Very interesting reading. Thanks for posting.
I note that in addition to 2 letters, one of which was maybe after the fact of the raid, Rosenstein supposedly gave verbal instructions that would broaden the goals.
Yet the Manafort lawyer stated that he had worked with RR, and RR was a real stickler for making sure that instructions were in writing before action taken.
Two things I’d like to know:
Is SC misrepresenting what happened re: verbal instructions?
In Business Law, if there is a written contract, then any verbal discussion is moot - under the assumption that if it was important it would have been included in the contract.
Hence, the contract is it. What’s there is what can be considered. Only when it’s a handshake deal with nothing in writing, does the discussion come into play.
How does that work with respect to special counsel instructions?
If verbal instructions can be considered, will the judge call Mueller and RR to testify, and will they agree or disagree about those instructions?
The sequence is:
There is no reason to think that RR and RM have a difference of opinion on Mueller's scope, and certainly the August 2 letter sweeps in the Manafort/Ukraine matters, specifically from February 2010 until Yanukovych removal from power in February 2014. All of that time is before the Trump campaign. Rosenstein and Mueller are in cahoots on Mueller's scope.
The judge has a good point in comparing Cohen case with the Manafort case. Both cases were "found" by the SC. Both cases involve people associated with Trump. Neither case involves the Russian government. Why is the Manafort case in Mueller's scope, and the Cohen case not? The Cohen case at least coincides with the Trump campaign. The Manafort case has ZERO connection with the Trump campaign.
Good questions. Judge Pirro had a few things to say about the SC in her scathing opening remarks: