Maybe. But sceptical it's a good strategy. Mandate's (b)(ii) covers anything uncovered during investigation. Perhaps forces SCO to address it directly tho.
Um, no. The reason to raise distance between Ukraine money laundering and election is to challenge SCO mandate.https://twitter.com/renato_mariotti/status/927539181789810688 …
-
-
-
1) Every single time SC has been used (ex Kiriakou) it gets challenged 2) This WASN'T uncovered during investigation.
-
At the very least this will be a superb delaying tactic until DOJ files a superseding.
-
Certainly a delaying tactic. Not sure DOJ needs to expand jurisdiction to cover it rather than construct argument this arises directly from the investigation, even if it predates it.
-
In "constructing argument" they will be pushed to do other things Mueller may not want to do. It's utterly a fair point.
-
Maybe. I think he can get away with as little as "during SCO's investigation we became interested in Manafort's finances, and that led to the discovery of evidence in FBI and SCO is using that evidence to now pursue charges"
-
I agree he can. (Also suspect a superseding will moot.) But any defense attorney would be idiotic not to force Mueller to make argument.
-
Ok 100% agree there.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
There is no challenge. Team Mueller says that Manafort activities continued during and after campaign. That's a slam dunk.
-
You do know that the way our legal system works there is a challenge until the judges say there is not?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Helps w/ scope, helps on pardon as well (which he is of course pursuing), and generally. It’s also elephant in room that MUST be addressed.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.