Special counsel Robert Mueller

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by hcap

Overheard at the DSCC retreat on Martha’s Vineyard
https://www.politico.com/newsletters...ineyard-281247

...SEN. MARK WARNER (D-Va.) hosted a dinner Friday night for more than 100 guests at his house on Martha’s Vineyard as part of the DSCC’S annual Majority Trust retreat. OVERHEARD: Warner, the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, joking to the crowd: “If you get me one more glass of wine, I’ll tell you stuff only Bob Mueller and I know. If you think you’ve seen wild stuff so far, buckle up. It’s going to be a wild couple of months.”

https://www.salon.com/2018/06/26/don...-donald-trump/

...Nobody's sure exactly what Warner was hinting at, and he says he was just joking. But there have been a number of clues over the past couple of weeks that the investigation is picking up speed.

Mueller has called in some new prosecutors, reportedly to spin off the part of the investigation pertaining to the Russian firms he previously indicted. It's unclear why he decided to do that, although informed speculation says he's either punting on that case, since there's no hope of extraditing the accused, or simply freeing up some of his more seasoned prosecutors to concentrate on the more important cases.

......Trump's former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, is now sitting in jail contemplating his future while his lawyers present a flurry of different arguments to spring him, none of which have been successful so far. Trump's former lawyer, Michael Cohen, is reportedly getting ready to cooperate with the feds in his case in New York, and Mueller is said to be eyeing his involvement very closely. Erik Prince, the former Blackwater CEO who seems to have turned up in numerous meetings with Russians and Middle Eastern potentates offering "back channels" during the presidential campaign, told the press that he's "cooperating" with the Mueller probe and has turned over his phone and computer to investigators. (Most legal analysts seem to be skeptical of Prince's sincerity, which isn't surprising.)

Trump's old friend Roger Stone is reportedly in Mueller's crosshairs and is considered most likely to be the next person indicted. (This piece by Mary Wheeler explains just how much trouble Stone may be in, and how his case is a likely template for others.)

Only a matter of time

Hopefully SOMETHING come from this giant waste of time and money thus far.

But, we've been let down many times with claims of "something big is coming." From both sides I might add.

So I'll continue to hold my breath.

At least you have something to get up for in the morning.

[woodtoo]

Special Counsel Robert Mueller has no authority to prosecute Paul Manafort.
A motion filed on Friday in the Eastern District of Virginia makes that conclusion clear once again. @ The Federalist

Also

"Indicted Russian Company
Concord Management and Consulting hit Mueller again today with a new court filing".
"This time Concord is seeking to dismiss the case, arguing the appointment of Special Prosecutor Mueller was in violation of the U.S. Constitution".
@ Politico

Ill believe a judge over drunken Mark Warner every day.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by woodtoo

Special Counsel Robert Mueller has no authority to prosecute Paul Manafort.
A motion filed on Friday in the Eastern District of Virginia makes that conclusion clear once again. @ The Federalist

Ill believe a judge over drunken Mark Warner every day.

Duh! from our article......
The presiding judge is T.S. Ellis III.


Ellis has also not yet ruled on Manafort’s motion to dismiss.

Frankly, the argument Manafort presented in his motion to dismiss was flawed: Manafort argued that Mueller acted beyond the authority Acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had granted him. But, as I explained at the time, Rosenstein provided the special counsel with virtually unlimited authority, so Mueller’s indictment of Manafort fell within it.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by hcap

Duh! from our article......
The presiding judge is T.S. Ellis III.


Ellis has also not yet ruled on Manafort’s motion to dismiss.

Frankly, the argument Manafort presented in his motion to dismiss was flawed: Manafort argued that Mueller acted beyond the authority Acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had granted him. But, as I explained at the time, Rosenstein provided the special counsel with virtually unlimited authority, so Mueller’s indictment of Manafort fell within it.

Unlimited power is the problem. The U.S. Constitution does not authorize any person or branch to have unlimited power. Rosenstein does not have unlimited power, even though he acts like he does, thus he cannot grant through his authority unlimited power to anyone else.

We all should be very concerned anytime any person claims they have unlimited power, under the U.S. Constitution.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Unlimited power is the problem. The U.S. Constitution does not authorize any person or branch to have unlimited power. Rosenstein does not have unlimited power, even though he acts like he does, thus he cannot grant through his authority unlimited power to anyone else.

We all should be very concerned anytime any person claims they have unlimited power, under the U.S. Constitution.

That's a totally different discussion. Let's get our facts straight first.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by hcap

That's a totally different discussion. Let's get our facts straight first.

No it is not. No person or branch under the U.S. Constitution is granted unlimited power. A person who does not posses authority cannot give another person authority the giver does not posses. Rosenstein does not posses unlimited power and thus he cannot grant anyone unlimited power.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

No it is not. No person or branch under the U.S. Constitution is granted unlimited power. A person who does not posses authority cannot give another person authority the giver does not posses. Rosenstein does not posses unlimited power and thus he cannot grant anyone unlimited power.

Look, I have spent the last week arguing facts on many threads. Did not mean to take it out you.

Unlimited power, no. Indictments yes, except for a sitting president, are clearly spelled out, and depending upon the findings of the investigation, reported to congress, congress may impeach and convict the president

From Wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specia...nt_counsel_law

In the United States, a special prosecutor (or special counsel or independent counsel or independent prosecutor) is a lawyer appointed to investigate, and potentially prosecute, a particular case of suspected wrongdoing for which a conflict of interest exists for the usual prosecuting authority.

...Inspired in part by Watergate, in 1978 Congress passed the Ethics in Government Act, which among other things established formal rules for the appointment of a special prosecutor. The special prosecutor provisions in the bill were temporary, but were reauthorized by Congress in 1983 and 1987, expiring five years later in 1992, then were reinstated for another five years in 1994 before expiring again in 1999. The appointment of special prosecutors under the Ethics in Government Act varied in important ways from appointments made before and since. Most notably, although the decision to appoint a special prosecutor was still made by the attorney general, the actual selection of the special prosecutor was made by a three-judge panel.[13]

Roughly twenty special prosecutors (called independent counsels after 1983) were appointed under the Ethics in Government Act and its reauthorizations[14] during the Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush, and Bill Clinton

[hcap]

Was Mueller’s Appointment ‘Unconstitutional’?

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/06/wa...onstitutional/

In his latest attack on the Russia investigation, President Donald Trump tweeted, “The appointment of the Special Counsel is totally UNCONSTITUTIONAL!”

This amounts to Trump’s opinion, and is a matter of debate among constitutional scholars. The Supreme Court ruled in 1988 that the appointment of an independent counsel was constitutional, but the rules and circumstances were a little different then. And the Supreme Court has not spoken directly on the constitutionality of current regulations for special counsels.

So, as we all knew the issue may rise to the Supreme Court for the current investigation.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by hcap

Look, I have spent the last week arguing facts on many threads. Did not mean to take it out you.

Unlimited power, no. Indictments yes, except for a sitting president, are clearly spelled out, and depending upon the findings of the investigation, reported to congress, congress may impeach and convict the president

From Wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specia...nt_counsel_law

In the United States, a special prosecutor (or special counsel or independent counsel or independent prosecutor) is a lawyer appointed to investigate, and potentially prosecute, a particular case of suspected wrongdoing for which a conflict of interest exists for the usual prosecuting authority.

...Inspired in part by Watergate, in 1978 Congress passed the Ethics in Government Act, which among other things established formal rules for the appointment of a special prosecutor. The special prosecutor provisions in the bill were temporary, but were reauthorized by Congress in 1983 and 1987, expiring five years later in 1992, then were reinstated for another five years in 1994 before expiring again in 1999. The appointment of special prosecutors under the Ethics in Government Act varied in important ways from appointments made before and since. Most notably, although the decision to appoint a special prosecutor was still made by the attorney general, the actual selection of the special prosecutor was made by a three-judge panel.[13]

Roughly twenty special prosecutors (called independent counsels after 1983) were appointed under the Ethics in Government Act and its reauthorizations[14] during the Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush, and Bill Clinton

I have no problem with the above. The problem I have is that Mueller's team, in open court, argued they basically have unlimited powers per Rosenstein's memo.

I fail to see how tax evasion a decade ago falls under the Mueller's jurisdiction. The crime falls under the Department of Justice and the proper procedure is Mueller referring the prosecution to the Department of Justice.

As your cite above clearly states: a lawyer appointed to investigate, and potentially prosecute, a particular case of suspected wrongdoing for which a conflict of interest exists for the usual prosecuting authority.


Mueller was not appointed to investigate, a particular case of suspected wrongdoing, tax evasion and the Dept. of Justice does not have a conflict of interest in prosecuting a tax evasion case.

[chrisl]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointments_Clause

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by hcap

But, as I explained at the time, Rosenstein provided the special counsel with virtually unlimited authority, so Mueller’s indictment of Manafort fell within it.

The man who once vehemently protested against the US Government during Vietnam is now cool with someone having VIRTUALLY UNLIMITED AUTHORITY...

You're a laugh riot Alice! A laugh riot!

[wisconsin]

Originally Posted by hcap

Only a matter of time

Like I said before, Trump was not supposed to win according to the left. If there was anything, trust me, there is no way he is allowed to linger in office.

The fact he is, tells me still that there is nothing to see here.

[fast4522]

Realistically without a perjury charge Robert Mueller has nothing, that being said the President's lawyers would never let a interview to occur. With new documents showing the whole investigation is based on a bogus dossier with the FBI investigating a campaign for President before a mandate the pressure at the DOJ must be extraordinary to say the very least.

[OntheRail]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

I have no problem with the above. The problem I have is that Mueller's team, in open court, argued they basically have unlimited powers per Rosenstein's memo.

I fail to see how tax evasion a decade ago falls under the Mueller's jurisdiction. The crime falls under the Department of Justice and the proper procedure is Mueller referring the prosecution to the Department of Justice.

As your cite above clearly states: a lawyer appointed to investigate, and potentially prosecute, a particular case of suspected wrongdoing for which a conflict of interest exists for the usual prosecuting authority.


Mueller was not appointed to investigate, a particular case of suspected wrongdoing, tax evasion and the Dept. of Justice does not have a conflict of interest in prosecuting a tax evasion case.

a particular case of suspected wrongdoing... to hcap that is a inclusive statement ( anything under the sun ), instead of a exclusive declarative with narrowly defined parameters.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

The man who once vehemently protested against the US Government during Vietnam is now cool with someone having VIRTUALLY UNLIMITED AUTHORITY...

You're a laugh riot Alice! A laugh riot!

That was from the Federalist article woodtoo directed us to. That I was disputing. Post 903 Sorry, it came across as I said it. The author was giving his opinion.

I have linked to the original Justice Dept authorization a few times