[National Review] The federal judge overseeing the prosecution of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort questioned the scope of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election Thursday.
During a hearing in one of the criminal cases Mueller brought against Manafort, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson agreed that deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein’s order empowering the special counsel to investigate any crimes he encountered during his probe may have violated Justice Department policy.
Manafort’s lead defense attorney, Kevin Downing, argued that Rosenstein’s May 17 order empowering Mueller to investigate Russian interference and any issues "that may arise" during the probe violated the DOJ requirement that a special counsel be made aware of a "specific factual matter" prior to his appointment.
Jackson appeared to agree but noted that Rosenstein was constrained by a lack of knowledge regarding what Mueller’s team might find, according to Politico.
"That’s a fair point," Jackson said. "[But] I don’t think that, as good as he is, that the deputy attorney general can see into the future."
Downing further suggested that if Mueller’s mandate was overly broad, the charges against Manafort, which include money laundering and failing to register as a foreign lobbyist, would be invalid.
#2
My dream right now is to have the lot of your "Federal Judges" attend a Gala wherein you are all fired emasse over not knowing basic Plenary Power and lack of knowing the LAW of the Land.
"May be"?
How does a Counter Terrorism FISA request turn into a Criminal Investigation?
Never.
Where is that FISA request?
What specifications are outlined in this "Special Counsel"?
How does this last a year with a retirement account?
I need a "Special Counsel" to investigate the "Special Counsel " for his mis-conduct while in the FBI for starts. For his henchman work for the Clintons, and for his abuse of Prosecutorial power.
Comey, Mccabe too. and all of those Mafia strong men.
As someone said under the line, "They will fold like portable dildoes"
[Washington Examiner] The top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee says Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., is poised to subpoena the Justice Department for former FBI Director James Comey’s memos, which the agency so far has failed to produce.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., warned such a move puts Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in jeopardy of being placed in contempt of Congress and the special counsel investigation of being shut down prematurely.
Nadler announced in a statement that Goodlatte informed him Wednesday that "he intends to issue a subpoena to the Department of Justice ‐ in this case to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein."
A spokesperson for Goodlatte did not immediately return the Washington Examiner's request for confirmation.
The Justice Department also did not immediately return a request for comment.
Goodlatte was one of three committee chairmen who pressed the Justice Department to turn over the Comey memos. Comey, who was fired by President Trump in May 2017, testified before a congressional committee that he wrote memos detailing various conversations he had with Trump. In one memo, Comey claimed that the president pressured him to end the FBI’s investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn. In another, Comey recalled how Trump demanded loyalty from him.
The three chairmen, including House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., argued there is "no legal basis for withholding these materials from Congress" and set a Monday deadline for the DOJ to comply.
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/20/2018 7:44 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Popcorn. ...and do a predawn raid on Rep. Nadler's personal lawyer and campaign financier, after all they might know something about Trump's collusion. See how easy it is when you go full-Gestapo?
h/t Instapundit
[TownHall] You know all that insufferable babbling and crying about "principles" we had to endure from you Never Trump Konservative Ken Dolls? Your rending of your cheap suits, your 180s over classic GOP policies because The Donald actually tried to enact them, and your mortifying blubbering to suddenly sympathetic hosts on MSNBC and CNN about how awful our President is? With your sad, drawn faces and high-pitched voices, you True Conservatives of Conservatism™, you Keepers of the Flame of Conservativeness resisted the coming of Donald Trump (and those who supported him) because...because...
#1
Most Never Trumpers are token conservatives without any firm ideals. I think they burned out defending W because he wouldn't defend himself, couldn't release their bile on Obama because he was black, and are now enjoying being part of the pack of jackels.
#2
Schlichter is a true grandmaster at twisting the knife, sometimes several times in the same sentence. And if ever there was a group deserving of said twisting, it's the "SalonHot25" crowd. Charlatans and poseurs all.
Robert Zubrin proposes a simple and cheap way to build and run and expand a large moonbase(s) using Falcon Heavy and F9s for under $900,000,000 per year
[American Renaissance] "America doesn’t need more people; it needs to allow its own people to recover."
An "aging white population [is] speeding [up] diversity," blared a headline in The Hill.
Could this be a case of confusing cause-and-effect? Are the two trends‐whites dying-out and minorities thriving‐really spontaneous and strictly parallel?
The reverse is likely true. Corrected, The Hill headline should have read:
Could speeding up diversity contribute to a decline in the white population?
We learn that "there are growing signs that the rate of change is increasing." Well of course. America welcomes well over 1 million, mostly non-white, immigrants a year.
If white lives mattered at all to the liberal establishment, an inquiry would ensue:
Is it possibility that an enormous influx of legal and illegal migrants over decades is playing a role in the decline of America’s founding population? (A similar, sad fate was visited on their predecessors, the Amerindians.)
On the one hand, we have the drastic, ongoing decline of America’s white population; on the other, a massive, incessant inpouring of minority immigrants, since 1965. A correlation between the two is not impossible.
A large, well-controlled national survey conducted by Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam, in 2006, found that diversity immiserates and that the historic population is most affected.
Perhaps protracted misery associated with loss of community hastens death?
The logic posits a zero-sum game. The native population has been swamped over time. Resources are scarce‐especially when allocated by a wastrel, white-hating Administrative State. In hating on whites, civil society’s institutions are as culpable. "Admin State" along with Civil society institutions making up what we now refer to as the "Deep State."
Is it not highly plausible, then, that immigration social engineering, compounded by state policies that privilege non-white newcomers, could contribute to a population decline in white America?
Picture the following scene, set somewhere in what was Trump country, say West Virginia:
A pale patriarch must help his bright son choose a career.
What about pursuing the law? Article continues followed by a mile of pithy reader comments.
#4
It's all according to liberal elite plans. Unrestricted immigration, open borders, globalism, diversity, multiculturalism and an economy which does not support families. Unfortunately, the plan has resulted in the destruction of families--both black, white and Hispanic. The plan has resulted in the destruction of a strong middle-class economy and created two classes: the very wealthy and the poor.
#5
The wealthy and the trapped. The left wants its slave dependent population trapped in the projects. No escape. Where even your own people hold you back.
TRIGGER WARNING: the below post contains frank discussion of liberalism and statism that survivors of leftist regimes may find troubling. Michael Z. Williamson is really, really, angry and uses a lot of Anglo Saxon words to express his anger - nevertheless, I feel it's an accurate description & worthwhile read. Some excepts
...First, we need to define the term "liberal." The modern American "liberal" is nothing like the classical liberal of the 19th Century, who gave us most of modern civilization, nor even the anti-statist liberals of the 60s, who were well-intentioned if a bit naive.
The modern American "liberal" is a statist c*cksucker who cannot tolerate even the existence of dissent. They claim to be "tolerant," but a quick discussion will lead to them admitting they don't have to tolerate those hatey haters who hate, which is anyone they disagree with, even if the facts conclusively support the other party. They are a cancer on society and, as in several past societies, at some point they will have to be exterminated.
...they'll define anyone who dissents from their agenda as a Nazi, and of course, it's perfectly okay to try to kill "nazis" with blunt objects, firearms and other weapons, for the crime of being a "nazi," and "due process is racist." There's simply no way to reason with such an entity.
I know some of you are going to say, "But liberals are faggots, so who cares what they think?" Kampuchea
...The only response you should give to a liberal about anything is, "Fuck off, pussy." Now, I'm in the blessed position of being able to do that without retaliation. People who have a boss to answer to often get fired just because the boss hopes the shouting will go away if he appeases the mob. But, that just means the mob now dictates his hiring and firing choices. They'll keep coming back for more. It's an orgy of self-righteous faggotry.
That's part of why liberals hate the self-employed. It's much harder for them to have any effect on me that I'd notice. Oh, sure, they can threaten to boycott my books, but that's based on three false threats--A) that liberals can read for content 2: that they'd comprehend my stuff if they read it, and c] that they have ever paid to read anything of mine in the first place. Threatening to continue not to pay me isn't a viable threat, and the more offensive I am to liberals, the better my sales are among normal people.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
