What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

The Russia Investigation: Trump Pardons Flynn (14 Viewers)

Banger said:
exactly...it's Republican's calling a witness before them and asking the questions they want answered....UNLESS it was all a big dog and pony show by the Repub's and they likely didn't like the answers they got and certainly don't want the public to know the what really happened.
Click to expand...
That doesn't sound plausible. Sorry. 

 
Mr. Ham said:
Would love to think there was an inside source.  They merely said the FBI had gotten information from a Trump insider.  Nothing says this wasn't the info from Papadopolous delivered by way of Australia. 
Click to expand...
That'smsome seriously weird phrasing, if that's what they were saying

 
The Indestructible said:
Here is the complaint:

link
Click to expand...
if I'm reading this correctly at first glance, the argument seems to be that the grant to Mueller of authority to investigate "any matters that arose or may arise directly from" the Russia stuff was broader than permitted by the authorizing law.

The argument seems to turn on the idea that the word "specific" in this language ...

The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall be established by the Attorney General. The Special Counsel will be provided with a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated.
Click to expand...
... necessarily means that the jurisdiction must also be strictly limited.  Just looking at the language, and considering the Mueller authorization was no doubt crafted by a team of qualified federal attorneys who would have had a careful eye on the authorizing legislation, this claim seems pretty dubious to me.  Seems to imply way too much about the meaning of the word "specific" in that context that I just don't see.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Indestructible said:
Here is the complaint:

link
Click to expand...
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, judgment should be entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants, jointly and severally, and the Court should grant the following relief:

a. an order and judgment setting aside the Appointment Order and declaring it invalid, arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise not in accordance with law;

b. an order and judgment declaring ultra vires and setting aside all actions taken against Mr. Manafort pursuant to the Appointment Order;

c. an order and judgment declaring that Mr. Mueller lacks authority to investigate business dealings not arising from the original jurisdiction set out in the Appointment Order;

d. an order and judgment enjoining Mr. Mueller from investigating matters beyond the scope of the grant of jurisdiction in the Appointment Order; and...

:lol:

Jumping all the way to - even if i did illegal things, you can't investigate me, because, well because you just can't.

 
TobiasFunke said:
if I'm reading this correctly at first glance, the argument seems to be that the grant to Mueller of authority to investigate "any matters that arose or may arise directly from" the Russia stuff was broader than permitted by the authorizing law.

The argument seems to turn on the idea that the word "specific" in this language ...

... necessarily means that the jurisdiction must also be strictly limited.  Just looking at the language, and considering the Mueller authorization was no doubt crafted by a team of qualified federal attorneys who would have had a careful eye on the authorizing legislation, this claim seems pretty dubious to me.  Seems to imply way too much about the meaning of the word "specific" in that context that I just don't see.
Click to expand...


At first glance, I think this was a Hail Mary, but a more thoughtful approach might be that this is simply Trump floating a trial balloon for when Mueller goes after his finances.

Ultimately, I think it fails because if the investigation into one act, leads to the discovery of another bad act, you can't ignore it.

 
Sinn Fein said:
At first glance, I think this was a Hail Mary, but a more thoughtful approach might be that this is simply Trump floating a trial balloon for when Mueller goes after his finances.

Ultimately, I think it fails because if the investigation into one act, leads to the discovery of another bad act, you can't ignore it.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's anything more than good defense attorneys using the kitchen sink approach, as they should. It's possible it has deeper meaning, but I think your first instinct was probably correct.

 
JuniorNB said:
That's going to be a tough choice for them. I may actually break down and watch them after work tonight. They may just ignore it and hope it goes away.
Click to expand...
It's not a tough decision at all for them. Bannon/Breitbart is a competitor. Bannon is also going to end up getting stuck with the loser label for backing a pedophile in Alabama that lost to a Democrat and backing an outright anti-Semite. Bannon is on the way out no matter what. Fox choosing to side with Trump is the only possible play.

 
GroveDiesel said:
It's not a tough decision at all for them. Bannon/Breitbart is a competitor. Bannon is also going to end up getting stuck with the loser label for backing a pedophile in Alabama that lost to a Democrat and backing an outright anti-Semite. Bannon is on the way out no matter what. Fox choosing to side with Trump is the only possible play.
Click to expand...
Yeah, they're backing Trump.

Breitbart comments are blaming the media (somehow), and Kushner.

 
This does create an interesting scenario when it comes to Manafort cooperating with Mueller.  Either this is an elaborate covfefe, or Manafort is still holding out hope for a Trump card, and not cooperating with Mueller.  Rumors that Mueller was going to file a superseding indictment also suggests that Mueller does not have enough leverage to force Manafort into helping - yet. 

 
Sinn Fein said:
This does create an interesting scenario when it comes to Manafort cooperating with Mueller.  Either this is an elaborate covfefe, or Manafort is still holding out hope for a Trump card, and not cooperating with Mueller.  Rumors that Mueller was going to file a superseding indictment also suggests that Mueller does not have enough leverage to force Manafort into helping - yet. 
Click to expand...
does he need him?  many of his crimes and cut and dried and they Papo from the campaign that did the actual outreach and Flynn who also has actual contacts with Russians...sure Manafort could help but I don't think Mueller needs him.

 
TobiasFunke said:
I don't think it's anything more than good defense attorneys using the kitchen sink approach, as they should. It's possible it has deeper meaning, but I think your first instinct was probably correct.
Click to expand...
Probably - but I would not rule out this approach suggested by Trump's attorneys.  Trump may have been advised that politically he cannot have Mueller removed - so this lays the groundwork for shifting that narrative:  That Trump must remove Mueller because he is not lawfully appointed to investigate all these financial crimes.

 
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
Lordy, is that Manafort suit stupid.
Click to expand...
Well.  The good news is there will be a court order providing Mueller with the authority he already has. 

But the real purpose of this was no doubt to delay and keep Manafort out on his bail agreement as long as possible while it’s argued, lost, appealed, lost, appealed, and lost. 

 
Sinn Fein said:
At first glance, I think this was a Hail Mary, but a more thoughtful approach might be that this is simply Trump floating a trial balloon for when Mueller goes after his finances.

Ultimately, I think it fails because if the investigation into one act, leads to the discovery of another bad act, you can't ignore it.
Click to expand...
I think it fails because the regulations specifically state that they create no private substantive or procedural rights. 

Also because the AG has the authority to grant supplemental jurisdiction outside the original jurisdiction and nothing in the regs says that the AG (or acting AG) cannot do that in the original assignment.  

I also like all the quotations to Scalia's dissent in Olson v. Morrison.  Like it or not, the Independent Counsel statute was not declared unconstitutional.  So arguing that the Special Counsel is operating like the Independent Counsel did has literally no legal significance whatsoever.  

 
GroveDiesel said:
It's not a tough decision at all for them. Bannon/Breitbart is a competitor. Bannon is also going to end up getting stuck with the loser label for backing a pedophile in Alabama that lost to a Democrat and backing an outright anti-Semite. Bannon is on the way out no matter what. Fox choosing to side with Trump is the only possible play.
Click to expand...
Exactly! I don’t even think it’s a tough decision, they will go all out anti-Bannon.

 
Sinn Fein said:
Probably - but I would not rule out this approach suggested by Trump's attorneys.  Trump may have been advised that politically he cannot have Mueller removed - so this lays the groundwork for shifting that narrative:  That Trump must remove Mueller because he is not lawfully appointed to investigate all these financial crimes.
Click to expand...
I just noticed this was a totally new civil suit. I had assumed it was a motion to dismiss his criminal conviction, which seemed like such an obvious assumption that I didn't bother to check it.

This civil suit tactic is weird and changes things a bit.

 
Henry Ford said:
Well.  The good news is there will be a court order providing Mueller with the authority he already has. 

But the real purpose of this was no doubt to delay and keep Manafort out on his bail agreement as long as possible while it’s argued, lost, appealed, lost, appealed, and lost. 
Click to expand...
It's so frivolous that the District Court could easily dismiss sua sponte.  And I imagine the DC circuit could push out a per curiam order affirming the dismissal in days, if not hours.  

 
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
It's so frivolous that the District Court could easily dismiss sua sponte.  And I imagine the DC circuit could push out a per curiam order affirming the dismissal in days, if not hours.  
Click to expand...
Like it or not, the DC circuit is really political all the way down to the districts. I don’t think it gets dismissed sua sponte.  

Also, my autocorrect changed that to “soup sponge” and I have no idea whether that would be better or worse. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Even if Mueller overstepped his authority, I don't see how his case could be dismissed once he's been indicted by a lawfully constituted grand jury (even if they are all tie-dye hippie Sanders BLM rioters).

 
Henry Ford said:
Like it or not, the DC circuit is really political. I don’t think it gets dismissed sua sponte.  

Also, my autocorrect changed that to “soup sponge” and I have no idea whether that would be better or worse. 
Click to expand...
It's seven appointed by Clinton or Obama versus 4 appointed by one of the Bushes or Trump right now.  Henderson isn't particularly political.  Kavanaugh is conservative, but he's also, in my experience, principled and a guy who stomps out bad legal arguments like this in his sleep.  Even if we assume that he shares his old boss Starr's newfound distrust of the independent counsel statute he used to investigate the Clintons for years and years, I just don't see Kavanaugh ignoring something as basic as the regulation itself denying jurisdiction.  He's almost certainly upheld motions to dismiss on that very ground in Medicare cases or whatever.  Maybe dozens of times.  

 
I like Paragraph 26, where Manafort's attorneys pause to wonder "whether DOJ's special counsel regulations themselves create any rights..." and then cite to 28 CFR 600.10.  That's a fun section: 

§ 600.10 No creation of rights.

The regulations in this part are not intended to, do not, and may not be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity, by any person or entity, in any matter, civil, criminal, or administrative.
Click to expand...
Given that, I think this case is DOA.  He could make the same arguments in the criminal case.  

Also, I am fairly certain that my former boss would, upon reading the above, tell me to prepare start researching Rule 11.  

 
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
It's seven appointed by Clinton or Obama versus 4 appointed by one of the Bushes or Trump right now.  Henderson isn't particularly political.  Kavanaugh is conservative, but he's also, in my experience, principled and a guy who stomps out bad legal arguments like this in his sleep.  Even if we assume that he shares his old boss Starr's newfound distrust of the independent counsel statute he used to investigate the Clintons for years and years, I just don't see Kavanaugh ignoring something as basic as the regulation itself denying jurisdiction.  He's almost certainly upheld motions to dismiss on that very ground in Medicare cases or whatever.  Maybe dozens of times.  
Click to expand...
Of course he has.  That’s a far cry from a sua sponte dismissal. 

 
Henry Ford said:
Of course he has.  That’s a far cry from a sua sponte dismissal. 
Click to expand...
From the Circuit's perspective, why would it matter if the underlying dismissal was sua sponte or pursuant to a motion?  It doesn't change the analysis one bit.  While most complaints by barred attorneys are generally afforded the courtesy of motions or a hearing, pro se complaints are dismissed out of hand all the time.  Particularly when the court doesn't have jurisdiction over the matter, as is the case here.  Everybody agrees that the courts have the power to dismiss under 12(b)(1) sua sponte.   Add in the fact that using a civil suit to collaterally attack a facially valid indictment is pretty squarely against public policy, and I just don't think it would be a controversial move at all.  It's a completely meritless suit.  It doesn't transform into a meritorious complaint just because it wasn't scrawled in crayon by some inmate.  

 
Bucky86 said:
FIREWORKS EVERYWHERE!

Kyle Griffin‏Verified account @kylegriffin1

FollowFollow @kylegriffin1

More

Dan Scavino “may have corresponded with Russian nationals regarding Trump campaign social media efforts,” Dianne Feinstein wrote in a letter to Scavino, per Mother Jones. Feinstein says the committee “received information” re: Scavino’s potential comms.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/01/sen-feinstein-says-trumps-social-media-guru-may-have-corresponded-with-russian-nationals/
Click to expand...
Thought we already knew this?  http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/363900-russian-social-media-exec-reached-out-to-scavino-trump-jr-during#.WipFNI9eDZ4.twitter

 
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
Thought we already knew this?  http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/363900-russian-social-media-exec-reached-out-to-scavino-trump-jr-during#.WipFNI9eDZ4.twitter
Click to expand...
We knew the Russians reached out. The Senate Judiciary just today sent a letter to Scavino requesting he come in for an interview because they have received information that he had communications with Russian nationals during the campaign. Communications sounds like a two-way street, not just someone trying to contact him. The Senate investigators aren't clarifying what is meant by that though and we don't even know if the two stories are the same or it was based on different occurrences. 

 
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
From the Circuit's perspective, why would it matter if the underlying dismissal was sua sponte or pursuant to a motion?  It doesn't change the analysis one bit.  While most complaints by barred attorneys are generally afforded the courtesy of motions or a hearing, pro se complaints are dismissed out of hand all the time.  Particularly when the court doesn't have jurisdiction over the matter, as is the case here.  Everybody agrees that the courts have the power to dismiss under 12(b)(1) sua sponte.   Add in the fact that using a civil suit to collaterally attack a facially valid indictment is pretty squarely against public policy, and I just don't think it would be a controversial move at all.  It's a completely meritless suit.  It doesn't transform into a meritorious complaint just because it wasn't scrawled in crayon by some inmate.  
Click to expand...
Alrighty.  I guess we’ll see what the court does. 

 
TheMagus said:
We knew the Russians reached out. The Senate Judiciary just today sent a letter to Scavino requesting he come in for an interview because they have received information that he had communications with Russian nationals during the campaign. Communications sounds like a two-way street, not just someone trying to contact him. The Senate investigators aren't clarifying what is meant by that though and we don't even know if the two stories are the same or it was based on different occurrences. 
Click to expand...
That story reports that Scavino replied to the Aglarov rep.  Not particularly substantively, but there was communication.  The Feinstein letter is ambiguous to me about whether its alleging anything more.  

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

dozer
****Official DOJ Investigation into Trump, Fake Electors, Fraud, Etc.****
5 6 7
Replies
348
Views
11K
Sabertooth
Sabertooth
dozer
Ret. Lt. Gen Mike Flynn
2 3
Replies
104
Views
3K
Genxersrule
G
G
Mueller Investigation - Common Misconceptions (1-10)
Replies
0
Views
196
Guest
G

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 14 (members: 0, guests: 14)
Top