Prosecutors said Friday that their investigative powers were outlined both in Rosenstein's letter appointing Mueller in May and in the August memo. They also said they had additional authority that they could not disclose in the courtroom because it related to ongoing investigations and could affect national security.

But Ellis apparently wasn't buying it, reportedly characterizing the special counsel's office's argument as: "We said this was what the investigation was about, but we are not bound by it, and we were lying."

"Come on, man!" Ellis said.

Legal experts questioned the judge's comments.

Asha Rangappa, a former FBI special agent, characterized Ellis' remarks about prosecutors aiming to get Manafort to flip as "bizarre commentary."

"Unless there is something legally amiss in the indictment, speculating re[ferencing] motives of the [special counsel] is beyond the judge's purview (and also seems to suggest that there is a connection [between] Manafort's criminal bank fraud and Trump," she tweeted.

Renato Mariotti, a former federal prosecutor, echoed that view.

"Whether the special counsel wants Manafort to flip is not relevant to the question of whether this indictment is within the scope of his jurisdiction," he wrote. "If the judge considers Mueller's motivation in bringing the indictment and dismisses it, that's reversible error."

He added: "Even if the judge ultimately does not take his view of Mueller's motivations into account in his ruling, he politicized the proceeding with comments that were unnecessary and created an appearance that he has a political agenda."

swampy wrote:
T. S. Ellis.

Wikipedia wrote:
Ellis dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Wikimedia Foundation against the National Security Agency, finding that the plaintiffs had reverse engineered their assumptions of evidence.[9][10] This dismissal was vacated on appeal...

Dennis S wrote:

"Swampy's Law":

"As one of swampy's threads grows longer, the probability of her being proved wrong approaches one."

swampy wrote:
T. S. Ellis.