Corrupt Obama Appointed Judge Amy Berman Jackson Does It Again: Puts Politics Before Law in Manafort Case – Should be Removed
Guest post by Joe Hoft
It sure seems like every Obama appointed judge is a far left radical who puts their own distorted interpretation of reality ahead of the US Constitution. In this respect, US District Judge Amy Berman Jackson is a case study. This past week she again showed that she puts politics before the law.
Her actions with Paul Manafort alone are cause for her to be removed or impeached.
We reported two months ago and again earlier this month, that Obama appointed liberal activist Judge, Amy Berman Jackson, was assigned to the most important court case in US history. Sadly, Judge Jackson has a horrible far left record on the bench. In 2013 Judge Jackson rejected arguments from the Catholic Church that Obamacare’s requirements that employers provide cost free coverage to contraceptive services is contrary to their religious beliefs and violated their religious and free speech freedoms. This was overturned by the Supreme Court.
In 2017 Judge Jackson dismissed the wrongful death suit against Hillary Clinton filed by two of the families who lost loved ones in Benghazi. The families argued that Clinton had done little to help their sons and then lied to cover it up.
Then on January 19th of this year, a Paul Manafort’s case was reassigned to Judge Jackson on January 19th, a few weeks after being filed.
It is unknown why she was assigned to this case or by whom.
What is clear is that with her atrocious and slanted record to date, the Deep State and the Mueller team certainly wanted Judge Jackson overseeing the Manafort case and this is supported by her record to date.
On January 3rdwe reported that Paul Manafort filed a suit against the “Deep State” DOJ (Jeff Sessions), Assistant AG Rod Rosenstein and Corrupt Investigator Robert Mueller that would possibly shut down Mueller’s corrupt investigation!
We 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 Comey testified with Congress and stratigized with him. For this alone he should have recused himself. The team Mueller built to attack President Trump and have him removed is all Deep State liberal attorneys and crooks. Mueller’s record in the past is scattered with actions that let the Clintons off scot-free on numerous occasions when they should have been put in jail.
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 handing 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 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 emails related to the Trump transition team and these emails were protected under attorney-client privilege. Mueller and his entire team should have resigned after this.
But perhaps one of the most damning aspects of the Mueller investigation is that it is not legal. The corrupt Mueller investigation is tasked with finding a crime that does not exist in the law. It is a legal impossibility. Mueller is being asked to do something that is manifestly unattainable.
FOX News Legal Analyst Gregg Jarrett explained this in an article last year that the entire Mueller investigation is lawless. Jarrett argued that:
… 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.
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 U.S. 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’s not all. Damning new evidence appears to show that 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 emails, 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 one-fifth 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 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.
To put it plainly, 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.
Manafort sued the DOJ, Mueller and Rosenstein because what they are doing is not supported by US Law.
Manafort’s case also argued in paragraph 33 of its filing that the special counsel put in place by crooked Rosenstein gave crooked and criminal Mueller powers that are not permitted by law. Mueller was given the latitude to investigate whatever he wanted to and that is not permitted by the law. Manafort’s filing paragraph 33 stated –
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).
Manafort’s case was solid but the judge was Obama’s corrupt liberal Judge Jackson. On April 27, 2018, Judge Jackson dismissed Manafort’s plea.
It is very clear that Manafort’s argument was valid. There is no crime in US law for collusion and Rosenstein’s order allowing Mueller to look at whatever he wants was challenged in another Manafort case that Mueller filed against him in Virginia.
Judge T.S. Ellis blasted prosecutors, saying he believes Robert Mueller is effectively using the Paul Manafort case to provide material that would lead to Trump’s “prosecution or impeachment”. He also condemned the investigation for having no barriers.
A federal judge in a hearing about @PaulManafort bank fraud charges, is saying the special counsel should not have “unfettered power,” raising questions about the scope of the investigation.
— Steve Herman (@W7VOA) May 4, 2018
Judge Jackson actually expressed concerns about Manafort being indicted in two different courts. Far left liberal Politico even reported in February –
… the judge also expressed some concern about “overlap” between the Washington case and the Virginia one, although she said ultimately the burden of two successive trials is likely to fall most heavily on the defense.
“It seems the government is setting itself up to put on the same evidence twice in different courtrooms,” Jackson said. “There’s a risk of inconsistent [rulings] on the motions and evidentiary rulings and jury findings.”
Ultimately, though, Jackson said she didn’t view the parallel cases as a big problem. “The burden is at its least on the courts. We can handle two trials,” she said.
Prosecutor Greg Andres stressed that Mueller’s team gave Manafort the option to face a single case in Washington on all the charges, but Manafort declined to waive his right to have the tax charges brought in Virginia, which is where he lived when he filed the tax returns at issue.
Manafort was smart in moving his case out from under Judge Jackson to Virginia. It looks like this move and having his case in front of a judge not appointed by corrupt Obama was a great move.
Judge Jackson is not only wrong in her judgements, she is also overly abusive to Manafort. She scolded Manafort and his team for a statement his spokesman issued maintaining his innocence and said the comments appeared to run afoul of the order she issued in November limiting public statements about the case by lawyers involved and by the defendants. Of course she says nothing about the many leaks from the corrupt Mueller team.
Judge Jackson set the court date for Manafort’s case that she oversees for mid-September, right before the mid-term elections. Clearly she is trying to have this publicized and negatively impact Republican chances in the election. What a piece of rotten work!
On Friday of this week Judge Jackson addressed another argument from the Manafort team and basically threw it out as well. (There’s no way Manafort is getting a fair trial with Judge Jackson overseeing his case.)
A federal judge delivered a setback to President Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort on Friday by refusing to throw out some of the criminal charges against him.
Manafort’s legal team had argued in a Washington, D.C., court that he was being charged twice for the same offense of lying to federal officials. Manafort maintained that the stacking up charges could negatively influence a jury against him, The Associated Press reported.
U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, however, said in a ruling Friday that any harm or prejudice Manafort could face would be handled by giving the jury “proper” instructions, according to the AP.
The judge dismissed the motion from Manafort without prejudice, meaning he can revisit it after his trial in the case, which is scheduled for September, the AP noted.