Manafort files lawsuit charging Mueller probe is illegal; says he was double-crossed

The Washington Times ^ | December 3, 2018 | Rowan Scarborough

[Alberta's Child]

Mr. Downing discloses that Mr. Manafort was interviewed by the Justice Department and FBI in 2014 as a "witness," not as a suspect, in a federal investigation of a former Ukraine president.

I'm not a lawyer, but does this even matter? I would assume you're expected to tell the truth regardless of whether you're a witness or a suspect.

I guess the one legitimate point would be whether he was read his Miranda rights and given the option to retain legal counsel.

[Buckeye Battle Cry]

IF Strozk interviewed Manafort AFTER Mueller learned of Strozk’s anti-Trump taxts and other anti-Trump activities, Manafort gets the plea deal tossed under the tainted evidence doctrine and he wins this civil litigation hands-down. In fact, I predict that the feds settle this very quickly and very quietly out of court.

[DoughtyOne]

“:^)

[Alberta's Child]

... Manafort gets the plea deal tossed ...

What plea deal? Manafort was indicted, and that criminal case hasn't even started yet.

It was Flynn who took the plea deal.

[mlo]

"The Mueller probe is illegal BECAUSE it is unconstitutional. I see nowhere in the Constitution the power to create a “special investigator”, especially with no probable cause to investigate."

The Justice Dept. and the FBI are not in the Constitution either. That doesn't make them unconstitutional.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

When you are charged with lying to the FBI, because there are no recordings or transcripts of your FBI interview, it is your word against the agent’s word. Or your word versus the word of another witness. And the FBI decides who is correct and who is lying.

How long can that situation prevail, before some lawyer somewhere, in some case, makes the obvious point that in 2018 recording interviews and keeping the records is no big deal? And that if the cops do not record an interview, the presumption has to be that they were afraid of the truth. And juries should make that assumption in their deliberations.

[mlo]

"Maybe he doesn't have standing? Said sarcastically, because none of us had standing to protest the obvious harm done by Obama's natural citizen standing, even though he was doing his best to screw the country."

None of the people that actually filed suit had standing. There were people that did, but they didn't sue. Probably because they didn't believe in fairy tales.

[M Kehoe]

Another bump.

5.56mm

[Jim W N]

Every act of the feds is a Constitutional matter. You should know that.

The issue is reasonable suspicion or probable cause. There is none. Thus no constitutional grounds for federal action per Amendment IV.

Don’t need to go any further than that, but a far as conflict of interest goes, there is reasonably a conflict of interest in Mueller.

[savedbygrace]

JEOPARDY THEME

[Alberta's Child]

I wasn’t suggesting that everything Mueller has done would meet constitutional muster. My point is that the mere existence of a “special counsel” is not in and of itself unconstitutional.

[Buckeye Battle Cry]

I stand corrected. My logic applies to Flynn not Manafort.

[taxcontrol]

It is the discovery phase of this lawsuit that Mueller will want to oppose. Discovery can be used to reveal a whole lot of underhanded tactics.

[Hotlanta Mike]

Why would one volunteer to be a witness in an unrelated case, only to have that testimony from that be used prosecution for something unrelated to the Russian hacking of the DNC and Russian collusion.

[thinden]

The funny thing is that Sessions and Rosenstein recused themselves from the Trump-Russia B.S. -- which probably means they can now be called as witnesses by Manafort. LOL.

Actually -- that may have been the point all along.

good point AC. this brings up the question: how will this effect any potential charges against manafort's former business partners, the Podesta brothers?????

[generally]

Excellent point. Thanks.

[EDINVA]

WHo funds the Mueller investigation? The FBI and DOJ for that matter? Doesn’t Congress have oversight and hold the purse strings ?

[BobL]

Ideally, he’ll dispose of all of them, but he’ll probably have to settle for a few depositions instead.

[Golden Eagle]

Mueller wasn't appointed to operate outside the oversight of the U.S. Department of Justice. He was appointed because the people inside the DOJ with responsibility for the matter believed they had a conflict of interest that prevented them from operating objectively in their roles as U.S. attorneys.

Apparently not, since they gave Mueller a conflict of interest waiver when he was appointed, which is an an outrage, considering as you stated correctly special counsels are supposed to be free from conflicts of interest, by nature.

Justice Department won't disclose details on Mueller ethics waiver

[Jim W N]

The Justice Dept. and the FBI as cabinet departments reporting to the President, carry out Constitutional mandates that the President “appoint officers” in order to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” (U.S. Const, art. II, sec. 2& 3). The Justice Dept. and the FBI certainly have constitutional rationale.

There certainly no constitutional rationale for a loose cannon running around without clear reporting responsibility and no reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

The whole thing is more leftist unconstitutional b/s.

The Constitution gives Congress SOLE power to launch and try impeachment. If Congress has reasonable suspicion or probable cause that the President has committed an impeachable offense (”Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (id., art. II, sec. 4)) then, if necessary, they reasonably should hire their own investigative team to pursue legitimate impeachment. That is not what is going on here.