[Flick Lives]

If the judge really said these things, then I'm wondering if he's losing his marbles. I never heard of a case where the prosecutor was compelled to explain his motivations in filing the charges.

---

Mueller’s team says its authorities are laid out in documents including the August 2017 scope memo – and that some powers are actually secret because they involve ongoing investigations and national security matters that cannot be publicly disclosed.

Ellis seemed amused and not persuaded.

He summed up the Special Counsel’s Office as, "We said this was what [the] investigation was about, but we are not bound by it and we were lying."

Sounds like the judge is pretty sane to question the prosecution unless it is now ok to prosecute someone based on secret evidence. Evidence Mueller won't show the defense attorney.

[Alberta's Child]

It’s not any evidence against Manafort that’s secret ... it’s the information in Mueller’s authorization letter. Maybe I’m missing something here?

[Defiant]

I read the complaint that Manafort filed against the special prosecutor’s office, laying out very clearly the violation of law and the constitution that this prosecution is. I wasn’t surprised that a judge in DC didn’t throw it out, but Manafort is very likely to win if it ever gets to the Supreme Court. It is a good read if you want to go find it.

This motion to dismiss is likely based on the same arguments. Based on the judge’s comments, I would not be surprised if he does throw out the prosecution. The appointment violates both the constitution and the law providing for appointment of special prosecutors. When the rule of law applies, those kinds of things matter.