Manafort Vs DOJ Suit to Shut Down Illegal Investigation

Manafort Vs DOJ Suit to Shut Down Illegal Investigation

Manafort Vs DOJ Suit to Shut Down Illegal Investigation

If and when Paul Manafort wins this case, which it appears according to the law he will, the entire investigation will be deemed illegal, which it is, and therefore legally will have to be shut down, which it should be.

Wednesday’s report on the filing of a suit against the “Deep State” DOJ, Rod Rosenstein and Robert Mueller by Paul Manafort is a huge story.

As Manafort’s suit is likely to shut down Mr. Mueller investigation.

No wonder the MSM (mainstream media) came out with the Bannon Trump story Thursday.

Whenever a huge story comes out about Criminal and Corrupt Mueller and Rosenstein and the Deep State led DOJ, another story is released by the MSM to change the subject in the media.

Thursday the MSM talked about Breitbart’s Steve Bannon’s remarks about members of President Trump’s family. These remarks have not yet been substantiated.

However, bigger story in the news is that former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort sued the DOJ, Robert Mueller and Rod Rosenstein and is demanding the Mueller investigation be shut down.

We have reported for months on the many criminal and corrupt actions taken by numerous parties related to the Mueller investigation.

Mueller never should have taken on the job in the first place due to numerous conflicts.

He is best friends with fired leaker and former FBI Director James Comey.  He met with Comey shortly before Mr. Comey testified with Congress and for this alone he should have recused himself.  The team Mr. Mueller built to attack President Trump and have him removed is all Deep State attorneys and crooks.

Mr. Mueller’s record in the past is scattered with actions that let the Clintons off Scott Free on numerous occasions when they should have been prosecuted, found guilty and jailed.

We now know that the FBI had an investigation into the Clintons and moneys they received  from Russia in return for giving Russia 20% of all US uranium.

Prior to The Obama Administration approving the very controversial Uranium One deal in 2010 giving Russia 20% of America’s Uranium, the FBI had evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were involved in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering in order to benefit Vladimir Putin.

The FBI approved the deal anyway.

We also know that Messers Rosenstein and Mueller were the ones who allowed the Uranium One deal to go forward.  This was the real Russia collusion story involving the US government.

We know that Mueller’s team illegally obtained e-Mails related to the Trump transition team and these e-Mails were protected under attorney-client privilege.  Mr. Mueller and his entire team should have resigned after this.

But the perhaps one of the most damning aspects of the Mueller investigation is that it was not legal.  The corrupt Mueller investigation is tasked with finding a crime that does not exist in the law. It is a legal impossibility. Mr. Mueller is being asked to do something that is manifestly unattainable.

FOX News Legal Analyst Gregg Jarrett stated in an article late last year the fact that the entire Mueller investigation is lawless.

Mr. Jarrett argued that: “Shortly after the indictments[against Papadopoulos and Manafort] were unsealed, the media’s spirits were suddenly boosted when the special counsel revealed that a former adviser to Trump pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with a Russian national during his time on the Trump campaign. Surely this was evidence of illegal “collusion,” right?

Wrong. George Papadopoulos pled guilty to a single charge of making a false statement to the FBI. He was not charged with so-called “collusion” because no such crime exists in American statutory law, except in anti-trust matters. It has no application to elections and political campaigns.

It is not a crime to talk to a Russian. Not that the media would ever understand that. They have never managed to point to a single statute that makes “colluding” with a foreign government in a political campaign a crime, likely because it does not exist in the criminal codes.”

Mr. Jarrett then turned his attention to Corrupt Hillary: “It is against the law for the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee to funnel millions of dollars to a British spy and to Russian sources in order to obtain the infamous and discredited Trump “dossier.” The Federal Election Campaign Act (52 USC 30101) prohibits foreign nationals and governments from giving or receiving money in US campaigns. It also prohibits the filing of false or misleading campaign reports to hide the true purpose of the money (52 USC 30121). This is what Clinton and the DNC appear to have done.

Most often the penalty for violating this law is a fine, but in egregious cases, like this one, criminal prosecutions have been sought and convictions obtained. In this sense, it could be said that Hillary Clinton is the one who was conspiring with the Russians by breaking campaign finance laws with impunity.

But that is not all.

Damning new evidence appears to show that Hillary Clinton used her office as Secretary of State to confer benefits to Russia in exchange for millions of dollars in donations to her foundation and cash to her husband. Secret recordings, intercepted e-Mails, financial records, and eyewitness accounts allegedly show that Russian nuclear officials enriched the Clintons at the very time Hillary presided over a governing body which unanimously approved the sale of 20% of America’s uranium supply to Russia.

If this proves to be a corrupt “pay-to-play” scheme, it would constitute a myriad of crimes, including bribery (18 USC 201-b), mail fraud (18 USC 1341), and wire fraud (18 USC 1343). It might also qualify for racketeering charges (18 USC 1961-1968), if her foundation is determined to have been used as a criminal enterprise.”

The US statutory law is clear and Mr. Jarrett points it out.

He concluded with the following:”Until now, no one had legal “standing” to argue in court that the appointment of Mueller was illegal. The criminal charges [against Manafort and Papadopoulos] change all that. The two defendants will be able to argue before a judge that Mueller’s appointment by Acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein violated the special counsel law.

As I pointed out in a column last May, the law (28 CFR 600) grants legal authority to appoint a special counsel to investigate crimes. Only crimes. He has limited jurisdiction. Yet, in his order appointing Mueller as special counsel (Order No. 3915-2017), Rosenstein directed him to investigate “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump.” It fails to identify any specific crimes, likely because none are applicable.”

Simply put, Mr. Mueller is tasked with finding a crime that does not exist in the law. It is a legal impossibility. He is being asked to do something that is manifestly unattainable.

Thursday as reported by Cristina Laila at TGP, Manafort sued the DOJ, Mueller and Rosenstein because what they are doing is not supported by US Law. This is the biggest story of the day, Paul Manafort is suing to have the Mueller investigation shut down.

Mr. Manafort’s case argues in Paragraph 33 that the special counsel put in place by Mr. Rosenstein gave crooked and criminal Robert Mueller powers that are not permitted by law, as follows:

  1. But paragraph (b)(ii) of the Appointment Order purports to grant Mr. Mueller further authority to investigate and prosecute “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation.” That grant of authority is not authorized by DOJ’s special counsel regulations. It is not a “specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated.” Nor is it an ancillary power to address efforts to impede or obstruct investigation under 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).

If and when Mr. Manafort wins this case, which it appears according to the law he will, the entire investigation would be deemed illegal, which it is, and therefore legally would have to be shut down, which it should be.

By Jim Hoft

Paul Ebeling, Editor

Stay tuned…

The following two tabs change content below.

Paul Ebeling

Paul A. Ebeling, polymath, excels in diverse fields of knowledge. Pattern Recognition Analyst in Equities, Commodities and Foreign Exchange and author of “The Red Roadmaster’s Technical Report” on the US Major Market Indices™, a highly regarded, weekly financial market letter, he is also a philosopher, issuing insights on a wide range of subjects to a following of over 250,000 cohorts. An international audience of opinion makers, business leaders, and global organizations recognizes Ebeling as an expert.

You must be logged in to post comments :  
CONNECT WITH