Mueller Moves To Block Manafort Release From Home Confinement Over Drafting Of An Opinion Piece

440px-Director_Robert_S._Mueller-_III-1Former Donald Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort has reportedly scuttled his own deal to secure release from home confinement under a deal Manafort with prosecutors.  Prosecutors learned (from an unspecified source) that Manafort was working with a ghostwriter on an opinion piece on his case.  The second man reportedly had ties to Russian intelligence — hardly ideal for a man at the center of the Russian investigation. The work was deemed to be in violation of a court order for all parties to refrain from “trying the case in the press.” However, the order raises a long-standing question of the need and constitutionality of orders limiting the free speech of defendants and counsel.  While once the exception, gag orders have become the rule with many judges.  Yet, Manafort is presumed innocent and the order prevents him from responding to those questioning his loyalty and honesty.

 

According to court documents, Manafort was working on an editorial on his work in Ukraine with a person “who is currently based in Russia and assessed to have ties to a Russian intelligence service.”  It is not clear what is meant by such “ties”.  However, Manafort is charged not with espionage but  tax fraud, money laundering and conspiracy.

Under the agreement, Manafort would have surrendered assets including real estate valued at a $8 million and life insurance policies valued at $4.5m. However, his work on the oped was deemed as “an intention to violate or circumvent the court’s existing orders, at a time one would expect particularly scrupulous adherence.”

This however brings us again to the central point that Manafort has not been convicted of any crime and wants to speak or write publicly in his own defense.  Courts now routinely strip defendants of their free speech rights in the interests of protecting the potential jurors from influence.  Yet, it means that a citizen is denied free speech rights when they are most in need for them — to defend their name and to oppose the government’s actions.

As I previously mentioned, Manafort has long had a reputation in Washington for suspicious dealings.  However, statements of this kind are precisely why he should not be denied the ability to rebut them publicly.

What do you think?

157 thoughts on “Mueller Moves To Block Manafort Release From Home Confinement Over Drafting Of An Opinion Piece

  1. Linda, you boasted: “First step- reduce dividends to heirs of Sam Walton. ”, but when asked questions about that first step you shut up. Why? Because you don’t know what you are talking about.

    We live in a legal society. How do you justify reducing the dividends to the heirs of Sam Walton without reducing all dividends? Are we living in Stalin’s Russia where laws don’t count and people can be shot at his discretion?

    What are you going to do if the company stops paying dividends?
    If Walmart has a slowdown or starts losing money will you then reduce the salaries of the employees?

      • I prefer the description, working class snobbery, which is reserved for those who actually contribute to GDP. It’s better to have a cause that lacks vision but, has a concrete construct for the future than the richest 0.1%’s unsustainable “vision” of stockpiling the gold others mined, having serfs dust it while mercenary armies guard it.
        Why did Devos’ brother come to mind?

        • It’s better to have a cause that lacks vision but, has a concrete construct for the future than the richest 0.1%’s unsustainable “vision” of stockpiling the gold others mined, having serfs dust it while mercenary armies guard it.

          Your class envy slip is showing.

          • There’s nothing to envy about KT McFarland and husband, John Arnold (Enron), Don Trump Jr., Louise Litton, the lying Mnuchin, etc. There’s only reason for disgust and embarrassment that the U.S. allows them to wield power and/or spend tax money.

  2. In other words, it looks like a low-integrity, reckless, biased bureaucrat has played an important role in two of the most important and politically charged criminal investigations of the new century. Yes, it’s good that Mueller removed Strzok when he discovered the text messages. No, Strzok is not solely responsible for the conclusions reached in either investigation. But his mere presence hurts public confidence in the FBI, and it does so in a way that further illustrates a persistent and enduring national problem: America’s permanent bureaucracy is unacceptably partisan.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454361/peter-strzok-fbi-scandal-partisan-american-bureaucracy?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NR%20Daily%20Monday%20through%20Friday%202017-12-05&utm_term=NR5PM%20Actives

      • Did they violate Congress’s legal requests by not turning over the emails, by not turning over the hard drive, by illegally wiping the hard drive clean, by trying to prevent others from releasing this data?

            • If Jared’s and Colin’s server use was not investigated and no legal requests made, obviously no charges can be leveled against them.
              Singling out only one segment for review, when all participated in a similar fashion as far as we know, and then, declaring one of them egregious and aberrant is without logical foundation.
              The same point is being made about the contrast in Benghazi review and review of the situation of the 4 American soldiers killed in the ambush that Trump ordered.

              • Linda:

                “Singling out only one segment for review, when all participated in a similar fashion as far as we know, and then, declaring one of them egregious and aberrant is without logical foundation.”

                **************************************
                You’ve cogently wrote the closing statement Flynn should have used and Manafort will undoubtedly use. Just a suggestion counselor, you might add the names Hyperbolic Huma and Calumniatin’ Cheryl in there somewhere.

              • Linda – neither Jared or Powell set up a homebrew server in their bathroom and ran all their emails through there. You need to get your stories straight. Hillary Clinton clearly broke the law, they did not.

          • That is not the problem. They didn’t violate they Congress’s legal requests by not turning over the emails, by not turning over the hard drive, by illegally wiping the hard drive clean, by trying to prevent others from releasing this data. That is the problem you are trying to forget.

        • The “but Colin Powell did it too” defense has long since been discredited.
          It was endlessly parroted as a false comparison to Hillary’s “extreme carelessness”.
          Colin Powell did NOT have his own private server.
          He did have a private email account, and occasionally ( not EXCLUSIVELY, like Hillary) used that account for State Dept. business.
          A small number of the small number of State Dept.-related emails Powell did use his private email account for were later labelled classified.
          I don’t think any were classified at the highest level; Powell requested that the emails in question be declassified, since they were low-level, questionable classifications to begin with.
          Colin Powell left office in 2005; there may have been different State Dept. regulations during his tenure than when Hillary left State in 2013.
          Jared did have a private server….I don’t think the nature of his use of that server is known, at least to the public.
          In his case, it’s an ongoing investigation of someone with access to classified material.
          The only specific thing I can remember reading was that Jared used that private server to conduct business with a Russian bank.
          We’ll probably find out in time the nature of material that passed through the private Jared server.
          I’ve seen no evidence that either Powell or Jared BleachBit subpeonaed material, or that they used ( then destroyed) multiple devices used to conduct State Dept. business.
          “Colin did it too” is a lame, bogus, discredited meme used in desperation.
          What Jared did is an open question; he’s under investigation.
          If it’s found that he was “extremely careless” with classified material, he can also argue that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring charges.
          He’ll have to say it, since I don’t think the head of the FBI will argue that point on his behalf, like Comey did for Hillary.

          • Tom, all of what you say is true, but the actual use of a private email might be administrative and not criminal. I’m not sure though for lesser folk that violate security matters they have gone to jail. The other things I mentioned (…not turning over the emails, by not turning over the hard drive, by illegally wiping the hard drive clean) are clearly criminal acts.

            Do you note how Linda is unable to address these things? She hasn’t yet been trained what to say about this situation.

            • Allan,…
              I think Colin Powell argued for the declassification of the State Dept.-related emails that were later classified at a “low level” of classification.
              Powell said it was excessive classification of material that was not sensitive.
              I don’t know if any part of Powell’s request was granted.
              In any case, his use of his private email account for State Dept. related was very minor in comparison to the Hillary setup.
              I’m not a big fan,of Colin Powell, but his account of his use of private email seemed credible.
              I couldn’t see by any stretch a case for “extreme carelessness” in Powell’s case.
              As I mentioned earlier, I don’t know how similar, or different, State Dept. rules and regulations were in the differenttimeframes that Powell and Clinton served.
              Hillary floated the talking point that ” my predecessors did it too”, but that didn’t fly much better than the “it was the video” Benghazistory.
              The deliberate destruction of suboeonaed material is a big distinction.
              I stopped short of saying that ALL of Powells private) emails were administrative and unclassified….that’s why I tried to summarize Powell’s account of his use of private email.
              Anyway, there are so many key differences between Powell handling of emails and Hillary’s “private server/highly classified at the time ( some of hers were classified at the highest level)/ subsequent destruction of evidence factors” that the “Powell defense” doesn’t hold up.
              I don’t know what Jared might have done on/with his private server; ..that seems to be an open question at this point.
              Sorry this is so long….I’ve been over it so many times with so many people in conversations that my memory banks download here in the comments.

              • Tom, I appreciate your detailed account.

                Hillary’s responses were juvenile and demonstrated a mindset of one who thinks she is privileged and above the law.

                • Hillary’s responses were juvenile and demonstrated a mindset of one who thinks she is privileged and above the law.

                  Time will tell, but at this point she is privileged and above the law.

  3. “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

    – Sir Edmund Burke
    ________________

    When do Professor Turley and the constitutional, good men of America

    bring to a close, through vigorous opposition,

    the corruption that is the political Mueller “Inquisition?”

    • Sorry George, but we are a long way from a non-partisan approach to constitutional government. You are asking for something that requires a belief in the first principles our nation was founded on. This does not seem to be uniformly understood by the electorate, and that ignorance is reflected by those that represent them in government.

      But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.

        • Olly, start here. The Constitution restricts Congressional power to tax to “general Welfare,” omitting and, thereby, excluding “individual” welfare. The entire American redistributionist welfare state is unconstitutional.

          Next, the right to private property precludes affirmative action, quotas, “Fair Housing,” “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc. Freedom includes being free from confiscatory and punitive taxation to irrationally compel productive and self-reliant citizens to support dependent parasites.

      • As his POV, Trump cited the loathe (and illegal in America) quote, “to the victor go the spoils”. Spoils and plunder have a lot in common, right?

            • PCS, stating you’re an Indonesian citizen on your high school application in your step-father’s country, Indonesia, isn’t exactly honest and forthright either – especially when it comes to claiming later on that you’re a “natural born citizen” which requires a “…father who is a citizen,” per the Law of Nations, Book 1, Ch. 19, Sec. 212, which, Ben Franklin wrote in 1775, was “…continually in the hands of the Members, sitting, of our Congress…”

          • “To the victor go the spoils” is not a statement that a good man makes.

            That depends on the context. So for instance, when Obama said, “Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.” The consequences were a particular type of governance; a weaponizing of government; a concentration of power in the executive branch. Ultimately, proven to be a malicious statement Spoils might also be considered consequences of a type of governance. I don’t know, I don’t have the context of that statement.

            In any regard, constitutionalists don’t take their eye off the winner. We’ll look for

            • “conservative” constitutionalists like Roy Moore?
              That Iowa Sen. Grassley, who boasts that men with disposable income (Trump’s $1 mil. from his Dad) should have Congress deliver more money to the rich because the worker making $40-50k spends his family’s “money on women, booze and movies”, is he a constitutionalist? If so, constitutionalists missed the overarching theme of the founding fathers. You know- anti aristocracy and merit, opportunity, etc.

              • Why are your arguments all out of context?

                I so happen to probably agree with one portion of your argument more than most, but even there you make a mess out of it. Why don’t you demonstrate why communism works better than capitalism?

                • At some point even the majority of dullards watching Fox will recognize oligarchy and free enterprise are antithetical. They will realize as a fraud, the propaganda tying democracy to communism.

                  • Those watching Fox or presumably those smart enough not to watch the perverted TV hosts on the left are just trying to get a bit of alternative news that isn’t a lie, but even Fox doesn’t present the whole picture. That picture is a lot worse.

                    “They will realize as a fraud, the propaganda tying democracy to communism.”

                    You speak the language of a good communist, but you don’t even recognize that communism is an economic system and democracy is a political system. You probably don’t even recognize the problems with democracy.

                    In any event in your rantings of disparate facts, some of them are true. But, then again, even a broken clock is right twice in a single day.

              • If so, constitutionalists missed the overarching theme of the founding fathers. You know- anti aristocracy and merit, opportunity, etc.

                You’ll find the founding fathers wrote about many issues that compelled them to seek independence from Great Britain. Their entire body of work however does provide an overarching theme of first principles captured in the Declaration of Independence. If you understood that, that then it would be clear your desire to use the force of law to take legally acquired property from one and give to another is Bastiat’s definition of Legal Plunder.

                • You mean like the conservative U.S. Supreme Court that didn’t prohibit the use of eminent domain to take property and give it to real estate developers for profit taking?

                  • You’re getting the idea. 🙂 I don’t know the details of the case you’re citing that was presented before the court. I recall a case where those laws were used to make way for some commercial development and then the developer backed out of the project after the property was taken.

                    • Other Justices, appointed by Republican presidents, who joined Souder included Kennedy and Stevens.
                      The richest 0.1%, are overwhelmingly Republican. Some are token Dems who have moved the party to the right to also serve the interests of the rich at the expense of labor. (Check who funds the Center for American Progress.)
                      In an oligarchy, the economic descriptors, conservative and liberal, are defined by whim. The propaganda that claims free enterprise exists in an oligarchy is a deliberate lie.

                    • “In an oligarchy, the economic descriptors, conservative and liberal, are defined by whim.”

                      That is why we have the Constitution to eliminate the whims and hopefully prevent oligarchy. The individual citizen gives rights to the government, not the other way around. Unfortunately, we have today’s Democrats that believe that government gives the rights to the people. That is self-serving since those in government are generally richer than the people. There is nothing wrong with being rich and in government as long as power comes from the people.

                      There is also communism/ socialism which ends up as an oligarchy where the oligarchs decide who gets what after they take what they want. You seem to like that side of the coin since you are always willing to have the government decide who to take property from and who to give it to.

                    • “Like Souter?”

                      Yes, the Liberal judges. Now you can change the subject and forget about the present discussion.

                      “On June 23, 2005, the Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision, ruled in favor of the City of New London. Justice Stevens wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.”

                      In other words, it was the Liberal justices that favored the big corporations and supporters of the richest 1% that provided us with that decision.

                      There are three natural rights that come from God or some higher being, The right to life, liberty and property (or happiness). You think those rights come from man, so that man can take those rights away. In this case it was property. Some rich people wanted it and the Liberals gave it to the rich people.

    • Pro tip: if your theory doesn’t fit the facts, revise your theory. Mueller and his band of Defenders of the Constitution are the “good men” from the Burke meme. That places the traitorous buffoon and his fellow travelers and henchmen into the other role.

      This is to “oh, now I see it” georgie

      • Marky Mark Mark – Mueller should have recused himself some time ago. However, he did not. The longer he stays, the better for the defendants. He is tainted and they know it. They just have to get him on the stand and the government’s case is toast.

  4. You can talk about Manafort or anybody else all you want. This investigation is about people who are deeply embedded in our government who want to remove an elected president from office.

  5. Well, I wasn’t aware of the separate deal that was made from the bail conditions themselves.
    Was that gag order, apparently not objected to, actually implicative of the bail conditions too?
    If so, then it can not be said that it was a separate deal, but rather part and parcel.

    Most here on both sides of the political spectrum seem to agree that gagging a man from simply journaling his own thoughts is one step too far. It is like saying you cannot write a diary because you are under indictment. Granted that journal was intended for public consumption, but he didn’t do it.
    They could have warned him that publishing it was against his “separate” gag order deal, instead of preemptively rescinding his bail options.

    Overall though I agree with JT, it is a sick system where you are legally innocent yet have all the same impositions and effective penalties of being punished by the state.
    It is only in high profile cases like this, does the public actually see how bad it has become, and how fundamental rights have been bent, side-stepped, extortioned away, or broken in any other realistic viewpoint.

  6. I can imagine a scenario where, if I was under house arrest, stripped of the ability to earn an income and ply my trade, I might work on composing a piece, if for no other reason than to keep my sanity. Has no one heard of writing as a form of clarifying once’s thinking and arguments? I’ve written many ‘pieces’ that, once I accepted the consequences of what submitting them might mean, I opted not to submit.

    Had he actually submitted something for publication, and it violated the gag order, then Mueller’s team MIGHT have had something. But the way it appears now, this is punishment for journalizing. And if that isn’t protected speech, then I don’t know what is.

    Also, Manafort is now obviously under full-time surveillance, and all his communications are being tapped. Is this legal? Do the accused have no rights?

    This whole thing stinks to high heavens.

    • Radica radish said, “Also, Manafort is now obviously under full-time surveillance, and all his communications are being tapped.”

      Maybe so, but not necessarily. Mueller could’ve been tipped off by an informant in The Ukraine or even in Russia. Who knows? Maybe even the ghostwriter is an undercover informant. But if Manafort was using a cellphone or the internet, then the NSA might have intercepted the signals and shared them with the FBI counterintelligence division, who forwarded them to Mueller.

  7. It seems in America today we can use violent police tactics to raid a home at night, but when the person is placed under arrest with his name being disgraced he can be prevented from responding publicly in an attempt to set the record straight and to preserve his own name.

    I note talk in the press that may come from Mueller or elsewhere. Sounds rather one-sided. But so is this prosecution where Mueller has the force of government on his side and can use trickery to frame his arguments. One thing Americans should be fearful of, government that oversteps its bounds in the treatment of citizens. Virtually anyone alive can be arrested for something and if enough force exists they can be prosecuted and likely jailed.

      • When one illegally crosses the border they have perpetrated a criminal act. Such a criminal act is easily recognized when they are in the US without permission.

        Manaforte is US citizen.

        • Got it, Criminal justice reform is needed for billionaire T rumpers. Forget da little guy or gal that is rottin in prison for a drug offense.

          • You’re welcome to send cards and letters to your favorite inmate. Let them know you’re keeping the home fire burning for the day they are released. All because you care so much for the little people.

          • Such foolishness. All Americans have equal rights. Illegals break the law the second they set one foot in the country. Zarate, the illegal, is the one you support. He kills an American woman and suddenly you remember the downtrodden, but forget about Kate Steinle.

            You are are a h-ll of a guy. Always supporting the downtrodden like Zarate, Congratulations. (sarcasm off)

            • Your exemplar was found “not guilty” by a jury. Why do you not support the United States Constitution?

              This to “we don’t need no stinkin Constitution” allan

              • Marky Mark Mark – a lot of members of the KKK were found not guilty in the 1950s and 1960s but that did not mean the US Constitution was working, only that it was being subverted.

      • Yes, Autumn, we have to be careful of government power, but we also have to recognize a balance because bad people exist and terrorists don’t live under the same laws. It’s a tricky position for the government to be in because not infrequently even citizens can support murderers and terrorists.

  8. Turley wrote that, “[p]rosecutors learned (from an unspecified source) that Manafort was working with a ghostwriter on an opinion piece on his case.”

    The fact that Mueller found out what Manafort was up to strikes me as very interesting. Manafort was confined to his own house, the last I heard. Who or what is the unspecified source of this information about Manafort? Suppose the unspecified source is a person. Gee, I wonder who. They say that the FBI counterintelligence division has confidential informants who are foreign nationals in foreign countries. That is very interesting.

    • Olly,…
      It seems that in cases where gag orders are imposed, it’s like “closing the barn door after the horse already got out”.
      That is, one or both sides have already made much of their case in the press.
      As a practical matter, I question whether gag orders have any real impact in most cases.
      Maybe they’d have some minor effect if they were imposed immediately on arrest or indictment, but otherwise the necessity or effectiveness of these orders seem questionable.

  9. The only reason to use a ghost writer was to circumvent the gag order. However, the gag order seems to unfairly silence Manafort. A jury of his peers can read about him almost daily, including in this blog. It doesn’t seem right that a defendant is prevented from responding to reports circulating in the news and elsewhere.

    • Oily, did you conveniently ignore the headline info. about the ghost writer?
      Allegedly, Manaforte didn’t select just any old ghost writer… was it a cyberspace connection between parties respectively, with one in the U.S. and, the other in Russia…. or, is the alleged writer, a Russian immigrant (legal or illegal), or….?

      • did you conveniently ignore the headline info. about the ghost writer?

        Are you daft? His choice of ghostwriter may be suspect, but as you’ve conveniently ignored: The work was deemed to be in violation of a court order for all parties to refrain from “trying the case in the press.”

        But do keep trying.

      • Control of media by the richest 0.1% like Murdoch is “repugnant in a free society”.
        The following headlines from on-line, “Rupert Murdoch’s Media Empire Adopts the Trump Line on Russia”. “In Unison, Murdoch-owned Outlets Bash Mueller” e.g. WSJ.
        Exposure of Deutsche Bank records may heat things up for the rich oligarchs which will be very good for democracy.

          • ??? Corporations and corporate owners ARE on government welfare. There’s carried interest, off shore profits avoiding taxes, elongated patent protections, etc.

            • Another example of welfare for the rich- firms like Walmart whose employees rely on their neighbors’ paying taxes (and, the state’s residents) to have food and healthcare, while the Walton Family takes its revenues out of state for lavish lifestyles.

              • Let’s close down all the Walmarts and leave about 2 million people without jobs and lots more that will have to shop at more expensive stores so that what they can buy shrinks. Linda will tell us what to do next.

              • the Walton Family takes its revenues out of state for lavish lifestyles.

                Have they violated the law? 🙂 It would seem that Bastiat has you pegged.

                Property and Plunder
                Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources. This process is the origin of property.

                But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of plunder.

                Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain — and since labor is pain in itself — it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. History shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions, neither religion nor morality can stop it.

                When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor.

                It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work. All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder.

                But, generally, the law is made by one man or one class of men. And since law cannot operate without the sanction and support of a dominating force, this force must be entrusted to those who make the laws.

                This fact, combined with the fatal tendency that exists in the heart of man to satisfy his wants with the least possible effort, explains the almost universal perversion of the law. Thus it is easy to understand how law, instead of checking injustice, becomes the invincible weapon of injustice. It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people, their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds.
                http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

                • Is this a transference situation, Oily?
                  Hedge fund managers match the final paragraph that you quoted. They actually drag down American GDP by an estimated 2%. We can agree it’s likely the guys on Wall Street dislike their work. It’s so exploitive, unproductive and slimy.
                  What distorted perception would lead a guy like Bastiat to write, “the heart of a man is …to exert the least possible effort”? Working satisfies a human need to contribute. Work isn’t painful unless the conditions are abhorrent.
                  Bastiat possibly mistook the old Russian adage, “They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work” as actual laziness?

            • I recognize Linda that you find communism to work better than capitalism, but you don’t seem to carry a single thought for more than a second or so.

                • Olly,
                  And evidently tolerated at West Point.
                  It’ll be interesting to see what the Army ends up doing with Comrade Spencer Rapone.

                • Listen to what the father of the basketball player (jailed in China) had to say and one realizes that the morality we are seeing from those on the left or feel entitled is near nonexistent.

                  Linda has memorized a few facts and doesn’t know what they mean. She cannot intelligently discuss her position.

                  • Maybe she’s busy reading Bastiat’s The Law. Good for her.

                    Have you noticed how conservatives will not only point out the failures of Democrat policies but also Republican failures? The progressives don’t do that. There is no humility with them. They are always right, regardless of any evidence to the contrary. It’s as though one side wants the rule of law and the other wants the rule of party.

                    • There is no introspection in the left.

                      I think the best example of how the left functions is the French Revolution. Look at what they are now doing. I think they are going overboard in a non-thinking savage attack against anyone guilty or innocent that was involved in potential sexist acts. They act as if these things were totally unknown before when they were widely known even in public.

                      http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/12/05/media-elite-laughed-at-2008-roast-sending-matt-lauer-s-pervy-behavior.html

                    • Are you writing that with a straight face? Hannity, Levine and Limbaugh, reflective, C’mon.

                      American business, during the robber baron era didn’t practice free enterprise and, the richest 0.1% today, aren’t practicing it either.

                    • ” the richest 0.1% today, aren’t practicing it either.”

                      We will let Linda manage the corporations, right? That is when all will descend into poverty.

                      Let’s start with Walmart Linda. You now have taken control. What is your first step?

                    • First step- reduce dividends to heirs of Sam Walton. Six of them, together, have wealth equivalent to 40% of Americans combined. That money would be used to raise wages of the people who actually produce the revenue i.e. labor. Extrapolating, wage increases would drive up middle class demand which would enable the economy to grow.
                      The amount of national income going to labor is at the lowest point in recorded history (The One Per Cent Solution by Gordon Lafer).

                    • Linda, do you believe a just and enduring government is one that will use collective force to deny individuals their natural right to their own property? This is why I asked you, have they violated the law?

                      Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

                      Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?

                      If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.
                      http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

                    • “First step- reduce dividends to heirs of Sam Walton. ”

                      We live in a legal society. How do you justify reducing the dividends to the heirs of Sam Walton without reducing all dividends? Are we living in Stalin’s Russia where laws don’t count and people can be shot at his discretion?

                      What are you going to do if the company stops paying dividends?
                      If Walmart has a slowdown or starts losing money will you then reduce the salaries of the employees?

                    • Oily,
                      Rights are taken away by gerrymandering, by the drafted laws of ALEC, which gain acceptance from a money-driven legislature but, you conveniently and narrowly define “force” as physical?

                    • you conveniently and narrowly define “force” as physical?

                      Not at all. Physical force is too obvious. For example, look at that type of force being applied to deny 1st amendment rights. The force Bastiat is referencing is the force of law.

                    • Oily,
                      “justice to reign over us all”

                      Which scholars have vetted Bastiat’s definition of justice? People declaring themselves as the owners of other people, did he address that? Did he weigh in on company towns?

                    • I found a clue to answer my question, Oily.
                      “Bastiat’s grandfather left him the family estate providing him with the means to further…( ed. note -well let’s just say to avoid ever contributing to the national income).”

                    • You found a clue? Well good for you. Let me know how that clue validates or invalidates what he’s written in The Law.

                      Which scholars have vetted Bastiat’s definition of justice? People declaring themselves as the owners of other people, did he address that? Did he weigh in on company towns?

                      You see if you’d bother reading it first, then you wouldn’t need to ask these questions. But I do enjoy the discussion.

                      But even in the United States, there are two issues — and only two — that have always endangered the public peace.

                      Slavery and Tariffs Are Plunder
                      What are these two issues? They are slavery and tariffs. These are the only two issues where, contrary to the general spirit of the republic of the United States, law has assumed the character of a plunderer.

                      Slavery is a violation, by law, of liberty. The protective tariff is a violation, by law, of property.

                      It is a most remarkable fact that this double legal crime — a sorrowful inheritance from the Old World — should be the only issue which can, and perhaps will, lead to the ruin of the Union. It is indeed impossible to imagine, at the very heart of a society, a more astounding fact than this: The law has come to be an instrument of injustice. And if this fact brings terrible consequences to the United States — where the proper purpose of the law has been perverted only in the instances of slavery and tariffs — what must be the consequences in Europe, where the perversion of the law is a principle; a system?

                    • Thanks Oily. Noted- Bastiat twists like a pretzel.
                      Erudite criticism of Bariat can be found as well, say like, the quote about Bariat’s thinking as “dead”. (Long before his actual demise).

                    • Bastiat twists like a pretzel.

                      How so? The Law is a very clear text, but only if you accept the following is true:

                      Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.

                      If you don’t accept all of that is true, then your rights are whatever government tells you they are. This means government can claim all your property, can lock you up and enslave you. They could take away your right to vote, tax you at any rate and you would have no just argument against it, because government decides what is just.

                      The only way Bastiat’s The Law twists like a pretzel is if you are trying find a middle ground. This is an either/or belief. Sadly, many people want to deny natural rights exist. To do so is to argue in favor of slavery.

                    • There is no way an intelligent person that read Bastiat can say he twists like a pretzel. He is very straightforward. One might choose to disagree or believe in something different, but twisting like a pretzel is not something that an educated person with an open mind would say.

  10. I think the time is wayyyyy overdue for MUELLER to be thoroughly investigated and prosecuted for his criminal and traitorous acts while employed by the government. Of course, this won’t happen. Mueller, like Clinton, Comey, and all the other criminals and traitors are drones for the Elite Establishment. And the Elite Establishment does protect their own. It’s one of the ways that the Elite Establishment ensures the complete loyalty of its operatives.

  11. Manafort says of one of the Russians: How was I to know?…., that she was with the Russians too?
    This is a song. He sang the song recently.

  12. So his attempt to respond “to those questioning his loyalty and honesty” was by secret communications with Russians tied to Russian Intelligence to produce a favorable piece of propaganda written under an assumed name? How did that work out for him?
    His lawyer initially violated the gag order, now is seems Manafort attempted to do the same. Bail is not a right if there is a specific reason not to grant it, his failure to follow the conditions means he should forfeit his privilege. Rule of law and all that.

    • Was it a gag order or a confinement order? Or both? I see no attempt to violate the conditions no matter how curious they look. Only to those who support the suspension of civil rights and that takes application of the Patriot Act which has not occured.

      I can understand, easily, the opposition view point but that same opposition is part and parcel of the suspension of civil liberties most recently expanded by the progressively regressives anti Constitution campaign.

      Understanding is not the same as condoning and it is the exact reason we moved last November to reject that particular political view point of adhering to a foreign ideology rather than our own system of government – a representative Constitutional Republic.

      • Per the government’s pleading, the gag order was independent of the bail deal that was worked out. Manafort could have objected to the gag order but apparently chose not to object. That can be verified via a visit to the case docket sheet via PACER.

        So I’m not sure why Turley is whining about the gag order. Turley is apparently arguing that Manafort should have a right that Manafort chose to give up. There likely were tactical reasons why Manafort did not object to the gag order.

        Rule number one: don’t violate a court order, particularly when you chose not to object to it.

        Rule number two: See rule number one.

        This is just pure stupidity and arrogance.

    • Yes, he did. “The Court also gave the parties an opportunity to object to a proposed court Order prohibiting such out-of-court statements in order to protect the fairness of the upcoming trial. Id. at 7-8. No party objected, and on November 8, 2017, the Court entered an unopposed Order pursuant to LCrR 57.7 that barred the parties and counsel, among others, from making statements that could interfere with the fair trial to which the government and the defense are entitled. See ECF#38 at 1-2 (ordering the parties to “refrain from making statements to the media or in public settings that pose a substantial likelihood of material prejudice to this case”).”

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s