Skip to content
Advertisements

Paul Manafort files a lawsuit against the Department of Justice and Robert Mueller

January 3, 2018

  Earlier today Paul Manafort filed a lawsuit against the Department of Justice and Robert Mueller, claiming the special counsel exceeded its authority when it charged him with money laundering because this had nothing to do with the Russia investigation. Here is more:

Attorneys for former Donald Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort filed a lawsuit Wednesday in federal court accusing special counsel Robert Mueller and the Justice Department of overreaching with criminal charges brought last fall that included money laundering and tax evasion.

Manafort, who has pleaded not guilty to the multi-count indictment, urged the court to strike down Mueller’s appointment as illegal. The 17-page complaint argues that the Russia special counsel exceeded authority DOJ gave him in May to investigate any links or coordination between the Russian government and the Trump campaign — and that DOJ granted Mueller too much power in the first place by giving him the green light to go after “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation.”

“The principle that government must be both limited in power and accountable to the people lies at the core of our constitutional traditions. That principle must be zealously guarded against creeping incursions,” Manafort attorneys Kevin Downing and Thomas Zehnle wrote in the lawsuit, which was filed in the same venue — the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia — overseeing Mueller’s criminal case against both Manafort and former Trump 2016 campaign aide Rick Gates.

    The article linked to above goes on to say the alleged crimes pre-date the election and have nothing to do with the campaign and this is correct. The investigation seems to have shifted away from the election but still if it is true that Robert Mueller was given authority to go after any issue that arose during the investigation it is hard to see how Paul Manafort can win this lawsuit.

  It is hard for me to see how Robert Mueller’s appointment was illegal; the investigation might be unethical, illegitimate, and politically motivated by a fake Russian dossier which was bought and paid for by the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign, as well as admittedly leaked sensitive information by an FBI director who wanted to see a special counsel appointed to investigate Donald Trump, but does this make Robert Mueller’s appointment illegal? Perhaps that case can be made but I do not think Paul Manafort is going to win this argument. We will have to wait and see…

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

Advertisements
14 Comments leave one →
  1. January 3, 2018 10:36 pm

    First here is a link to the actual lawsuit.

    https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000160-bda4-dcd4-a96b-bdad99e40001

    US journalism sucks because it fails to provide original source links.

    Liked by 1 person

    • January 4, 2018 6:34 am

      Thanks for the link.

      Like

  2. January 3, 2018 10:45 pm

    From the lawsuit. This is shot across the bow of the Police State represented by Herr Mueller.

    “1 The principle that government must be both limited in power and accountable to the people lies at the core of our constitutional traditions. That principle must be zealously guarded against creeping incursions. One of the most notorious violations—the “wolf” that famously came “as a wolf”—was the now-defunct independent counsel law from the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, Pub. L. No. 95-521, 92 Stat. 1824. Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654, 699 (1988) (Scalia, J., dissenting). That law gave expansive prosecutorial authority to lawyers who were outside the Justice Department and thus lacked political accountability for their choices.” …

    Where are the conservative and libertarian voices? Wake up!

    Liked by 1 person

    • January 4, 2018 6:35 am

      I agree with that 100%. It is scary the way the government has been weaponizing over the years to take out its opponents. IE the IRS and the Tea Party.

      Like

  3. January 3, 2018 11:19 pm

    Again from the lawsuit…

    4 ….The independent counsel statute expired in 1999 when Congress refused to reauthorize it. That refusal reflected a “bipartisan judgment . . . that the Independent Counsel was a kind of constitutional Frankenstein’s monster, which ought to be shoved firmly back into the ice from which it was initially untombed.” Adrian Vermeule, Morrison v. Olson Is Bad Law, LAWFARE (June 9, 2017).

    11 …Id like the special counsel statute that came before it, this Appointment Order “ought to be shoved firmly back into the ice from which it was initially untombed.”

    Liked by 1 person

    • January 4, 2018 6:38 am

      This I did not know. This could be the thing that undoes the investigation but I will still be surprised if Manafort wins.

      Like

  4. January 4, 2018 4:49 am

    The whole case rest on the legal principal of ultra vires- beyond the power of the law. Manafort lawsuit argues Rosenstein exceeded his authority in granting the special counsel special extra statutory powers – to investigate whatever he finds.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. January 4, 2018 5:01 am

    Reblogged this on Brittius.

    Liked by 1 person

    • January 4, 2018 6:38 am

      Thank you.

      Like

      • January 4, 2018 7:33 am

        You’re welcome.

        Liked by 1 person

  6. January 4, 2018 7:09 am

    This is where Rosenstein runs afoul of the special counsel regulations

    [Paragraph 23] “… Additional jurisdiction. If in the course of his or her investigation the Special Counsel concludes that additional jurisdiction beyond that specified in his or her original jurisdiction is necessary in order to fully investigate and resolve the matters assigned, or to investigate new matters that come to light in the course of his or her investigation, he or she shall consult with the Attorney General, who will determine whether to include the additional matters within the Special Counsel’s jurisdiction or assign them elsewhere.
    28 C.F.R. § 600.4(b).

    [Paragraph] 24. DOJ’s special counsel regulations thus carefully limit the “[o]riginal jurisdiction” the Attorney General can give special counsel, requiring “a specific factual statement” by the Attorney General of “the matter to be investigated.” 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a) ….

    Liked by 1 person

  7. January 4, 2018 8:44 am

    The whole thing sucks… said in the vernacular. !!:)

    Liked by 1 person

    • January 4, 2018 8:04 pm

      Pretty much!

      Like

  8. ThatOneGuy permalink
    January 4, 2018 6:50 pm

    I find it hilarious that the same people calling for Hillary and the email scandal to be re-investigated/prosecuted are the same people calling this investigation politically motivated and phony. Laugh so hard it puts a tear in my eye.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: