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.
I tried to answer that. Obvious failure on may part.
The written over verbal principle applies when there is a conflict. There is no conflict here. Rosenstein and Mueller (who entered into both verbal and written agreements) agree on the scope of Mueller's jurisdiction. There is no conflict, so we don't have to choose between verbal and written representations of the agreement.
Additionally, Rosenstein handed Mueller a stack of case files and said something to the effect that those cases were now Mueller's cases. That's unambiguous. Was that passing of files in writing? Probably, somewhere there is some sort of record of who has the case.
Looking at the question of written over verbal, that rule applies. I think your question is more along the lines of "if it isn;t writen, does Mueller have the jurisdiction?" Or "What is Mueller's jurisdiction." Again, see passing of case files, and maybe the Manafort EDVA case was handled by verbal agreement first, later backed with written confirmation.
That's not entirely true. Information outside the contract (letters, verbal discussions) can be used to clarify the meaning of the contract. Most contracts contain a clause the forbids the use of such evidence, because otherwise, it is admissible. Outside evidence cannot be used to contradict the plain terms of a written contract, where it is clear that the parties intended that the contract be an "integrated", i.e., whole, contract.
I think you may be overlooking the redacted sections of the authorizations. Since the SC claims they are not relevant to the Manafort issues, they could be targeting the HRC campaign.