- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,026
- 47,214
- 2,180
It appears that Rosenstein granted Herr Mueller the authority to review all communications between persons within two hops of Carter Page based on the FISA warrant obtained on him using the Steele dossier as justification. Anyone who believes this act is legally Kosher is a scumbag traitor to his country. Mewler is doing exactly what everyone is screaming about with regard to the revelations made to the House Intelligence committee.
Special Counsel Tells Federal Court Rosenstein Investigative Scope Was Detailed in Super-Secret Verbal Instructions…
The transcript from the U.S. Special Counsel -vs- Paul Manafort has been released (full pdf below). The entire transcript of the arguments between the Special Counsel lawyers, Paul Manafort Lawyers and Federal Judge T.S. Ellis III are well worth reading.
As noted yesterday Judge Ellis is the first legal entity to identify the origin of the special counsel investigative authority as a troubling issue. This is likely to become a much bigger story as people catch on to the ramifications.
It is only now coming to light how Asst. Attorney General Rod Rosenstein essentially appointed the Special Counsel to take over the counterintelligence investigation originally begun by the FBI in 2016. Also previously unknown: part of the initiating mandate included the special counsel being granted use of a sketchy FISA Court Title-1 surveillance warrant initially applied against Carter Page in October 2016.
Asst. AG Rod Rosenstein gave the special counsel the counterintelligence investigation and also gave them FISA Title-1 surveillance warrant authority; which allowed Robert Mueller to retrieve all communications (e.v.e.r.y.t.h.i.n.g) belonging to any person, entity or group, within two-hops of former unofficial campaign aide Carter Page. By extension this covered almost all the campaign officials, and also most of the Trump administration.
This is a critical point often misunderstood. When Mueller was appointed in May 2017, they began a criminal investigation (Title 3) by taking over the FBI counterintelligence investigation (Title 1). By design the counter-intel structure meant the special counsel had access to the entire gamut of active surveillance on almost every official in the Trump Administration; and every official in congress – without having to get a search warrant.
Ordinarily, under U.S. Title-3 criminal statute the investigative body, U.S. Attorney or Special Counsel, would need to go before a judge to swear out the reasoning for a search warrant and prove probable cause. Because the special counsel took Title-1 investigative authority (counterintelligence operation), they subverted domestic search and seizure protections applicable toward U.S. persons having nothing to do with foreign intelligence.
This melding of Title-1 and Title-3 legal authority is essentially what underpins Judge Ellis’s questioning. Judge Ellis began asking, and proving, that a 2005 and 2007 tax and banking case against Paul Manafort had nothing to do with a 2017 counterintelligence investigation about Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
Digging into this odd framework results in the judge demanding the U.S. Attorney to reconcile/explain the origination of the special counsel investigation (2017); and the instructions therein; against the background of the case before him (Manafort), which has nothing to do with the originating mandate of the special counsel (2016 election matters).
The entire back-and-forth is well worth a read. It’s quite interesting, because there’s likely to be precedent established here.
Right from the outset the court begins questioning the entire premise of the special counsel’s expanded authority. Page #4:
Special Counsel Tells Federal Court Rosenstein Investigative Scope Was Detailed in Super-Secret Verbal Instructions…
The transcript from the U.S. Special Counsel -vs- Paul Manafort has been released (full pdf below). The entire transcript of the arguments between the Special Counsel lawyers, Paul Manafort Lawyers and Federal Judge T.S. Ellis III are well worth reading.
As noted yesterday Judge Ellis is the first legal entity to identify the origin of the special counsel investigative authority as a troubling issue. This is likely to become a much bigger story as people catch on to the ramifications.
It is only now coming to light how Asst. Attorney General Rod Rosenstein essentially appointed the Special Counsel to take over the counterintelligence investigation originally begun by the FBI in 2016. Also previously unknown: part of the initiating mandate included the special counsel being granted use of a sketchy FISA Court Title-1 surveillance warrant initially applied against Carter Page in October 2016.
Asst. AG Rod Rosenstein gave the special counsel the counterintelligence investigation and also gave them FISA Title-1 surveillance warrant authority; which allowed Robert Mueller to retrieve all communications (e.v.e.r.y.t.h.i.n.g) belonging to any person, entity or group, within two-hops of former unofficial campaign aide Carter Page. By extension this covered almost all the campaign officials, and also most of the Trump administration.
This is a critical point often misunderstood. When Mueller was appointed in May 2017, they began a criminal investigation (Title 3) by taking over the FBI counterintelligence investigation (Title 1). By design the counter-intel structure meant the special counsel had access to the entire gamut of active surveillance on almost every official in the Trump Administration; and every official in congress – without having to get a search warrant.
Ordinarily, under U.S. Title-3 criminal statute the investigative body, U.S. Attorney or Special Counsel, would need to go before a judge to swear out the reasoning for a search warrant and prove probable cause. Because the special counsel took Title-1 investigative authority (counterintelligence operation), they subverted domestic search and seizure protections applicable toward U.S. persons having nothing to do with foreign intelligence.
This melding of Title-1 and Title-3 legal authority is essentially what underpins Judge Ellis’s questioning. Judge Ellis began asking, and proving, that a 2005 and 2007 tax and banking case against Paul Manafort had nothing to do with a 2017 counterintelligence investigation about Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
Digging into this odd framework results in the judge demanding the U.S. Attorney to reconcile/explain the origination of the special counsel investigation (2017); and the instructions therein; against the background of the case before him (Manafort), which has nothing to do with the originating mandate of the special counsel (2016 election matters).
The entire back-and-forth is well worth a read. It’s quite interesting, because there’s likely to be precedent established here.
Right from the outset the court begins questioning the entire premise of the special counsel’s expanded authority. Page #4:
