF MOTIONS
BEFORE THE HONORABLE T.S. ELLIS, III
because:
"Google Drive
You need permission"
The first two bullets are mostly right, up until "Not that he explains why this would have anything to do with Manafort. "
Dreeben mentioned the counterintelligence probe, and also existing criminal probes incidentally, to explain why the Appointment Order letter is NOT the " the specific factual statement" required by Special Counsel law. In other words, that's the "secret authorization" that everyone's talking about. That didn't sit well with the Judge, nor should it, because it basically means that the Appointment order letter is a fraud with regards to the basis of the investigation.
Which is why the Judge wants to see an un-redacted version of the actual document.
Your third bullet is a whiff, because the government's argument is that they ARE following the letter of the law, and the internal DOJ regulations are not laws. He made a very telling point at the end, which the Judge acknowledge, in that the Special Counsel statute does not create any additional rights for a defendant, and Manafort is basically arguing that it does.
That entire potion, referring to internal regulations, was hypothetical and the Judge himself expressed skepticism that it's meaningful."But let's suppose it shows that, that Rosenstein didn't do a good job (violated). So what?"
The large bulk of the discussion centered around what I've been harping on. Judge Ellis wants to know exactly how the investigation into Manafort's bank fraud factually arose from the Investigation of Russia's electoral interference, and whether Rosenstien did legally convey jurisdiction for that to Meuller in accordance with 600.4 of Title 28, which I cited earlier.
Jesse Byrnes reports in The Hill that Lisa Page, who notoriously exchanged anti-Trump emails with fellow FBI employee, now-demoted counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok, has resigned from the bureau.
Two key advisers to former FBI ."
That fucking leftist piece of dirty leg should have been fired. Now criminally charge here.
WP...
The "letter of the law" is an expression, and to be taken as a "pun" here.
I think it's quite clear by both the document and my bullet point that Dreeben is referring to the fact that regulations that supposedly govern Special Counsel "are not legally enforceable". To a large degree, the Government is conceding that they did not necessarily follow regulations to a "T" but they are arguing that it really doesn't matter at the end of the day... because they argue that Special Counsels are no different than any U.S. Attorney.
Which, basically is an admission that the entire concept of actually appointing a Special Counsel to investigate the 2016 election was always a ruse. The underlying intention was to get a prosecutor with an unlimited budget to go after Trump and his associates.
The Judge certainly seems to recognize that Rosenstein hoodwinked the Country with his letter, but he appears to be wrestling with that to exactly (if anything) do about it.
Downing offers that a "regulation" can be enforced, and that Dreeben is confusing an actual enforceable regulation with a DOJ guideline or policy. I personally hate the fact that this isn't actually something that is "set in stone" and I would personally offer that these sorts of issues either need to be "fixed" and put into actual enforceable law, or disbanded entirely.
Secondly, Dreeben offered that the Manafort case was "inherited" - A point reinforced by Downing as an admission that they previously had denied in their written arguments. The fact that Dreeben even uses the word "arise" is a semantic argument to rewrite everyone's assumed definition.
Dreeben seems to be arguing that because the old charges involved people from the Ukraine (the Judge has some fun at the idea that Russia and Ukraine are not the same country) that it is relevant and the fact that new things have been found out, retroactively fits the definition of "arise from".
Another key point was that Special Counsel's investigation comprised of a number of existing DOJ investigations that were "inherited" by Mueller. Dreeben was not challenged on that claim, and the Judge questioned him some to nail that down.
What it means is that (b)(ii) of the Order, the subject of frequent discussion, refers to inherited investigations as well as the links and/or coordination. And note that while we all shorten it to "matters that may arise", it actually specifies "any matters that arose". So if that document is judicially enforceable (and that is now in question, but I suspect that it will be), any matter that already arose in the "inherited" investigations - such as Manafort's bank fraud from over a decade ago - falls within the probe's scope. Downing argues that the Court to disregard that section because, he says, it gives the Special Counsel too much scope!
Now there is a pause of two weeks for Dreeben to produce the unredacted version of the Rosenstein memo which he claims explains how crimes "that arose from" Manafort's receipts from Ukraine is within his jurisdiction.
This transcript doesn't look all that good for Manafort actually, for dismissal anyway. While the Judge apparently has some serious issues with some of the Government's arguments, Manafort's side didn't really present a very strong argument. It mainly consisted of "the probe has too much power", which Judge Ellis is sympathetic to, but weak on the technical merit. The odds are, this case proceeds as it is now, with the Mueller probe prosecuting in Ellis' court.
"Witch Hunt"
Which, basically is an admission that the entire concept of actually appointing a Special Counsel to investigate the 2016 election was always a ruse. The underlying intention was to get a prosecutor with an unlimited budget to go after Trump and his associates.
You insist on the belief that the entire investigation was intended to destroy the President..... unbelievable
Actually that was pretty much what the judge was saying.
Tell us Ole Rog. What IF Mueller does not get the President. Will you look on it as a failure?
Tell us Ole Rog. What IF Mueller does not get the President. Will you look on it as a failure?
Tell us Ole Rog. What IF Mueller does not get the President. Will you look on it as a failure?
He needs to get on the line with the President. It's going to be perceived as admitting guilt. Legally speaking he is innocent until proven guilty. But the perception is going to be a very difficult situation for the President.
ABC "Fake News" Sieg Heil.
President Donald Trump's top personal attorney Rudy Giuliani said he can't rule out the possibility of the president taking the Fifth Amendment if he testifies in the Russia investigation.
Giuliani said to ABC News Chief Anchor George Stephanopoulos in an exclusive interview on "This Week" Sunday, "How could I be confident" that president won't take the Fifth Amendment.
Confidence in this President is a fool's game.
"Fake News" Sieg Heil.
"Fake News" Sieg Heil.
"Fake News" Sieg Heil.
You need permission
Want in? Ask for access, or switch to an account with permission. Learn more
Roger the transcript is here https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/US-v-Manafort-full-text-transcript-hearing-motion-may-4-2018.pdf
President Donald Trump's top personal attorney Rudy Giuliani said he can't rule out the possibility of the president taking the Fifth Amendment if he testifies in the Russia investigation.
Given the malicious nature of Mueller's prosecution Trump would be crazy if he didn't take the 5th on each and every question.
This is a political persecution where Trump's guilt or innocence is not relevant.
Of course Stephanopoulos played his part as hit man for Hillary Clinton. Only a Democrat would demand you give up your 5th amendment rights to prove your innocence.
You need permission"
Means, I am Roger and I am a drunk and drug adict I did not accutally read the Transcript so I will just talk out of ignorance.
WP posted a link at the top of this thread.
You insist on the belief that the entire investigation was intended to destroy the President..... unbelievable
Take it up with the Judge. That was basically his argument.
Dreeben seems to be arguing that because the old charges involved people from the Ukraine (the Judge has some fun at the idea that Russia and Ukraine are not the same country) that it is relevant and the fact that new things have been found out, retroactively fits the definition of "arise from".
Two points of contention about this.
1, The Judge said that the Government made "a powerful point" about the intertwining of Russia and Ukraine.
2, Both the Judge AND the government lawyer Dreeben agreed that there is no "retroactive remedy" possible from the Rosenstein memo for jurisdiction. This means that "new facts" are NOT being retroactively fit into the probe's scope of jurisdiction.
He claims that the probe satisfies all three possible claims to jurisdiction over the Manafort investigation:
a. Jurisdiction from the beginning, because he inherited the investigation and also because it is described within the classified "factual statement"
b. because he sought and received the regulatory 600.4 authorization, and
c. because these crimes arose from potential links between Manafort and the Russians
So it is very disingenuous for you to describe his argument as merely "retroactively fits the definition of arises", and, in fact that description doesn't even match ANY of his actual arguments.
a. Jurisdiction from the beginning, because he inherited the investigation and also because it is described within the classified "factual statement"
You do realize that you spent the past couple of weeks demanding the opposite... that you were sure that Special Counsel had indeed uncovered something during the course of the investigation that fit under the definition of "arise from".
and from what was stated inside the hearing, this was the first actual admission from Special Counsel that it was "inherited" as part of some "secret authorization" and not something that "arose" from the investigation.
c. because these crimes arose from potential links between Manafort and the Russians
As the judge pointed out... they have provide no evidence that there was any link between Manafort and the Russians.
So is your argument that just because Special Counsel argues it, that it must be true?
Or should Special Counsel be required to actually show reason why they believed there was a connection, when (as the Judge stated more than once) no logical connection between Tax fraud from the early 2000's and the Russian hacking of the investigation. As Manafort's Attorney's pointed out, Manafort's Ukrainian clients were working to get Ukraine into the European Union, which of course would sort of make then "anti-Russian".
Seems that "trust us" our reasons are "secret" is not a very good argument, and I believe the Judge sort of pointed that out.
Obviously, contrary to popular opinion these dasy... this Judget did notubelieve that just because someone worked with someone who might be associated with some Ukrainians or Russians, that they probably have something do with collusion.
I am curious, WP...
Since these arguments of "secret authority" and "regulations are not enforceable" are new arguments that seem to fly in the face of those of you who argued over and over and over that you trusted that the Manafort case did in fact "arise from" what they found, and that you believed 100% that Special Counsel has been conducting themselves 100% by the book.
Has it occurred to you that it might seem strange to us that you seem to roll over so quickly to the "new arguments" being presented?
As a matter of fundamental logic and argument, I would think you might have wanted to be a little more critical of these arguments (especially given they prove so many of your assertions wrong). I would have thought you might have taken an honest shot at Special Counsel for their deception (of both you as a defender of them and the American public as a trusting party).
I guess I expected at least a shred of cynicism and some admission that Special Counsel has been negatively exposed by these revelations.
wp is suffering through his own battle with TDS. he just happens to possess the ability to comment beyond "sieg heil."
"You do realize that you spent the past couple of weeks demanding the opposite... that you were sure that Special Counsel had indeed uncovered something during the course of the investigation that fit under the definition of "arise from". "
That's what you took from it? No, I've been telling you that (b) applies, whether or not there was anything new, in ADDITION to any other claims. It's hardly the opposite.
"As the judge pointed out... they have provide no evidence that there was any link between Manafort and the Russians. "
And then it was explained to him.
Am I the only one here who read and understood the entire transcript?
"wp is suffering through his own battle with TDS. he just happens to possess the ability to comment beyond "sieg heil.""
Bingo.
You do realize that you spent the past couple of weeks demanding the opposite... that you were sure that Special Counsel had indeed uncovered something during the course of the investigation that fit under the definition of "arise from". CHT
WP our professional wear her vane, she moves with the shifting wind.
You need permission"
Means, I am Roger and I am a drunk and drug adict I did not accutally read the Transcript so I will just talk out of ignorance.
WP posted a link at the top of this t
"Since these arguments of "secret authority" and "regulations are not enforceable" are new arguments that seem to fly in the face of those of you who argued over and over and over that you trusted that the Manafort case did in fact "arise from" what they found, and that you believed 100% that Special Counsel has been conducting themselves 100% by the book."
The Special Counsel made the exact same arguments that I did, and these in addition. I'm not going to let you get by with pretending otherwise.
I've already said twice what I thought of "secret authorization", and have opined that the Order, and regulations, will be enforced regardless.
The Special Counsel made the exact same arguments that I did, and these in addition.
Seriously?
Might be time to seek counseling, WP.
Am I the only one here who read and understood the entire transcript?
your comments say otherwise. which transcript did you read? michelle wolf's WHCD transcript?
THE COURT:if I can distill it to its essence, is that this indictment can be traced to the authority the special prosecutor was given in the May and August letters. That, as far as you're concerned, is the beginning and end of the matter.
MR. DREEBEN: Yes, Your Honor, it is the beginning and almost the end.
Exactly as I told you. Note that the "May letter" is the Order appointing the Special Counsel, and the "August letter" is the Section 28 600.4 Rosenstien authorization, but of which I hounded on.
Dreeden explained it as I did:
"We are focused on that mission. We may uncover other criminal activity in the course of that that is necessary for us to investigate in order to complete that mission. ... because the Ukraine money was used to purchase and improve real estate. The transactions that are charged as bank fraud extracted that money and made it -- With money that he derived from the Ukraine activities we've alleged. That's the factual connection, Your Honor."
In other words, following the money from his Ukraine payments, from Russian-connected entities in the Ukraine, that's where the factual link is. And yes, Dreeben claims most strongly that new factual information HAS come up during the investigation, and he explains that with or without the new information the Manafort fraud crimes arose from his investigation.
Are you really trying to claim that any of that is other than as I had explained earlier??
I'm wasting my time if people here can't understand either my posts or the transcript of the court hearing. Maybe I should dumb it down.
Maybe I should dumb it down.
You can't ....the complete brainwashing of the sycophants is beyond what you can dumb down....
"I'm wasting my time if people here can't understand either my posts or the transcript of the court hearing. Maybe I should dumb it down."
Keep it up. Watching you turn virtually every conversation into a trolling adventure is a sight to behold.
Like Rat said, it beats the hell out of simpleminded "Sieg Heil," spam by the pedo and the goofy commie, lol.
I don't know if it's brainwashing or looking at everything through the prism of "is it good for Trump" or "is it bad for Liberals" and basing their opinions on that.
Going forward though, I'm going to refrain from explaining or reasoning from law, court precedents or court transcripts (stop cheering), and only give evaluations and predictions which anyone can check back later if they want.
In this case, once you take away the media filter and partisan rhetoric, and look at the transcript directly, there's not that much for Mueller to be concerned about. There are always motions to dismiss, motions to suppress and so on, and arguments are made by both sides which they don't really expect to amount to anything. There are several reasons why you don't leave stones un-turned.
Those who make the mistake of choosing sides as a matter of team spirit often get their hopes up over some argument or another, convince themselves, and then later wonder what happened.
Prediction: The prosecution will move forward, and even if the Judge gets contrary and dismisses it (small chance of that), it is almost certain to be overturned in an appeals court because it IS a DOJ case after all, and a very solid one.
Evaluation: What we can actually glean from the hearing is that the Judge doesn't much care for idea of a Special Prosecutors, and he's suspicious of federal government agencies exerting power. Whatever "bench slaps" that the media and Nunes are enamored with, they aren't very material to the case against Manafort, and not indicative of the motion to dismiss.
everything through the prism of "is it good for Trump"
Just look at the quality of responses posited by loretta....all she does is incite, troll and insult anything said except for that of CH, rat hole or KD. If she put a lick of thought into anything the world would stop !!!!!. Thinking is not her forte nor is discourse....Not sad, but pathetic is that she represents the typical low brow trump supporter that thinks his lies are just a trivial matter!!! How many times did she claim Obama to be a pathological liar and now just slurps away an accepts the word of donnie no matter what!!!
You forgot chuckle, goofy.
WP...
It's impossible for you to suggest that you made the same arguments, when in fact the most important pieces of the argument is actually new.
To "dumb down your argument" for you...
Yes... you have always argued that the original letter allowed for Mueller to investigate matters that "arose" from the investigation.
Yes... you have always argued that the August letter declared that the Manafort investigation had been approved, because it had "arose" from the Mueller investigation.
And yes... the attorneys (of course) are still going to make some semblance of that same argument.
But... as was drawn out by the Judge in all of this, was that the original case did not "arise" from the investigation.
as THE JUDGE STATED:
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 that Special Council had to admit
MR. DREEBEN: Well, the investigation was
inherited by the special counsel.
So, you see... the argument you made, and their attorney's made...
WAS REJECTED AND PROVEN FALSE.
So a second argument was made that the Investigation in Manafort was "inherited" and authorized from a "secret authority".
____
There is absolutely no way that you are going to convince anyone (other than probably Roger and Denni (who are incapable of understanding this) - that you essentially made the same argument... or that the fact you made "part of the argument" has any bearing on this.
You simply won't admit... even when the proof if black and white... that you are ever wrong. You were wrong. Most everyone here sees it. But you continue to pretend like you are just way smarter than everyone else, and that we simply are being "fooled" as inferior intellects into believing you were wrong.
"Blogger C.H. Truth said...
WP... It's impossible for you to suggest that you made the same arguments, when in fact the most important pieces of the argument is actually new. "
Nope, not wasting time on that any more. It's clear that people aren't grasping the arguments, mine or in the hearing, so I've been explaining the explanations ... it's just not worth my time.
Check my evaluation and prediction against the ruling on the motion, when it comes down.
Whether the Judge agrees or disagrees with any of the Special Counsel arguments from this hearing...
has absolutely "zero" bearing on your claim that the argument made by the Special Counsel attorneys in the hearing...
claiming secret jurisdiction and inherited investigations...
is what you have been arguing all along.
So no...I think we can all agree... please do not waste anyone's time continuing to make this claim. It's really very tedious and further evidence that you are incapable of ever admitting you have been, are now, or ever will be in the future wrong about anything at anytime.
"claiming secret jurisdiction and inherited investigations.."
I never said that I did. I said that Dreeben argued the same points I did, down the line, and these others in addition.
This kind of mis-remembering/misrepresentation is why I'm refraining from explaining legal reasoning henceforth.
You'll get a prediction, which anyone can clearly see after the fact was correct or incorrect. I may add an "evaluation" to show why. That's it.
Prediction: The prosecution will move forward, and even if the Judge gets contrary and dismisses it (small chance of that), it is almost certain to be overturned in an appeals court because it IS a DOJ case after all, and a very solid one.
You really don't know much about the law do you?
If the judge dismisses the case, and especially if he dismisses it with prejudice, then jeopardy is attached and no court in the land can overturn the decision.
It would be as if a jury came back with a not guilty verdict. No court in the land can overturn an acquittal cam call for a retrial.
LOL he doesn't know what pre-trial dismissal is, and he thinks it means OTHER people don't know much about the law.
Entertaining anyway. I'm not explaining it, just google it.
If course you won't explain it. You can't because there is no explanation.
You're just full of bullshit. And when you can't rebut an argument you resort to insults.
Common,
The Judge is very unlikely to dismiss it, because the most compelling argument that Special Counsel had was that whatever violations they committed was a matter of DOJ regulation, and not a matter of law... and that technically at the end of the day, those regulations are not designed to "protect" any individual who may have suffered because those regulations were not followed. Those violations would, in fact, be rather something that could lead to internal discipline.
That being said, when specifically asked by Special Counsel if he (Ellis) felt he could actually dismiss it, he stated "Yes".
Also, if the Judge was eager to rule in favor of Special Counsel, then his request to the Special Counsel to produce the full contents of the August letter would not have been warranted. So obviously, he is still considering all options.
So... I believe he is "thinking about it". But I wouldn't bet my house that he comes back in favor of Manafort's argument.
So possible outcomes?
- He could conceivably dismiss it with prejudice, but it's very unlikely. The only reason he might do that would be to make an example out of this.
- I think he could dismiss it without prejudice, under some order that the case could move forward outside of Special Counsel (aka US Attorney Virginia).
- But most likely, there will be some sort of explanation of what the Judge believes that Rosenstein and Mueller have done wrong (or against regulation) that would probably read like a scolding, but that he will leave the prosecution as is currently exists.
Of course, depending on the level of the scolding, it could provide the President some political cover if he wanted to make a move. Considering the recent revelations of Mueller's handling of the Flynn case, along with a Judge basically calling Special Counsel a bunch of liars to the American public, as well as the potential issues with the case against Concord Management...
If there ever was a time to step up and fire Rosenstein and Mueller, now would be that time.
Post a Comment