Special Counsel Tells Federal Court Rosenstein Investigative Scope Was Detailed in Super-Secret Verb

[Right_in_Virginia]

Special Counsel Tells Federal Court Rosenstein Investigative Scope Was Detailed in Super-Secret Verbal Instructions…
Conservative Treehouse, May 5, 2018

The transcript from the U.S. Special Counsel -vs- Paul Manafort has been released (full pdf below).  The entire transcript of the arguments between the Special Counsel lawyers, Paul Manafort Lawyers and Federal Judge T.S. Ellis III are well worth reading.

As noted yesterday Judge Ellis is the first legal entity to identify the origin of the special counsel investigative authority as a troubling issue.  This is likely to become a much bigger story as people catch on to the ramifications.

It is only now coming to light how Asst. Attorney General Rod Rosenstein essentially appointed the Special Counsel to take over the counterintelligence investigation originally begun by the FBI in 2016.  Also previously unknown: part of the initiating mandate included the special counsel being granted use of a sketchy FISA Court Title-1 surveillance warrant initially applied against Carter Page in October 2016.

<snip>

To defend their position the special counsel team was trying to reconcile how their May 2017 investigative mandate contains more instructions than outlined to the public.

On Page 32 of the transcript, while trying to specify how the initiating special counsel mandate has bearing upon a decades-old banking/tax case, U.S. Attorney Dreeben tells Judge Ellis the detailed instructions were delivered in person:  ....

Yeah, no….

The judge wasn’t buying it, and neither are the American public.

Here’s the full transcript:


Read more: https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/05/05/special-counsel-tells-federal-court-rosenstein-investigative-scope-was-detailed-in-super-secret-verbal-instructions/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

[Right_in_Virginia]

The full transcript is very interesting.... very.

[DB]

Seriously?

That won't float legally or politically.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Full transcripts here:  https://www.scribd.com/document/378289155/U-S-Special-Counsel-Mueller-Vs-Paul-Manafort-Judge-TS-Ellis-III-Presiding-May-4-2017#

[edpc]

The judge wasn’t buying it, and neither are the American public.



Then someone didn’t read the entire exchange.  During the proceedings, they discussed the sensitivity of information in the ongoing investigation and the possibility of going through the Classified Information Procedures Act, beginning on page 28, line 20.  The judge wasn’t thrilled at the prospect, but is very familiar with it, having gone through it in the John Walker Lindh case.  He goes on to say he’s cleared to view the info and the court has an on site SCIF.

A lot has been made of the ‘unfettered’ comment and issue surrounding the Cohen case without the contex of this transcript.  While the judge does press Dreeben on the relevance of decade old tax and fraud crimes, along with the reasoning behind handing off Cohen to SDNY, the prosecution provided solid answers to Ellis’ questions.  What’s key is the comments by defense counsel in the last few pages.  Downing mentions internal process, regulations, and record keeping habits of Rosenstein, having worked with him.  The judge was unmoved and finished his question with ‘so what.’  Defense argues the SC doesn’t have the powers of a US Attorney.  If this is what he’s pinning his client’s chances on, Manafort is cooked.

[Cyber Liberty]

Full transcripts here:  https://www.scribd.com/document/378289155/U-S-Special-Counsel-Mueller-Vs-Paul-Manafort-Judge-TS-Ellis-III-Presiding-May-4-2017#

Thanks for the scribd link.  It made for interesting reading.  For my wife, who used to be a court reporter, it was like a bit of nostalgia to see the language being bantered about the courtroom.  Her conclusion about the way things stood after the arguments is not the same as @edpc's above.

[edpc]

It's hardly the first time two people read something and reached different conclusions.  That's why people are in court over contract disputes every day.  The defense is harping on the fact the prosecution didn't follow their own internal guidelines to get the case dismissed.  Like it or not, it's legally irrelevant and a very weak strategy.  Rosenstein could have set guidelines that Dreeben write all notes left handed, with blue ink.  If he brings ones that are written right handed in black ink, that doesn't make them inadmissible.  Whatever procedures they establish are internal and not US law.

The prosecution presented the redacted document to the court, with what they believed was relevant to Manafort's case, but protected other sensitive information.  You're only going to reveal what you have to and the judge says he needs to see more.  There was no immediate pushback and the prosecution said they'd need to discuss that with other agencies involved.  The judge agreed that was prudent.  He's obviously cleared and qualified to see it.  We'll know within two weeks what transpired, since that's the timeframe the court gave.  As far as Cohen goes, the judge even admits they'd have a point saying it's none of the court's business why the cases were divided between SC and SDNY.  This was not the admonition some are presenting it to be.

[Cyber Liberty]

As far as Cohen goes, the judge even admits they'd have a point saying it's none of the court's business why the cases were divided between SC and SDNY.  This was not the admonition some are presenting it to be.

Yeah, I agree.  That is what the Judge said "So what?" to.  I'm not sure I understand the Judge's point in pursuing that in the first place.

What gives credence to the Defense's angle here is the Judge came out loaded for bear on the Prosecution about dragging a 10-year-old case into this jurisdiction, and I don't think the defense is as weak as you suggest.  But, as you say, we'll have to see what happens in a couple of weeks.  I don't think Mueller's team will be able to resist handing over the unredacted Memo, and I'll concede there is likely nothing new in it.

The bottom line is whether or not the Judge accepts the Mueller team's contention Manafort's old cases are in the purview of this Special Prosecutor.  The judge is aware that may simply be a tool to force Manafort to flip, and that could very well be why the Judge throws these charges out the window.

I have no idea what will happen.  IANAL.

[driftdiver]

Why is everything classified?  It's obvious the FBI and DOJ are hiding behind that label.

They certainly dont give a crap about classified when they want to leak or if Hillary is involved.

[edpc]

Yeah, I agree.  That is what the Judge said "So what?" to.  I'm not sure I understand the Judge's point in pursuing that in the first place.

What gives credence to the Defense's angle here is the Judge came out loaded for bear on the Prosecution about dragging a 10-year-old case into this jurisdiction, and I don't think the defense is as weak as you suggest.  But, as you say, we'll have to see what happens in a couple of weeks.  I don't think Mueller's team will be able to resist handing over the unredacted Memo, and I'll concede there is likely nothing new in it.

The bottom line is whether or not the Judge accepts the Mueller team's contention Manafort's old cases are in the purview of this Special Prosecutor.  The judge is aware that may simply be a tool to force Manafort to flip, and that could very well be why the Judge throws these charges out the window.

I have no idea what will happen.  IANAL.

There's no question they're using the prosecution as leverage.  However, that would be a silly reason for the judge to toss it.  There's no guarantee Manafort would be convicted or cooperate if he was.  See the Mcdougals in Whitewater as an example.  The judge's main concern seems to be the relevancy of investigations going back more than a decade.  IMO, the redacted document has information on foreign contacts in Ukraine.  Until recently, the DOJ was working with their Ukrainian counterparts to investigate the corruption behind Yanukovych, with whom Manafort had done consultant work and made millions.  My guess is his contacts are long established and go back to the 2005 era.

IANAL applies to me, as well.  There are references to CIPA procedures, case precedents, and specific things like 600.10 - whatever that is.  However, much of it is pretty straightforward and not difficult to discern, if you can make it through 50 pages.  IMO, it doesn't get tossed on the defense argument.  If it does, it's because the judge isn't convinced the information in the redacted portions connect to something more recent and ongoing.

[Cyber Liberty]

There's no question they're using the prosecution as leverage.  However, that would be a silly reason for the judge to toss it.  There's no guarantee Manafort would be convicted or cooperate if he was.  See the Mcdougals in Whitewater as an example.  The judge's main concern seems to be the relevancy of investigations going back more than a decade.  IMO, the redacted document has information on foreign contacts in Ukraine.  Until recently, the DOJ was working with their Ukrainian counterparts to investigate the corruption behind Yanukovych, with whom Manafort had done consultant work and made millions.  My guess is his contacts are long established and go back to the 2005 era.

IANAL applies to me, as well.  There are references to CIPA procedures, case precedents, and specific things like 600.10 - whatever that is.  However, much of it is pretty straightforward and not difficult to discern, if you can make it through 50 pages.  IMO, it doesn't get tossed on the defense argument.  If it does, it's because the judge isn't convinced the information in the redacted portions connect to something more recent and ongoing.

That's what I get about it too.  I was curious to see what my wife's take on it was, because she knew her Judges very well, and can read between the lines a bit when hearing what the Judge had to say.  Her impression is the Judge is a fair judge (he questioned both sides closely and intelligently), and doesn't like the Prosecution for dragging an old case the DoJ had already closed into his court for no reason better than to try and flip a potential witness.  Just the impression from a veteran Judge-reader.  If the stuff in the redacted part ties Manafort's activities in Ukraine to current events, then Manafort's going to trial.

(Yes, we did read the whole thing)

[edpc]

That's what I get about it too.  I was curious to see what my wife's take on it was, because she knew her Judges very well, and can read between the lines a bit when hearing what the Judge had to say.  Her impression is the Judge is a fair judge (he questioned both sides closely and intelligently), and doesn't like the Prosecution for dragging an old case the DoJ had already closed into his court for no reason better than to try and flip a potential witness.  Just the impression from a veteran Judge-reader.  If the stuff in the redacted part ties Manafort's activities in Ukraine to current events, then Manafort's going to trial.

(Yes, we did read the whole thing)

I’m glad the full transcript was posted so quickly.  The initial reports made the judge sound like some loon waving a manifesto, threatening to tar and feather the prosecutors.  I found his questions to be fair, though I still don’t understand the relevance of bringing Cohen into it.  I’d expect any judge to be heavier on the prosecution, since the burden is and should be on them.

[Hoodat]

Super secret instructions?

[Cyber Liberty]

I’m glad the full transcript was posted so quickly.  The initial reports made the judge sound like some loon waving a manifesto, threatening to tar and feather the prosecutors.  I found his questions to be fair, though I still don’t understand the relevance of bringing Cohen into it.  I’d expect any judge to be heavier on the prosecution, since the burden is and should be on them.

I noticed the judge mentioned a couple of his past cases, and this ain't his first rodeo.  The Cohen thing mystified me too.  Maybe he was testing the Defense to see if they'd talk about it too, but they did not take the bait.   If he was testing the Prosecutors, to see if they'd tell him to shove it about Cohen, he got the response he was looking for.   

I thought both attorneys held their own pretty well, which is another misread from the initial reports.

[Frank Cannon]

The judge wasn’t buying it, and neither are the American public.



Then someone didn’t read the entire exchange.  During the proceedings, they discussed the sensitivity of information in the ongoing investigation and the possibility of going through the Classified Information Procedures Act, beginning on page 28, line 20.  The judge wasn’t thrilled at the prospect, but is very familiar with it, having gone through it in the John Walker Lindh case.  He goes on to say he’s cleared to view the info and the court has an on site SCIF.

A lot has been made of the ‘unfettered’ comment and issue surrounding the Cohen case without the contex of this transcript.  While the judge does press Dreeben on the relevance of decade old tax and fraud crimes, along with the reasoning behind handing off Cohen to SDNY, the prosecution provided solid answers to Ellis’ questions.  What’s key is the comments by defense counsel in the last few pages.  Downing mentions internal process, regulations, and record keeping habits of Rosenstein, having worked with him.  The judge was unmoved and finished his question with ‘so what.’  Defense argues the SC doesn’t have the powers of a US Attorney.  If this is what he’s pinning his client’s chances on, Manafort is cooked.

Let's have a hand for Bob Mueller everyone. Glad you are posting here.

[jafo2010]

Super secret Gestapo style.  Are we still in America?  Mueller is a criminal, and if that POS Sessions was worth a good BM, and he is not, Mueller would have been removed and indicted.  I am 100% certain that activities conducted by him while head of the FBI, which is becoming the Felony Bureau of Incompetence, are sufficient to indict him on many crimes.

Same is true for his sidekick Comey.  Both should be indicted, along with McCabe and all the Clintonites that have destroyed the integrity of the FBI.

If I were Trump, I would give Sessions an ultimatum, do your job or resign.  It is my belief that Sessions is the inside man for the swamp.  He has undermined Trump's presidency since day one.  The moment he knew he was going to recuse himself, he should have resigned.  He is an utter disgrace.

But I think the good news is that all the events are helping the Republicans, but the Republican Congress needs to get off their dead posterior, particularly the Senate, and actually attempt to do the job they were elected to do.  They are a total failure, and if they do not start passing legislation, particularly legislation that supports the Trump agenda, many of them will not be there for long.  The electorate are just not going to turn out and vote for these do nothing bums.

[Cyber Liberty]

Super secret Gestapo style.  Are we still in America?  Mueller is a criminal, and if that POS Sessions was worth a good BM, and he is not, Mueller would have been removed and indicted.  I am 100% certain that activities conducted by him while head of the FBI, which is becoming the Felony Bureau of Incompetence, are sufficient to indict him on many crimes.

Same is true for his sidekick Comey.  Both should be indicted, along with McCabe and all the Clintonites that have destroyed the integrity of the FBI.

If I were Trump, I would give Sessions an ultimatum, do your job or resign.  It is my belief that Sessions is the inside man for the swamp.  He has undermined Trump's presidency since day one.  The moment he knew he was going to recuse himself, he should have resigned.  He is an utter disgrace.

But I think the good news is that all the events are helping the Republicans, but the Republican Congress needs to get off their dead posterior, particularly the Senate, and actually attempt to do the job they were elected to do.  They are a total failure, and if they do not start passing legislation, particularly legislation that supports the Trump agenda, many of them will not be there for long.  The electorate are just not going to turn out and vote for these do nothing bums.

I'm not sure the GOP wants to win anymore. 

[DB]

I'm not sure the GOP wants to win anymore.

They raise more money telling you what they're going to do if you give them the majority hoping to fall just short of it... You know, the most important election in your life time... Everything depends on the next election... You must stop Mr./Mrs. Evil X from winning or there will be no turning back...

I think that sales pitch is dead for awhile, at least in terms of working...

[Slip18]

Thanks for the scribd link.  It made for interesting reading.  For my wife, who used to be a court reporter, it was like a bit of nostalgia to see the language being bantered about the courtroom.  Her conclusion about the way things stood after the arguments is not the same as @edpc's above.

You read it so well!  It was like I was there in the courtroom.

For all of you who did not know this little factoid about Cyber:  He was a DJ.  You can really tell he is a great reader of news when he reads it to you.  Too cool!

 

[edpc]

For all of you who did not know this little factoid about Cyber:  He was a DJ.

I’m going to guess Panic by The Smiths was not in his rotation.

[Cyber Liberty]

I’m going to guess Panic by The Smiths was not in his rotation.

Nope.

[edpc]

I noticed the judge mentioned a couple of his past cases, and this ain't his first rodeo.  The Cohen thing mystified me too.  Maybe he was testing the Defense to see if they'd talk about it too, but they did not take the bait.   If he was testing the Prosecutors, to see if they'd tell him to shove it about Cohen, he got the response he was looking for.   

I thought both attorneys held their own pretty well, which is another misread from the initial reports.

The decision by the judge on Mueller's jurisdiction may be a pyrrhic victory for Manafort, anyway.  The argument the defense is bringing forth is that Mueller doesn't have prosecutorial authority.  As Judge Napolitano explains in the video below, that doesn't mean he's out of the woods.  They're certainly arguing they have the authority, but if the judge says no, the district federal US Attorney will just assume the case, as SDNY did with Cohen.


! No longer available

[Frank Cannon]

You read it so well!  It was like I was there in the courtroom.

For all of you who did not know this little factoid about Cyber:  He was a DJ.

So @Slip18 , Cyber is actually DJ Pauly D? Awesome! He scratches some mad beats!

[DB]

So @Slip18 , Cyber is actually DJ Pauly D? Awesome! He scratches some mad beats!

Paulynot...