FBI Conducts Pre-Dawn Raid Of Paul Manafort’s Home

136px-US-FBI-ShadedSeal_svg440px-Director_Robert_S._Mueller-_III-1In a move that should concern the Trump legal team, FBI agents raided the Alexandria home of President Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort a couple weeks ago despite Manafort’s reported cooperation with investigators.  Given the fact that Manafort was turning over requests documents, it is notable that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigators would want to carry out such a heavy handed and public display of power.  I have long maintained that the most important developments in this investigation will likely concern Manafort and Gen. Michael Flynn, who are the most vulnerable to criminal charges and prosecutorial pressure.  They are the weakest links in this chain for prosecutors interests in trying to coerce cooperation of key witnesses.  What is clear is that the relationship between Manafort and the Special Counsel has materially changed.  A pre-dawn, unannounced raid on your home is meant to concentrate your mind on where you want to be during a rapidly approaching storm.  A raid tends to concentrate the mind of a witness on the future.


The raid occurred on July 26th before dawn.  Notably, Manafort had just turned over documents to the Senate Intelligence Committee the day before.  The timing makes the raid particularly intriguing.  It is possible that the investigators determined that Manafort was being more forthcoming with the congressional investigators or had turned over material not previously given to the Special Counsel.  In any case, this was a strong message to Manafort and Flynn that they cannot count on protection from either the White House or Congress.The search warrant was broad and agents were seen leaving with material.  While I have discussed the relatively rarity of prosecution under the Act, Manafort would seem more vulnerable to a charge under the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA).  Only a handful of such cases have been prosecuted since the revision of the Act and these violations are uniformly address administratively. However, that does not bar a prosecution.
Reports indicate that the FBI seized bank records, fueling suspicion that they may also be targeting Manafort for violations of the federal Bank Secrecy Act, which requires Americans to report their foreign banking accounts.
With a looming grand jury, Manafort’s greatest risk remains false statements to investigators.  The raid may have been meant to concentrate his mind on the risks that he is facing and the need to get to safer legal ground in the coming storm.

239 thoughts on “FBI Conducts Pre-Dawn Raid Of Paul Manafort’s Home”

  1. Search warrant executions are for the purpose of gathering evidence, wanted persons, or contraband. They should not be made to coerce or intimidate a person. To do so in a particular case lends credibility that the prosecution/investigation in itself is intended to harass a citizen.

    1. This excellent statement of yours unfortunately will be lost to many on the blog because they distrust the Constitution preferring the temporary words of a politician that at the moment agrees with their opinion.

    2. Well I’m going to hold off for a little while — 2 months tops.

      But I’ve got a sinking feeling you’re right.

    3. Darren:

      Great point.

      Commentary on our times (and prosecutors), that most of us just accepted that prosecutors will use search warrants to harass/intimidate subjects.

      Just like “perp walks” are used selectively to apply non-judicial punishment.

    4. Federal Magistrates don’t approve search warrants to “intimidate” witnesses. I’m quite sure the affidavit in support of the application set forth sufficient facts to support probable cause that evidence of a federal offense was likely located on the premises. How the target is affected by the search has more to do with his own culpability in the suspected crimes. That being said, a federal criminal case with multiple defendants quite often becomes a race to debrief, with the last one to plead drawing the long straw. Conversely, the first in out of the rain can presumably obtain a much more palatable bargain. Manafort can afford top-notch white-shoe criminal defense attorneys; they will zealously represent their client’s best interests–not another party’s interests…

    5. Nowhere is it stated that the intent was to coerce unless Turley’s editorializing that Manafort should realize no help from tRump is coming is to what you are referring. Trumpsters always looking for a reason to close their eyes to the mess.

  2. Another red meat post. Why would JT or anyone else assume that what Mueller did was unwarranted or “heavy handed”? Does he or anyone else know what documents were turned over, whether Manafort pleaded the fifth, whether the documents he turned over were complete, whether they could have been altered, or anything else of a factual nature that justifies criticism of Mueller or his investigation? JT said the raid was public. Well, it happened back in July, and we just now found out about it, so it wasn’t public at all. If this was done to showboat, they could have tipped off the media to be there, cameras rolling, but they didn’t. All I’ve heard from those who know Mueller, from both political parties, is that he is above reproach. Why would JT write anything that in any manner could cast doubt on the motives of Mr. Mueller or his team, other than to toss some red meat to the Trumpites out there?

    1. “All I’ve heard from those who know Mueller, from both political parties, is that he is above reproach.”

      If he was, then he would have refused the job based upon his friendship and connections to James Comey.

      1. Aside from the rhetoric spoon-fed to you by Fox News, what exactly do you know about Mueller’s alleged “friendship and connections to James Comey”? More red meat.

        1. Natacha, Since you seem to like Fox News so much I will present you with one of their articles. Not the best, not the worst, but much of this has been written elsewhere. I know that you like to look only at left wing propaganda so anything that isn’t working for the left has to be lying, but where has your left wing media been with regard to all the scandals including the most recent with Debbie Wasserman Shultz. You can now tear this article apart, but what will you say when the same things are found in written documents not produced by Fox News?

          Having said that let’s go to one article from CNN that tries to spin the news in only one direction while spinning the company towards oblivion.

          “The two former FBI chiefs have a unique relationship, stemming in large part from working side by side during a major confrontation with the Bush administration.”

          Or the LA Times. You can do your own research. “It’s not the first time James B. Comey and Robert S. Mueller III find themselves together at the center of an unfolding Washington drama. … Comey called in help, asking Mueller, then the FBI director”

          USA Today “Under the specific circumstances of this case, however, with his longtime friend James Comey at the center of the inquiry, Mueller’s the wrong choice. The public cannot be as sure as it needs to be of his objectivity.”

          The Hill: ““Mueller is compromised by the close professional — and I would sure think personal — relationship with Comey,” said Bill Otis, the former special counsel for President George H.W. Bush. “That is an encompassing standard…that should be interpreted broadly so that the public will have maximum confidence in the outcome of the special counsel’s work, however it winds up.””

          OK, now to the “spoon-fed” Fox article

          Cody Derespina
          By Cody Derespina Published May 18, 2017 Fox News

          NOW PLAYING
          Special counsel appointed to lead Russia investigation
          The man tasked with investigating possible meddling by Russia in the 2016 presidential election – a probe that will likely encompass President Trump’s recent firing of FBI Director James Comey – once called Comey “one of the finest people I’ve ever met.”

          Robert Mueller, Comey’s predecessor at FBI from 2001-2013, has a lengthy, close and somewhat controversial history with the man suddenly at the center of investigations swirling around Trump. Mueller on Wednesday evening was appointed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein as special counsel to oversee the Justice Department’s investigation into alleged Russian meddling in the U.S. presidential election and related issues.

          Trump’s critics contend several of his top campaign aides – including onetime campaign chair Paul Manafort, adviser Carter Page and former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn – had suspicious, if not illicit, contacts with Kremlin-linked officials. Trump has denied any collusion with the Russian government and no evidence has been publicly presented to show such collusion.

          Trump fired Comey May 9, in part, Trump said later, because the Russian investigation was dragging on.

          “In fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said, ‘You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story,'” Trump said. “It’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won.”

          Press leaks, including to Fox News, later established that Comey had written a memo to himself detailing at least one encounter with Trump where the president had suggested he would like to see any investigation of Flynn ended.

          With growing calls from largely Democratic lawmakers that the Trump administration could no longer credibly conduct any investigation into Russia in the midst of Comey’s ouster, Mueller was thrust into the picture.

          But Mueller and Comey have been longtime allies dating back to at least 2003 when the men both worked in Washington, D.C., Mueller as FBI Director and Comey as Deputy Attorney General.

          The men were memorably cast – mostly via Comey’s 2007 testimony – as honorable men standing against government overreach when they talked former President George W. Bush out of pushing ahead the renewal of a controversial surveillance program. That episode included a supposedly dramatic hospital bedside encounter when Bush aides tried to get ailing Attorney General John Ashcroft to sign off on the program’s renewal. But Ashcroft, and in Comey’s telling, Comey himself, stood firmly athwart the pressure and prevailed.

          Mueller was a confidante of Comey during the initial incident, backing him up and reportedly offering to resign alongside him should the need arise. After Comey’s testimony in 2007, Mueller’s notes were subpoenaed by Congress as a way of verifying the account (which Bush and then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzalez offer a differing version of).

          “I hung up, called Director Mueller, with whom I’d been discussing this particular matter and had been a great help to me over that week — and told him what was happening,” Comey testified. “He said, ‘I’ll meet you at the hospital right now.'”

          He later told senators of Mueller: “He’s one of the finest people I’ve ever met.”

          According to a lengthy Washingtonian article published on the eve of Comey succeeding Mueller as FBI head, Mueller was the “one person in government in whom [Comey] could confide in and trust.”

          As the showdown with Bush was going on, Comey, riding with Mueller to the White House, reflected on the impending fight that could be bearing down on the men. “At least Bob Mueller will be standing on the tracks with me,” Comey thought, according to The Washingtonian.

          When Comey was initially called to Ashcroft’s bedside, his first call was to Mueller who reportedly responded: “I’ll be right there.”

          Now he’s tasked with evaluating Comey’s accounts and recollections as he tries to play arbitrator in a mushrooming saga that’s clouded Trump’s nascent presidency.

    2. It was clearly heavy-handed. As CNN is reporting right now, it was a pre-dawn, no-knock raid. In other words, the type of kick down the door and rush in raid that is designed to prevent drug dealers and Hells Angels from flushing drugs down the toilet. The FBI was seeking financial records. If Manafort ran to the bathroom to flush bank records, which is obviously impossible, copies of the records are available from the bank. Copies of tax returns are available from the IRS. So to bust in while he is sleeping, causing trauma to him and his wife and kids, humiliating them by pulling them out of bed half dressed or undressed, was completely unnecessary and designed to cause psychological pressure. It may backfire if a jury views it as abusive.

      1. As CNN is reporting right now, it was a pre-dawn, no-knock raid. In other words, the type of kick down the door and rush in raid that is designed to prevent drug dealers and Hells Angels from flushing drugs down the toilet.

        And, without a doubt, will find a Democratic federal judge who signed off on that. The longer this runs on, the more it has features like the John Doe investigations in Wisconsin. (One of the principals of which was a local prosecutor marred to a teachers’ union official).

      2. This was just ONE of Manafort’s homes, and I’ve heard nothing that indicates he was even home at the time, much less that anyone was dragged out of bed or humiliated. You have no idea why they went to his home, and because Fox News has told you it was abusive, you want to believe it. Maybe it was the hard drive on his home computer they were seeking, and maybe the reason they were seeking it is because Manafort was less than forthcoming when he testified.

        1. Chump’s pals at the National Inquirer are reporting about Mannafort’s very young
          Mistress today. He could have been partying iin the Hamptons with her and the Mooch.

          1. allan – I did read a report that said Manaport had called the Clinton’s to get the make of cloth to use to wipe his hard drive.

    3. All I’ve heard from those who know Mueller, from both political parties, is that he is above reproach.

      He quite brazenly staffed his legal team with Democratic Party donors. Only a single-digit share of people donate to political campaigns, so it’s not difficult to locate lawyers who haven’t done this. Its a reasonable inference Mueller wanted lawyers on board with what he had in mind.

      1. What exactly does Mueller have in mind, anyway? You listen to Fox News too much. Do you want people beholden to foreign governments involved in our political campaigns? Manafort’s connections to Russia are not theoretical. My take is that Mueller wanted lawyers with experience in ferreting out illegal connections. People who know what to look for and how to find it. What basis is there for you to assume he and his team aren’t impartial? Other than Fox News, of course.

        1. I actually do not watch Fox News. The production values grate.

          The rest of your comment is a red herring as well.

          If Mueller were conducting a real investigation he would be concerned with substance and credibility. Substantively hiring a quartet of Democratic partisans (and you cut 4-digit checks to the Democratic Party, that’s what you are) to investigate this matter is imprudent. Doing so in spite of the fact it could be readily exposed indicates you expect you can get away with it.

          This is the biggest tell. Mueller’s former association with Comey is another. These two are institutional politicians who made their career at the Department of Justice and they’re working on behalf of political Washington. (The people who claim Mueller is a ‘Republican’ seem to forget the corps of greasy characters in the Capitol Hill nexus infuriated with Trump. They also can not tell you where Mueller is registered to vote).

          1. Maybe Mueller has determined that the most effective way to hurt Trump is to push him into a corner so that he fires him because he doesn’t have much else? Maybe this is a trap Mueller is laying for Trump to fall into?

          2. Trump hired Sessions, who hired Rosenstein, who hired Mueller, who hired investigators who donate to Democrats. Simplify the sequence. Trump hired Democratic investigators when he hired Sessions, who hired Rosenstein, who hired Mueller. Accept those facts. After thirteen seasons of The Apprentice, Trump still doesn’t have a clue who nor how to hire anyone at all.

            1. Diane – with 525 businesses with his name on them, Trump is a hands-off manager. He signs contracts and makes major decisions, but the scut work is done by others. He hires his top personnel and then depends on them to do the job.

              Coming into the job as an outsider, he has had to depend on recommendations from others. Some have been good, some bad, some so-so. Obama didn’t do any better.

              1. Great comment, Paul. IMHO, DJT’s lack of long-term planning for his campaign is the real reason we are seeing this attempt by the entrenched neocons/neolibs to deep-six his presidency. If he had cultivated connections over the last 10 years or so in the political world so that he knew whom he could count on, who were loyal, and the skill sets that these individuals had, he would be more prepared to handle the onslaught. Having to fight all these in-house fires takes time and energy away from making progress on the larger issues that are important to the country. If he did cultivate these relationships, it is not obvious.

                  1. Now you’re just flinging poop. Stop labeling others as racist. It only makes you look bad, er, I mean, unhinged.

                  2. DesperatelySeekingSusan writes: “There is no such thing as a ‘neocon’. It’s a six letter word for ‘Jew’.”

                    DSS, you know or should know that what you just said is beneath your usually reasonable form and responses. It can sound to some to be a bit anti-Semetic. I don’t know why you would make such a comment. But, you did, so let me shine a bit of light on your comment.

                    First let me ask you a question. Is John Bolton Jewish? How about Jeane Kirkpatrick who died awhile back or James Woolsey. I love Bill Bennett. Is he Jewish as well? I know Frank Gaffney and I didn’t know he was Jewish, he isn’t. There are many more non-Jews that are considered to be neoconservatives and aren’t Jewish. They are all rather hawkish whether it comes to Russia, China or Israel.

                    Yes, a lot in the neoconservative movement are Jewish, but so are a lot of the prominent people we often refer to and think about. Think of those in your own field of economics or the percentage of those that are Nobel Prize winners that are Jewish even with the substantial prejudice that exists.

                    The chances are that the number of Jews that are neocons are reasonably close to the same percent as prominent Jews are to the general society of prominent people that are recognized. In fact of my 3 favorite economists Friedman, Hayek and Von Mises two were Jewish which is approximately 67%.

                    Do you wish to revise your statement and clear the air?

                    1. The term ‘neoconservative’ was coined by Peter Steinfels to describe a collection of academics and publicists disaffected with regnant strands of thought in the Democratic Party. (Michael Harrington had used similar terms earlier). The very youngest of this collection was Irving Kristol’s aide Michael Lind, born in 1962. Most of them are now dead or very old. By 1992, one section of them had returned to the Democratic Party and the remainder had mostly adopted the viewpoint of mainstream Republicans. Of the notable letter-head organizations which delineated them, all are defunct. The publications which propagated their views have folded or been passed on to others with a dissimilar editorial line. Left as we speak is Commentary (now a Podhoretz family grant-money guzzler), The New Criterion (which devotes little space to topical political questions and is concerned with education and culture) and City Journal (whose viewpoint is mainstream metrocon Republican).

                      Joseph Sobran and others concocted a rather fanciful history of post-war opinion journalism and political activism which had it that a collection of Jew wire-pullers hijacked the ‘Conservative movement’. That’s the source of about half the instances of latter-day usage of the term ‘neocon’. It’s all nonsense, like nearly everything else soi-disant ‘palaeo-conservatives’ produce. The other instances of latter-day usage are by partisan Democrats for whom ‘necocon’ is a synonym for ‘a**hole’.

                      John Podhoretz and Wm Kristol are not peddling a distinct ‘ism’. They just have some policy disagreements with portions of the Republican mainstream and some blind spots which come from being Jewish bourgeois who’ve spent their lives in New York, Washington, Boston, and Chicago.

                      The term is never used as anything but an epithet, and almost never used by anyone who does not have a bad attitude.

                    2. DSS, Whether or not others also misrepresent the “neocon”as a six letter word for Jew is not the question. The question is whether the definition is appropriate or even an anti-Semetic utterance by some. I mentioned a few well known neocons that are not Jewish so the very core of the statement is false.

                      All your ‘lamentations’ and excuses are irrelevant and I think you know it. No one is taking issue as to who coined the term, the history of the neoconservative movement, where it came from or led to, or even the “rather fanciful history of post-war opinion journalism “ of Joseph Sobran Recall, Joseph Sobran was fired from National review precisely because some considered his writing anti-Semitic or “contextually” anti-Semitic as Bill Buckley would call it.

                      I don’t care about the source of your misappropriate definition. It is wrong. As I said earlier you should clear the air and distance yourself from such statements that can easily be interpreted as anti-Semitism. Bill Buckley had to do just about that for National Review and you should as well.

                    3. allan, I appreciate what you’re doing, but you’re spitting in the wind. DSS, you, I, and everyone else know that his/her/its comment was meant to shut me down. No more, no less. It’s obvious because the neocon was taken out of context and there was no mention of anyone’s religious beliefs in my post. It’s of a piece with DSS’s crapping on anyone else he/she/it deems less intelligent than him (which means all other posters on the blog). JT runs a hands-off enterprise and a small, but vocal minority use the forum as a way to make themselves look intellectually superior (I view it as another mechanism to climb the dominance hierarchy in the real world). Hence the ridiculous lecture you received on the origin of the word and somebody else’s pontification of the same. Who the f cares about all that drivel? Most of us abandoned this behavior in middle school at the latest, but some people cling to it, for reasons only relevant to psychologists/sociologists. My advice is to ignore DSS; I do.

                    4. Cape Cod, I gather what you say. I tend to read what is written regardless of who writes it. DSS wrote a sentence that could be taken as anti-Semitic. In essence I asked for clarification and a retraction of an erroneous statement. I provided substance to prove the statement wrong and historical evidence that such a statement should not be made. DSS chose to use a deceptive lengthy response in order not to address the statement made. Whether or not he corrects the statement is up to him. I think it is clear to almost everyone that such a statemet should never have been made.

                    5. allan, I agree with your unemotional and well-reasoned statements. I’m not trying to stop you from trying to make the blog a more civil place. I’m merely saying that, IMO, logical arguments don’t work in this situation for reasons I’ve already explained. DSS’s implication that I am anti-Semitic is obnoxious and unsupported by any of my previous posts. Whatever, cranks gotta crank, I don’t give a crap. I come here only to try to gain some info/perspective regarding the increasing chaos. I am not a lawyer; input here from the legal/justice community is very informative. Nasty comments definitely pollute the environment, but that’s to be expected as JT does not moderate.

      2. You and your donor business. WTF, you stated 4 out of 14 donated. Did any donate to rethuglicans or like-minded organizations All of these lawyers are connected and donate to whomever that might prove profitable in the future via appointments, etc. Maybe you should try to understand the world we live in.

  3. The ace in the hole that conservatives have is that part of every human’s nature to sense true justice (or injustice). It’s that undeniable feeling in the pit of our stomachs that something is right or wrong. People will rationalize all manners of things to be just, but regardless of the layers of ideological sediment needed to bury the truth, it’s still there.

    This is the problem the deep state cannot overcome. The American people of all political leanings already know there is an absence of investigative interest regarding Clinton, their foundation, the DNC, and the alphabet soup of agencies weaponized by previous administrations. Knowing this truth is one thing, being ideologically for or against doing something about it is another. If the deep state wants to pursue justice with regards to Trump and ignore it with regards to the others previously mentioned, then they will be playing right into the hands of the voters that denied Clinton the Presidency. The down-ticket implications of that will have legs for multiple election cycles.

    1. Well said Olly. We know this is a witch hunt, and is laid bare as such. The evidence against Clinton and the DNC is right there… no need to search, yet… nothing. This will simmer…

      Meanwhile the Democrats continue to whine and point fingers. They could be laughing at Trump right now and building a party for the future. This whole exercise demonstrates what they are. Hope they really don’t think they have a lock on elections coming up, or they’ll be in for a big surprise.

      1. Thank you slohrss. The Democrats have painted themselves into a corner. They have no legal win if they ignore investigations and prosecutions of their own party. If they succeed in bringing down this President, who was largely elected because of the widespread corruption in the political class, they will then have to try and do the same with Pence. As much as I want this witch hunt over, I believe this is the pain this country has to endure to bring about real change. We weren’t going to unwind the administrative state without suffering this significant emotional event in our nation’s history.

      1. That’s why they voted against Clinton. That’s why they will abandon Trump if those conservative principles are proven to have been violated.

    2. Whodunnit:

      Michael Meyers (Halloween)

      Jason Voorhees (Friday the 13th)

      Freddy Krueger (Nightmare on Elm Street)

      Deep State (unidentifiable boogyman who seems to frequent Republican thoughts)


    3. Olly, what are you talking about? Have you not read these headlines from the New York Times in the recent past?

      “FBI Raids Clinton Foundation and Seizes Computer Files.”

      “Soros Awakened By Pre-Dawn FBI Raid.”

      “FBI Raids Home of Former CIA Director”

      You really need to start paying more attention to the news.

    4. Olly: the FBI DID investigate Hillary Clinton. They came to the conclusion that there was no crime. No amount of harping by Fox is going to change these facts.

      1. They came to the conclusion that there was no crime.

        And you believed them because you wanted that conclusion. You want proof? What will be your reaction if the Mueller investigation concludes there was no crime and Trump remains in office? Yup, you feel that bile rising from the pit of your stomach? Exactly.

        1. If Mueller concludes, Trump and Co did a lot of shady stuff but “their intent could not be considered criminal”, I would accept it and proceed to live my life, love my wife and kids, get up and head to work.

          Bile would not rise in my stomach, I would not go on endless tirades for years upon years and continue to beat the same old drum.

          Olly, life’s not fair, rich & powerful people get special treatment, water is wet and the Earth is round….

      2. You keep saying this as if your repetition will suddenly make the statement true. It won’t.
        Comey let Clinton skate on “intent” despite the fact that “intent” is not contained in the relevant statutes.
        She broke the law by mishandling classified info and lesser employees of the government (read: those without inside connections) have been prosecuted over the same offense. HRC should be in prison, but there is one standard of justice for the elites, and another for us plebs.


        1. The intellectual dishonesty seen on the blog is amazing. Cape Cod, you got it right. To people like natacha totally illegal activities are just a simple “matter” of no consequence, but if an opponent parts his hair on the wrong side they want midnight raids of the party involved along with all of his friends until proof is found or conveniently placed to convict them.

          Let me quote the Washington Post headline “Comey repeats that Lynch asked him to describe Clinton investigations as a ‘matter’”

          1. “to describe Clinton investigations as a ‘matter

            You’d think that would prompt some people to stop mid-rant and say “Hmmm….”, right? Not so much.

            Scott Adams says everyone lives in their own movie, so I expect some cognitive dissonance. But I admit to being gobsmacked at the way posters here respond…..the brazen partisan attacks on this administration by the media, the entrenched Dems and the RINOs are breath-taking, and this egregious behavior is totally acceptable to the liberal left here and elsewhere. I’ve never seen anything like it before. It’s full on Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

      3. The FBI recommended Clinton “Charities” be investigated and Little Loretta Lynch aka Elizabeth Carlisle, refused to pursue it.

    5. Haha. Pravda Faux News still firing you people up with Clinton jibber-jabber? The most heavily-investigated couple in the last 25 years must “control the minds” of all those federal investigators, U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Senators, U.S. Representatives and the Special Prosecutor actually assigned to investigate Big Bill to have avoided Leavenworth; amIright?

      This is to tinfoil investor olly

    6. When you move to this level of conspiracy you are well beyond the boundaries of partisan politics.

      Your critique might …might… stand up under scrutiny if were not so riddled with a partisan “WE Are Right, You are Wrong” premise. “Republicans are Right , Democrats are de facto Wrong” “Trump is Right in all he says and does , AnyOne who opposes him is Wrong Wrong Wrong”…

      One thing seriously lacking in all of these supposed, perhaps true, insights, into the dark dealings of the government is that where there may be some truth to the point, the truth is far deeper than you are willing to go.

      What if there is another layer of, say, international finance, for example, that was able to create a world wide financial crisis, reorganize trillions of dollars of value, and do so without any significant consequence to any of the key players?
      Would that be worthy of your attention? To think you have got the story by intoning the “Dark State” and think you have caught Democrats red handed is to be duped and a part of the problem.

      Such things as what we are dealing with in these days transcend such inadequate classifications & porous boundaries.

  4. The feds operate on a mutually assured extortion protocol. I think, the the most likely outcome, is scapegoating Manafort and Flynn. If they go after Trump, we can expect rightful retaliation with raids on Comey, his leaker friend Daniel C. Richman, and many others (perhaps even Susan Rice).

    1. Right… and everyone is completely knowledgeable about laws relevant to trade, transactions, doing business, receiving funds, and meeting with people around the world and with foreigners who are visiting the US and exactly who they are and what they are trying to accomplish.

          1. Chiguy, I think the two of them above were involved in a crime so I will call it into the FBI so they raid them and their families at will. The problem is that the FBI first needs to know the crime and then normally requires reasonable proof.

          2. I’m not understanding how my comments are either, as you state?

            If Hillary committed “actual” crimes prosecute her, if Trump and Co committed “actual crimes” prosecute them!

            I don’t care about any of them, I only care about my life, my family and my money!

            That’s all the Clinton’s and Trump and Co care about. While the minions fight over the crumbs.

            Stay woke!

            1. You do realize rocksolid that sometimes government agencies go a bit to far in serving their masters. Look at what the IRS did to those opponents of Obama. The IRS is supposed to be a non partisan agency that is supposed to aid in collecting taxes fairly.

      1. Yea, I know because committing crimes are a joke 😂😂😂

        But I get it… When “Forever Trumpers” commit crimes it’s a witch hunt and not that bad.

        A crime is a crime, period!

        Unless he flips on someone higher up 😉

  5. JT is WRONG again, as usual when he says: “Given the fact that Manafort was turning over requests documents, it is notable that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigators would want to carry out such a heavy handed and public display of power.”

    There is NOTHING “notable” about such FBI tactics. Mueller has ugatz, so he and his fellow political hacks on his team HAVE to make up for the fact they have ugatz by making a big public show. Mueller operates on the hope that he can convince the public that “where there’s smoke, there’s fire.” So Mueller blows some smoke out of his rear end to attempt to create that illusion.

    It will work, of course, to some extent, but only among Leftists, who can easily be persuaded that a hearty meal can consist of a double-decker nothingburger with a side vapor salad, washed down with an air-shake.

  6. Just saw a compilation of DT’s tweets written shortly after the FBI raid on Manafort’s home. He was clearly freaked out. Wonder why…….

    1. Perhaps they knew but were asked to sit tight on the story?
      I just keep thinking: How much more out of control can these people get?

      1. Really? You think that’s how big-league journalists work when covering a crime story? Don’t handle sharp objects and look at your copy of the U.S. Constitution…

        This is to clueless on the cape

        1. In September 2004, the CBS News program 60 Minutes decided to delay a major story on the forgeries because such a broadcast might influence the 2004 U.S. presidential election. A CBS spokesman stated, “We now believe it would be inappropriate to air the report so close to the presidential election.” This decision closely followed the Killian documents controversy.[50]


          Go back to the children’s table, the adults are talking.

          This is to “All I’ve Got are Ad Homs” Marky Mark

  7. “The raid may have been meant to concentrate his mind on the risks that he is facing….”

    A reminder that prosecutors have the ability to ruin lives without ever taking a case to trial. 90+% of people cop a plea rather than go to trial.

    A power that needs to be used with an eye towards justice and the Constitution.

  8. Yep, Rosenstein’s civil war… A civil war that will be designed to take out the deep state but will probably take us all down. America has too many enemies ow – both foreign and domestic. The globalists are on the move.

      1. What I meant to say is if Mueller and his Unicorn Riders are planning on waltzing into DC to remove President Trump from office for supposedly using RED Russian pixie dust to win the election – they’ve got another thing coming. Many patriots/concerned citizens are aware of what’s at stake – the future of America. A George Soros inspired coup to remove our President would be viewed as an act of war against the US – in order to advance the Agenda 2030 enslavement initiatives. Hopefully, America will survive this globalist onslaught peacefully, but many people are angry at the corruption in DC and are ready to defend our duly elected President and country if necessary.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks
%d bloggers like this: