RadioFreeLiberal.com

Smart Voices, Be Heard
It is currently Fri May 25, 2018 10:55 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 1:41 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:53 am
Posts: 10919
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/ ... emo-595129

Judge is Reagan appointee, is he a Clarence Thomas clone? Will he try and derail the entire investigation as such?

I dont know, I am asking. I have a bad feeling though.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._S._Ellis_III


Quote:
Special counsel Robert Mueller appears to have provided a federal judge with an unredacted version of the Justice Department memo laying out the scope of his investigation and the potential crimes he's authorized to pursue.

However, the memo — long sought after by President Donald Trump's allies on Capitol Hill, who regularly accuse Mueller of overstepping his bounds — remains classified and not public, leaving its details hidden.

The document was filed as an "unredacted memorandum" under seal with the U.S. District Court's Eastern District of Virginia, where Mueller is expected to try former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort on bank fraud charges.

_________________
"Small brown babies, clutched in their beaks"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 4:06 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 9736
Don't worry about the judge, T.S. Ellis too much.

He's well known for scolding prosecutors and then supporting them, and upholding the law in a no nonsense way. Law blog folks talk about him quite a bit. Overall he's considered to be a pretty good judge. But he's a funny guy who has handled a lot of national security cases which involve secrets. He's not known for leaking what is brought before him.

This is one example of his view on leakers from an old article in Lawfare:

Quote:
In a 2009 hearing in the so-called “AIPAC” leak case, Judge T.S. Ellis III memorably presented his view that there is an indispensable requirement for whistleblowers who unlawfully disclose classified information to answer in court for their actions.

"I don't have a problem with people doing that [leaking classified information] if they are held accountable for it," Judge Ellis said at the time. "One might hope that, for example, someone might have the courage to do something that would break the law if it meant they're the savior of the country. But then one has to take the consequences, because the rule of law is so important…. Disclosing it was okay if the person is willing to stand up and say, 'I did it. Give me the consequences’."


https://www.lawfareblog.com/secrets-and ... ahul-sagar


That is why I said he's a funny guy. I don't think Ellis will want to be handed the consequences, so I don't think he'll leak Mueller's stuff to the administration. :|

From another article:

Quote:
More controversially, the Bush Administration also indicted Rosen and Weissman, third parties who had received rather than disclosed the classified information, with conspiracy to violate § 793(e). In 2006, Judge T.S. Ellis, III of the Eastern District of Virginia rejected Rosen and Weissman's First Amendment and Due Process Clause challenges to their Espionage Act indictments, holding that the statute was neither unconstitutionally vague nor overbroad. Ellis did, however, require the government to prove not only that the information Rosen and Weissman received and intended to pass on was classified, but that it was in fact potentially harmful to American national interests. See United States v. Rosen, 445 F.Supp.2d 602 (E.D. Va. 2006). In part of because of this and other pretrial setbacks, the government ultimately dropped the charges against Rosen and Weissman in 2009.


https://www.lawfareblog.com/explainer-e ... osecutions


That's a pretty good example of fair and no nonsense.



If Mueller has factual evidence rather than suspicion his case should go fine. Ellis will toss a case if someone tries to bring a case based on suspicion as he did in Wikimedia v NSA. Here's his ruling on that case: https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/wik ... md-opinion

There's some similarity with the motions which the judge was dealing with for this Wikimedia case and the motion in Mueller's case. The difference is that Mueller more than likely has his case based on factual evidence, where as the Wikimedia plaintiff lawyers were trying to base theirs on suspension. In reading that ruling I found a sense that Ellis is a fair no nonsense judge.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 4:19 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 16259
Since he is a Reagan appointee he will go by the law, no worries. Whatever he rules it will be according to the law the way it is written. Not the way a partisan judge would decide to interpret it to fit their personal bias.

_________________
"my choice is for people like you to be deported -Ike Bana 5/13/18


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 5:53 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 9736
Since he is a Reagan appointee he will go by the law, no worries. Whatever he rules it will be according to the law the way it is written. Not the way a partisan judge would decide to interpret it to fit their personal bias.


Glen that's a bit much. A stretch like would break a rubber band.

Need I mention Bork Bork Bork!

www.youtube.com Video from : www.youtube.com


A bit thick. A bit rich.

www.youtube.com Video from : www.youtube.com


Some of the Reagan appointees sucked. :|


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 6:32 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 35055
Or the Republican-appointed Supremes that handed the 2000 election to Bush, then said that the decision could not be used as a precedent - some that has never been done before, as I recall.

_________________
aragorn 4/20/17:

Admittedly, I did not come up with the phrase, but I'm nearly positive that I got it from one of my white nationalist buddies. It just fits so well.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 8:39 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 9736
Or the Republican-appointed Supremes that handed the 2000 election to Bush, then said that the decision could not be used as a precedent - some that has never been done before, as I recall.


Yes! Reagan's Supreme Court appointees had a hand in that.

That's why I answered Glen's horse blanket statement post with the Swedish Chef (Bork Bork Bork) blowing up the kitchen. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2018 8:44 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 16259
Or the Republican-appointed Supremes that handed the 2000 election to Bush, then said that the decision could not be used as a precedent - some that has never been done before, as I recall.


That is another libetal lie. Fact is we dont know who won Florida. Had CBS not called it befote the polls closed or had Al Gote Jr won his home state there never would have been any controversy.

As for the vote count it depends on how you do the counting.

_________________
"my choice is for people like you to be deported -Ike Bana 5/13/18


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2018 10:50 am 
Online
Board Emeritus

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:01 pm
Posts: 14942
Since he is a Reagan appointee he will go by the law, no worries.


Yep...those Obama appointees are a bunch of unscrupulous law braking judges who can't be trusted.

And those Clinton appointees...they eat dead babies.

WTF is wrong with you?

_________________
Image
Are my methods unsound?
I don't see any method at all, sir.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2018 12:37 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 1:10 pm
Posts: 16411
Location: The blue parts of the map
Since he is a Reagan appointee he will go by the law, no worries. Whatever he rules it will be according to the law the way it is written. Not the way a partisan judge would decide to interpret it to fit their personal bias.


Wait, you're serious.

:o

_________________
"Words are the new bullets, satellites the new artillery"
--"Winning CNN Wars," Army War College

"One bomb was shown on TV, and the American people bought that war. War is show business."
--"Wag the Dog"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2018 12:50 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 10:27 pm
Posts: 7652
Location: miles from nowhere

Wait, you're serious.

:o

I’m not sure if he was serious or not. The level of man-crush Glen has for the Great Prevaricator is pretty high but it is possible he was being sarcastic.

Then again...

_________________
bird's theorem-"we the people" are stupid.

"No one is so foolish as to choose war over peace. In peace sons bury their fathers, in war fathers bury their sons." - Herodotus


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Drak, Ike Bana and 10 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group