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.
Apparently, Mueller’s investigation is based on some sort of double secret probation.
The difference I see between Manafort and Cohen is the Podestas were involved with Manafort in the Ukraine case. If the Manafort case was kicked back to district court, would the Podestas also be indicted? Is Mueller protecting them now or saving them for some larger case?
Well, yes I agree with all of that. But my basic question was with respect to written vs verbal instructions.
In basic contract law, the written contract is considered the whole, and verbal discussions rather moot.
So I wondered if that same principle applied to the instructions and scope of the SC?
Yes, I agree that Mueller and RR are in cahoots with respect to the scope of the investigation, but what I wondered was if they would both fess up and admit it, or would there be some self serving CYA variance in their recollections.
I did understand the Judge’s very astute point regarding Cohen and Manafort. I’m looking forward to this Judge’s ruling.
Particularly satisfying to me was when the SC Lawyer tried to indicate there was not need for the Judge to see the unredacted instructions, he basically indicated I’ll be the Judge of that.