Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (1067916)	5/5/2018 6:39:13 PM
From: Broken_Clock	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578392

point out the lies

To: Brumar89 who wrote (1067916)	5/5/2018 7:06:47 PM
From: Broken_Clock	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578392

twitter.com point out the lies Yup, the lies are Comey's

To: Brumar89 who wrote (1067916)	5/5/2018 9:36:29 PM
From: Broken_Clock	2 Recommendations Recommended By FJB longnshort Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578392

Gee, did Reagan KNOW he was appointing a Putin puppet to the Federal Court? Or is Judge Ellis a true patriot for standing up against the fascist DOJ/FBI? Your call zzBru... ==== Leaked Transcripts Reveal Courtroom Showdown Between Manafort Judge And Mueller Attorney by Tyler Durden Sat, 05/05/2018 - 20:05 0 SHARES Yesterday we told you about an intense courtroom battle that played out on Friday between the judge in Paul Manafort's case and an attorney for Special Counsel Robert Mueller, in which the judge said that Mueller shouldn't have "unfettered power" to prosecute Manafort for charges that have nothing to do with collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. Manafort's lawyers had asked the judge in the Virginia case to dismiss an indictment filed against him in what was their third effort to beat back criminal charges by attacking Mueller’s authority. In addition to pushing back against the Special Counsel's argument for why Manafort's bank fraud charges are related to the Russia investigation, the judge also questioned why Manafort’s case could not be handled by the U.S. attorney’s office in Virginia, rather than the Special Counsel’s office, as it is not Russia-related. Today, a transcript of that hearing was leaked to Twitter user @Techno_Fog, a New York attorney who eloquently dissected the intense back-and-forth between Eastern District of Virginia Judge T.S. Ellis, a Reagan appointee, and Mueller attorney Michael Dreeben. [url=][/url] The transcript reveals an unimpressed Ellis repeatedly pushing back against Dreeben's attempts to tie Manafort's bank fraud case to Russia, while an arrogant Dreeben suggests that the power vested in Ellis is dwarfed by the Special Counsel's omnipotence. Ellis then calls out the case as an attempt by Mueller to gain leverage over Manafort. "You really care about what information Mr. Manafort can give you that would reflect on Mr. Trump or lead to his prosecution or impeachment or whatever. That's what you're really interested in." -Judge Ellis Ellis then points out to Dreeben that the Special Counsel's indictment against Manafort doesn't mention: (1) Russian individuals (2) Russian banks (3) Russian money (4) Russian payments to Manafort To which Dreeben looped back to the argument that "the money that forms the basis for the criminal charges" comes from Manafort's "Ukraine activities," which is tied to Manafort's Russia activities (which still doesn't answer the Judge's question). Manafort's attorney hit back, calling the Special Counsel's arguments "absolutely erroneous." Ellis has given prosecutors two weeks to show what evidence they have that Manafort was complicit in colluding with the Russians. If they can't come up with any, he may, presumably, dismiss the case. Ellis also asked the special counsel’s office to share privately with him a copy of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosentein’s August 2017 memo elaborating on the scope of Mueller’s Russia probe. He said the current version he has been heavily redacted. Uh-oh precedence if this gets dismissed.... The Judge may single handedly end the cat and mouse games by the special council and would make it much harder for Muller to turn any other parties to his side (because all charges are unrelated to Russia so far).... — Rob Lee (@WRRob) May 4, 2018 Without further introduction, Techno_Fog's breakdown of the transcripts (with full copy at bottom): I got my hands on the May 4 transcript from the USA v. Manafort hearing in front of Judge Ellis. (Thanks to a close friend.) Here we go... pic.twitter.com/MsEmKIlUhn — Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) May 5, 2018 Judge Ellis immediately lays out his understanding of the Manafort case: The criminal indictment relates back to 2005, 2007, etc., that the DOJ investigation of Manafort had been going on for years. The Special Counsel (SC) concedes that fact. pic.twitter.com/0fa711HOCT — Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) May 5, 2018 Judge: When SC was appointed, did DOJ turn over their Manafort file to you? Special Counsel: [Evades] Judge: "I'm sorry. Answer my question." pic.twitter.com/Otfgbxezhw — Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) May 5, 2018 Judge Ellis: "If I look at the indictment, none of that information has anything to do with links or coordination between the Russian gov't and individuals associated with the campaign of Donald Trump." pic.twitter.com/GzYgUlyR0d — Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) May 5, 2018 Judge Ellis recognizes what this is: an attempt by Mueller to squeeze Manafort. He likens the whole thing to a small-time drug dealer getting pinched. "I think we out to be very clear about these facts and what is happening." pic.twitter.com/6UpL1NdP5B — Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) May 5, 2018 The Judge lays out his correct observation that this case is all about leverage against Manafort. He asks the Special Counsel if that assessment is wrong. The Special Counsel refuses to answer the question. Twice. pic.twitter.com/4vi1KKOglU — Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) May 5, 2018 Judge: How does the 2005/2007 bank fraud have anything to do with coordination b/w the Russians and the Trump campaign? Special Counse: [More evasion] Judge: "You're running away from my question again." pic.twitter.com/RMCVPMtY35 — Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) May 5, 2018 Important exchange here. SC explains to the Judge that the indictments are w/in the scope of the SC appointment: leads from the prior DOJ case eventually contributed to and led to the indictment. The Judge isn't convinced. pic.twitter.com/YaVX20rROT — Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) May 5, 2018 SC: If the investigation is valid, the crimes that arose from that investigation are w/in the SC's authority to prosecute. Judge: "Even though it didn't arise from your investigation. It arose from a preexisting investigation." lol. pic.twitter.com/ZrMovIwB0s — Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) May 5, 2018 An amazingly arrogant sequence here by team Mueller. The SC is basically telling the Judge that grants of authority to the Special Counsel cannot be challenged through the courts. Not "judicially enforceable." pic.twitter.com/droTOG82vB — Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) May 5, 2018 That is what elicited Judge Ellis's response that we don't want "unfettered power." Judge Ellis continues, saying he's not going to be persuaded that Mueller has "unlimited powers to do anything" Mueller wants. pic.twitter.com/rysP4lIH9x — Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) May 5, 2018 Here, Judge Ellis is requesting the full August 2 Rosenstein memo. Important Q: What if the memo proves right Judge Ellis's suspicions about the SC being a means to impeachment? pic.twitter.com/Q7KgFODbyL — Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) May 5, 2018 Eventually the SC sits down and it's Manafort's lawyer's turn. Judge Ellis to Manafort's lawyer: Does the 8/2 memo remedy any issue with Mueller's jurisdiction? Manafort's lawyer: No. It can't retroactively be remedied. pic.twitter.com/cacD2MRZHC — Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) May 5, 2018 Judge: Isn't the right result to give the case back to the EDVA USAO? Manafort lawyer: No - Mueller had no authority to conduct a grand jury investigation, to get search warrants, to get the indictment. [Personal note: I just don't see the judge going that far.] pic.twitter.com/20Q7MJhC2l — Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) May 5, 2018 It's time to start punching back: Manafort's lawyer almost accuses the SC of lying to the court about whether the indictment "arose from" the SC investigation. The SC's arguments are "absolutely erroneous." pic.twitter.com/3SOmHICbJY — Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) May 5, 2018 This statement by the SC proves that Rosenstein has hid the true scope of the Mueller probe - and how it has expanded/shifted - from the public. pic.twitter.com/nKdV2g3z4i — Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) May 5, 2018 And here we go: Judge Ellis gets after the SC for trying to have it both ways. The result - "Come on, man" pic.twitter.com/kz4X3JMfuv — Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) May 5, 2018 Important. Judge Ellis explains the Mueller's end game: "You really care about what information Mr. Manafort can give you that would reflect on Mr. Trump or lead to his prosecution or impeachment or whatever. That's what you're really interested in." pic.twitter.com/bAlGuxOZBV — Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) May 5, 2018 After going through all that, they get back to the real issue: Are the Rosenstein memos from May 2017 and August 2017 sufficient to confer jurisdiction to the Special Counsel? pic.twitter.com/iw3vB5PNRi — Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) May 5, 2018 Judge Ellis contemplating why the Manafort case couldn't be sent to the EDVA USAO office by referencing the Michael Cohen case: "Wasn't there a matter in NY recently that the special counsel returned to the Southern District of New York?" pic.twitter.com/1QjGAheJvu — Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) May 5, 2018 Judge Ellis poses a question (a Q to which he will later provided an answer), asking why the Cohen was referred to the SDNY. Special Counsel "not at liberty" to answer that question.... pic.twitter.com/2JEnUvk9P6 — Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) May 5, 2018 However, the Judge has his own theory: Did the SC farm out the Cohen case because it wasn't within the SC's jurisidction, or.... Did it have SDNY handle the Cohen case because they "can't use this to further [the Special Counsel's] core effort, which is to get to Trump" pic.twitter.com/ttv7L5UjZh — Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) May 5, 2018 The SC's explanation as to why the Cohen case is different from the Manafort case isn't convincing. pic.twitter.com/mmmtZfRX4f — Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) May 5, 2018 Judge Ellis then tells the SC that the indictment does not mention: (1) Russian individuals (2) Russian banks (3) Russian money (4) Russian payments to Manafort The SC concedes that fact. pic.twitter.com/BjH2aOF6Lq — Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) May 5, 2018 The hearing closed with a request from Manafort's lawyer that internal DOJ memos regarding the appointment and scope of the Special Counsel's authority/jurisdiction be produced. Apparently, rat-faced Rosenstein loves memos. The judge took that under advisement. pic.twitter.com/SCfmTjZ2fX — Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) May 5, 2018 Read the entire exchange below:

To: Brumar89 who wrote (1067916)	5/5/2018 9:39:11 PM
From: Broken_Clock	2 Recommendations Recommended By FJB locogringo Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1578392

Another Putin Puppet judge! Reds are everywhere! Judge rejects Mueller's request for delay in Russian troll farm case Russian firm linked to Putin's chef accuses special counsel of 'pettifoggery.' By JOSH GERSTEIN 05/04/2018 06:56 PM EDT Updated 05/05/2018 06:37 PM EDT A federal judge has rejected special counsel Robert Mueller’s request to delay the first court hearing in a criminal case charging three Russian companies and 13 Russian citizens with using social media and other means to foment strife among Americans in advance of the 2016 U.S. presidential election. In a brief order Saturday evening, U.S. District Court Judge Dabney Friedrich offered no explanation for her decision to deny a request prosecutors made Friday to put off the scheduled Wednesday arraignment for Concord Management and Consulting, one of the three firms charged in the case. The 13 people charged in the high-profile indictment in February are considered unlikely to ever appear in a U.S. court. The three businesses accused of facilitating the alleged Russian troll farm operation — the Internet Research Agency, Concord Management, and Concord Catering — were also expected to simply ignore the American criminal proceedings. Last month, however, a pair of Washington-area lawyers suddenly surfaced in the case, notifying the court that they represent Concord Management. POLITICO reported at the time that the move appeared to be a bid to force Mueller’s team to turn over relevant evidence to the Russian firm and perhaps even to bait prosecutors into an embarrassing dismissal in order to avoid disclosing sensitive information. On Friday, Mueller’s prosecutors disclosed that Concord’s attorneys, Eric Dubelier and Kate Seikaly, had made a slew of discovery requests demanding nonpublic details about the case and the investigation. Prosecutors also asked a judge to postpone the formal arraignment of Concord Management set for next week. The prosecution team sought the delay on the grounds that it’s unclear whether Concord Management formally accepted the court summons related to the case. Mueller’s prosecutors also revealed that they tried to deliver the summonses for Concord and IRA through the Russian government, without success. “The [U.S.] government has attempted service of the summonses by delivering copies of them to the Office of the Prosecutor General of Russia, to be delivered to the defendants,” prosecutors wrote. “That office, however, declined to accept the summonses. The government has submitted service requests to the Russian government pursuant to a mutual legal assistance treaty. To the government’s knowledge, no further steps have been taken within Russia to effectuate service.” Mueller’s team sent a copy of the formal summons to Dubelier and Seikaly and asked them to accept it on behalf of Concord Management, but Dubelier wrote back on Monday saying that the government’s attempt to serve the summons was defective under court rules. He did not elaborate. The three companies named in the indictment are all reported to be controlled by a Russian businessman known as Russian President Vladimir Putin's "chef," Yevgeny Prigozhin. He's also one of the 13 individuals criminally charged in the case. In their request on Friday to put off the arraignment, prosecutors included the extensive demands for information that the lawyers for Concord Management have set forth since they stepped forward last month. “Until the Court has an opportunity to determine if Concord was properly served, it would be inadvisable to conduct an initial appearance and arraignment at which important rights will be communicated and a plea entertained,” attorneys Jeannie Rhee, Rush Atkinson and Ryan Dickey wrote. “That is especially true in the context of this case, which involves a foreign corporate defendant, controlled by another, individual foreign defendant, that has already demanded production of sensitive intelligence gathering, national security, and foreign affairs information.” The Mueller team proposed that both sides file briefs in the coming weeks on the issues of whether Concord has been properly served. In a blunt response Saturday morning, Concord's attorneys accused Mueller's team of ignoring the court's rules and suggesting a special procedure for the Russian firm without any supporting legal authority. "Defendant voluntarily appeared through counsel as provided for in [federal rules], and further intends to enter a plea of not guilty. Defendant has not sought a limited appearance nor has it moved to quash the summons. As such, the briefing sought by the Special Counsel’s motion is pettifoggery," Dubelier and Seikaly wrote. The Concord lawyers said Mueller's attorneys were seeking "to usurp the scheduling authority of the Court" by waiting until Friday afternoon to try to delay a proceeding scheduled for next Wednesday. Dubelier and Seikaly complained that the special counsel's office has not replied at all to Concord's discovery requests. The lawyers, who work for Pittsburgh-based law firm Reed Smith, also signaled Concord intends to assert its speedy trial rights, putting more pressure on the special counsel's office to turn over records related to the case. Friedrich, a Trump appointee based in Washington, sided with Concord and said the arraignment will proceed as scheduled Wednesday afternoon. The indictment, obtained by Mueller but announced by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, accused the defendants of mounting an “information warfare” operation in connection with the 2016 election. The IRA, long suspected of ties to the Kremlin, allegedly used social media, email and other means to manipulate “unwitting” American citizens and Trump campaign officials into protests, demonstrations and the recirculation of media messages. Most of the interventions were intended to benefit Trump or demean his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, the indictment alleged.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (1067916)	5/6/2018 1:44:26 PM
From: Broken_Clock	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1578392

zerohedge linked this from the WSJ Does that make it "fake'? No, the corrupt DOJ is lying to protect the corruption within. Why the Justice Department Is Defiant A House subpoena, another missed deadline. What is the department hiding? Deputy U.S. Attorney General Rod Rosenstein participates in a Law Day event at the Newseum in Washington, D.C., on May 1. Photo: jonathan ernst/Reuters By Kimberley A. Strassel Updated May 4, 2018 4:42 p.m. ET 1188 COMMENTS The feud that has simmered for months between Congress and the Justice Department erupted this week into a cage match. That’s because the House is homing in on the goods. Until this week, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and fellow institutionalists at the department had fought Congress’s demands for information with the tools of banal bureaucracy—resist, delay, ignore, negotiate. But Mr. Rosenstein took things to a new level on Tuesday, accusing House Republicans of “threats,” extortion and wanting to “rummage” through department documents. A Wednesday New York Times story then dropped a new slur, claiming “Mr. Rosenstein and top FBI officials have come to suspect that some lawmakers were using their oversight authority to gain intelligence about [Special Counsel Bob Mueller’s ] investigation so that it could be shared with the White House.” Mr. Rosenstein isn’t worried about rummaging. That’s a diversion from the department’s opposite concern: that it is being asked to comply with very specific—potentially very revealing—demands. Two House sources confirm for me that the Justice Department was recently delivered first a classified House Intelligence Committee letter and then a subpoena (which arrived Monday) demanding documents related to a new line of inquiry about the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Trump investigation. The deadline for complying with the subpoena was Thursday afternoon, and the Justice Department flouted it. As the White House is undoubtedly monitoring any new congressional demands for information, it is likely that President Trump’s tweet Wednesday ripping the department for not turning over documents was in part a reference to this latest demand. The Justice Department rejected the latest subpoena request in a letter delivered to the Intelligence Committee after our Thursday deadline. The letter divulged that the committee had been asking for information about a “specific individual,” and stated it would not be complying on grounds that to do so risked “potential loss of human lives, damage to relationships with valued international partners, compromise of ongoing criminal investigations, and interference with intelligence activities.” The letter noted this decision had been made after consultation with the White House, though my reporting suggests the White House wants the Justice Department to find a way to comply. Republicans also demand the FBI drop any objections to declassifying a section of the recently issued House Intelligence Committee report that deals with a briefing former FBI Director James Comey provided about former national security adviser Mike Flynn. House Republicans say Mr. Comey told them his own agents did not believe Mr. Flynn lied to them. On his book tour, Mr. Comey has said that isn’t true. Someone isn’t being honest. Is the FBI more interested in protecting the reputations of two former directors (the other being Mr. Mueller, who dragged Mr. Flynn into court on lying grounds) than in telling the public the truth? It’s hard to have any faith in the necessity of the more than 300 redactions in the House Intel report, most of which the Republican committee members insist are bogus and should be removed. On every occasion that Justice or the FBI has claimed material must be withheld for the sake of national security or continuing investigations, it has later come out that the only thing at stake were those institutions’ reputations. Think the Comey memos, which showed the former director had little basis for claiming obstruction. Or Sen. Chuck Grassley’s criminal referral of dossier author Christopher Steele, the FBI’s so-called reliable source, whom we now know it had to fire for talking to the press and possibly lying. The Justice Department is laying all this at the feet of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which technically oversees redactions. But ODNI consults with the agency that “owns” the material, and the FBI is clearly doing the blocking. Again, many pieces of the House Intel report that are being hidden happen to relate to FBI conduct during the 2016 election. The increasingly poisonous interaction between Congress and the Justice Department also stems from a growing list of questions Republicans have about leading Justice Department officials’ roles in the events Congress seeks to investigate. Mr. Rosenstein’s name was on at least one of the applications for a warrant on Carter Page to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Dana Boente’s name is on another, and he’s now serving as the FBI’s general counsel. We can’t know the precise motivations behind the Justice Department’s and FBI’s refusal to make key information public. But whether it is out of real concern over declassification or a desire to protect the institutions from embarrassment, the current leadership is about 20 steps behind this narrative. Mr. Comey, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Andrew McCabe —they have already shattered the FBI’s reputation and public trust. There is nothing to be gained from pretending this is business as usual, or attempting to stem continued fallout by hiding further details. This week’s events—including more flat-out subpoena defiance—put a luminous spotlight on Speaker Paul Ryan. The credibility of the House’s oversight authority is at stake. Mr. Ryan’s committee chairmen have done remarkable work exposing FBI behavior, and they deserve backup. The quickest way to get Justice and FBI to comply with these legitimate requests is for Mr. Ryan to state strongly and publicly that he has zero qualms about proceeding down the road of contempt or impeachment if House demands are not met. This is the people’s government, not the Justice Department’s. Editor’s note: This column has been updated with new information. Write to kim@wsj.com. Appeared in the May 4, 2018, print edition as 'Why Justice Is Defiant.'