Manafort Moves For Venue Change From Liberal Alexandria

301px-Seal_of_Alexandria,_VA.svgAttorneys for former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort have asked a federal judge for a venue change on the rather dubious grounds that Alexandria Virginia is simply too liberal.  Manafort wants a jury in Roanoke where there are more Republicans.  It is an exceptionally weak motion and would be unprecedented to shift jurisdiction based on the political views of the local electorate as opposed to using voir dire to spot bias.  Attorneys Kevin Downing, Thomas Zehnle and Jay Nanavati told the “It is not a stretch to expect that voters who supported Secretary Clinton would be predisposed against Mr. Manafort or that voters who supported President Donald Trump would be less inclined toward the Special Counsel.” If it is “not a stretch” politically, it is a stretch legally. In fairness to the defense time, however, it was Judge T.S. Ellis III who raised the possibility of a venue change to Roanoke or Richmond.  Ellis however has a reputation for making controversial statements from the bench.  In most courts, I would expect this motion to be denied fairly quickly.

Manafort calls the prosecution has “theatre” and warns “It is difficult, if not impossible, to divorce the issues in this case from the political views of potential jurors.”  That is what voir dire and bench instructions are designed to combat.

My experience with venue arguments is not good. It seems to less and less common.  There was a time when local saturation of news what be sufficient.  It is used today primarily where the crime traumatized a localized area as with the Beltway sniper case.

Alexandria voters gave Hillary Clinton a 2-1 advantage in the presidential election — the inverse of much of the rest of Virginia.  However, Trump and his campaign have little to do with these charges and should not play any significant role, if any role, in the questioning.

Indeed, in a statement that supports President Trump and his supporters who have criticized the Special Counsel investigation, the prosecutors confirmed that this has little to do with the original purpose of the investigation: “The government does not intend to present at trial evidence or argument concerning collusion with the Russian government.”

I previously wrote how the transfer of the Michael Cohen investigation to the Southern District of New York made no sense when Mueller and Rosenstein wanted the Special Counsel to prosecute Manafort for all of these unrelated crimes.  Ellis also raised this issue and has said that the Special Counsel was only using Manafort to get at Trump.

It is the Manafort team arguing that the trial is tied to the election:

“The government intends to present evidence that although various Lender D employees identified serious issues with the defendant’s loan application, the senior executive at Lender D interceded in the process and approved the loan” . . .  [the executive]

 “expressed interest in working on the Trump campaign, told (Manafort) about his interest, and eventually secured a position advising the Trump campaign.”

That still strikes me as remarkably thin for a motion for a venue change.


What do you think?

193 thoughts on “Manafort Moves For Venue Change From Liberal Alexandria”

    1. Wally, You clinging to the “In Mueller I trust” strategy aint no strategy at all. More proof that Dems got no game other than resistance and wishful thinking.

    1. David Benson owes me eight citations (one from the OED) and the source of a quotation, after six weeks and needs to cite all his work from now on. – I certainly hope there are a lot of them soon. 🙂

      1. Did you know that Rick Gates used to carry Trump’s cell phone during the 2016 campaign? Did you also know that Trump Jr. called an unlisted number once before the Trump Tower meeting and then again immediately after the Trump Tower meeting? Did you also, also know that Mueller recently disclosed Rick Gates’ communications evidence to Manafort’s lawyers in EDVA? And, now, Manafort wants both a continuance and a change of venue. What’s it mean? What’s it mean?

        1. Did you know that Hillary and her campaign staff were known to serve Russian vodka at some gatherings?
          What’s it mean? WHAT’S IT MEAN!??!

        2. L4D enables David Benson – I would think it means that Manafort and his attorneys want a continuance and a change of venue. These things are not hard, it is not rocket science.

    1. They will likely use a lengthy written questionnaire for the jury pool prior to voir dire.

  1. Obergruppenfuhrer Mueller’s “malicious prosecution” of “unfettered power” is the crime.

    It is the final lashing out of a wild beast in its death throes; the waning conclusion of Obama’s coup d’etat in America.

    Half the 7th Floor has been fired, resigned, reassigned and set for impeachment or the docket.

    What did Mueller and Wray know and when did they know it?

    All roads lead to Obama.

    1. No, Crazy George isn’t snot slinging drunk, he always talks crazy shit.
      Hence the name….

      1. Wildbill, I seem to remember your little lecture the other day. Did you fall from that very high podium and hit your head?

        1. Allen are we going to pretend that Crazy George’s comments have any redeeming value?

          1. When you are on a podium wildbill, don’t trip over your preconceived perceptions.

  2. Six months in the county jail. Parole him after 14 weeks if he proves to not be a disciplinary problem. Restitution. Possible alternative would be corporal punishment such as the birch, rattan cane, or pillory-and-stocks. In the public square, of course. Stripped of his driver’s license for x years.

  3. The motion is weak. It should have been made earlier, not on the eve of trial.

      1. It’s very discretionary. They want to have better grounds for appeal than that.


    When one looks at Manafort’s recent career, it seems he was determined to stuff his pockets with as much cash as he could grab. Not only was Manafort a political advisor to authoritarian heads of state, including a Putin ally, Manafort was also working real estate deals with mysterious funding. Everything about Paul Manafort seems to beg for scrutiny.

    No establishment Republican would have considered Manafort an appropriate campaign chairman. And recently, Donald Trump tried to claim (on camera) that Manafort had ‘barely worked for him’. So even Trump now knows how dubious Manafort seems. Yet for 5 whole months Manafort directed the Trump campaign.

    1. No establishment Republican would have considered Manafort an appropriate campaign chairman.

      Manafort was hired to supervise operations at the Republican National Convention, because he’d done that before for other Republican candidates.

      As for ‘establishment Republicans’, collectively they won about 1/4 of the Republican primary vote in 2016. A deservedly low proportion for people whose only demonstrated activity is fellating the lobbyist for the Chamber-of-Commerce.

  5. On the other hand he could try a Clinton Defense. Blame everyone else on a non stop basis. I wonder where that trial is going to take place?

    1. Clinton, and others may use this defense, blaming others, but it belongs to, is mastered continuously by, is the trademark of, The King of Bling, Donald Trump. No one, hands down, lies like Trump, blames like Trump, is as big of a manufacturer of chaos, as Trump. The big question is, how much will it cost and how long will it take to clean his mess up?

  6. Extend this discussion to the larger issue. What is ‘peer?’ Define that? If one includes education, military experience, age group, working or retired, political affiliation vs independent – race, male or female etc etc etc I would expect the main argument of Alexandria is correct when it comes to jury selection.

    Certainly and without discussion needed anywhere in the DC Metro area be it VA or MD would have a greater preponderence of non peers especialloy since I am neither Democrat now Democrats and Socialists nor am I GOP style Republican now Constitutional Republic Party faction and Repblican in Name only faction.

    The only word I can think of that makes the grade is ‘citizen’ and even there very few qualify as peers.

    In this case Manafort is indeed 100% correct and the bias of the Judge for refusing to allow the change is in and of itself proof of that.

    On the other hand I would not consider a garden variety resident of NYC to be a peer of someone from Beaver Oklahoma except if citizenship is considered.

    Jury selection is also limited in most cases to registered voters and licensed drivers. The first produces depending on locale 100 % to zero percent chance of a peer jury. For example Maxine Waters would not want a jury from the neighborhood of her home unless it’s heavily leftist. Likewise her neighbors would probably not care for one selected from her district.

    Having said that here’s the gas on the fire still using Maxine Waters. Intellectual ability as a selection tool. Big yes for someone from California. where a low level seems the norm.

    If a distance rule is applied his personal choice would be about as good as one gets which means throw the dice.

    But how about ability to understand and apply the law? Something simple as that. Both areas would fail the test in all probability. Too many government employees and worse, too many attorneys.

    1. A jury of your peers means simply a jury of your fellow citizens. It’s no more complicated than that.

  7. “We don’t want a fair jury, we want a prejudiced one–prejudiced, that is, in our favor.”

  8. “Manafort wants a jury in Roanoke where there are more Republicans.” your worried about that but not about the dumocrat supporters who are the investigatiors.

  9. Well, gee, maybe they could find some locale in VA where the presidential vote was about 50/50 ……

  10. Professor the main problem is that the F.B.I. and the Justice Department looked into Manafort in 2006 and saw no reason to proceed. Mueller is therefore calling the 2006 F.B.I. and Justice Department incompetent.

    In addition, as Turley points out, this has nothing to do with the reason for the formation of this special council — although I’m still searching for a reason as to why this special council was formed as no one has named a criminal statute with regard to “collusion with Russia” (whatever that means) that has been violated.

      1. That’s priceless. You’re talking about a monetary statue not to mention a quid pro quo. Better luck next time.

        1. You asked for a statute,. I gave you a statute. Your reply is nonsense.

          1. Sorry no. No rational competent person thinks 18 U.S. Code § 371 is going to be used here. Maybe someone who wants his or her 5 minutes of fame — but that’s about it.

          2. Try fitting “Russian collusion” into that statute. You’re hilarious. I’m sure team Mueller might be able to apply it someone in Washington, D.C. — which now appears to be his mandate — i.e. anybody in Washington that has committed “anything.” I’m sure he can coax plea bargains out of any number of people with that mandate.

                1. In part the linked material (which you have either ignored or not read) says, “Notably for present purposes, §371 has been deployed in the context of election law specifically. The Justice Department’s manual on federal prosecution of election offenses explicitly contemplates bringing charges of conspiracy to defraud based on campaign finance offenses. It explains the theory as follows:

                  “To perform [its] duties, the FEC must receive accurate information from the candidates and political committees that are required to file reports under the Act. A scheme to infuse patently illegal funds into a federal campaign, such as by using conduits or other means calculated to conceal the illegal source of the contribution, thus disrupts and impedes the FEC in the performance of its statutory duties.

                  “Several federal circuit courts have heard cases brought under §371 based on this theory and have not found fault with its application to behavior that may also violate the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA).”

                  1. Yeah, based on campaign FINANCE expenses. I already said that. You’d have to have a campaign FINANCE issue.

                    You didn’t fit a statute to FINANCE matters.

                    1. The link also says: The indictment works like this: It is a crime to conspire to “obstruct the lawful functions of the United States government through fraud and deceit.” The Federal Election Commission, the Justice Department and the State Department are charged with enforcing U.S. laws, including laws that prohibit foreign nationals from making expenditures to influence federal elections, that require agents of foreign entities to register as foreign agents and that require truthful disclosure on visa applications. According to the facts alleged in the indictment, the defendants created false U.S. personas to operate social media accounts designed to influence the 2016 presidential election while hiding the Russian origin of their activities. In addition, several of the defendants “traveled to the United States under false pretenses for the purpose of collecting intelligence” to aid the Internet Research Agency’s influence operations. In so doing, defendants are alleged to have conspired to obstruct agencies of the U.S. government “by making expenditures in connection with the 2016 U.S. presidential election without proper regulatory disclosure; failing to register as foreign agents carrying out political activities within the United States; and obtaining visas through false and fraudulent statements.”
                      It doesn’t have to be a direct financial contribution to the Trump campaign. It can be via hacked emails, voter disruption, social media ploys, etc.
                      But there are also the efforts of the bagman Cohen, the NRA and various oligarchs.

                    2. “that prohibit foreign nationals from making EXPENDITURES”

                      This is a monetary statute. If you have any facts that suggest improper campaign EXPENDITURES by a domestic campaign, I’m all ears.

                    3. Illegal foreign in-kind campaign contributions (a.k.a. the Russian hack and leak operation), which, if charged, constitutes the predicate crime that builds a strong case; if the predicate crime is not charged, then Mueller makes the weak case. BTW, the DNC hack investigation was recently returned to the Pittsburgh office of the FBI; the Guccifer 2.0 investigation, to the San Francisco office. Meanwhile, the Philadelphia office is investigating some aspect of the hack and leak operation that I can’t remember. However, none of that means that the predicate crime will not be charged. All it really means is that some US Attorney other than Mueller and the OSC might charge and prosecute the predicate crimes, thereby allowing Mueller and his crew to focus on the conspiracy case in chief. There is still a concern over possible Russian retaliation against US intelligence operatives if indictments are brought against the Russian intelligence officers responsible for the hack of the DNC and Podesta emails.

                    4. L4D enables David Benson – there is NO proof the Russians hacked the DNC or Podesta. Phishing Podesta was a cakewalk, a 4-year-old could have done it. Password as your password, what a nitwit. He deserved to be hacked.

    1. It’s “counsel,” not “council.” A counsel is a lawyer. A council is a group of people gathered for some particular purpose, and are not necessarily lawyers.

      But more importantly, do you mean 2016 and not 2006? I would think that anything Manafort did before 2006 would be ancient history for the purposes of this investigation.

      1. “But more importantly, do you mean 2016 and not 2006?I would think that anything Manafort did before 2006 would be ancient history for the purposes of this investigation.”

        Yes I agree, and I meant 2006. And you can claim that the time period is 2006 to 2015, — but in any case it’s before Manafort joined the Trump campaign. It’s nonsense.

        P.S. Thanks for the typo.

        1. Manafort and Gates continued conducting their conspiracy to defraud the United States right up until Mueller indicted them in, IIRC, November of 2017. FTR, November of 2017 was roughly one year after the 2016 election. Manafort and Gates did not take a “time-out” from their ongoing conspiracy while working for Trump. And Gates was a key player on both Trump’s transition team and the Inaugural Committee the latter of which raised $106 million dollars roughly half of which has not yet been properly accounted for.

          1. I didn’t even know that they had been convicted.
            I think Gates took a plea deal, if one was offered.
            The reports are that he is cooperating with the Special Council, but I don’t know if details of any possible plea deal have been made public.

    2. Excellent point. Has no reason to exist on it’s face and was not Constitutionally constructed but if you are looking for a herd of out of work kangaroos ask Meuller to add on your case to his otherwise empty investigatory docket.

      Back to kangaroos it’s not a herd but mob or court which truly fits the Meueller team.

    3. Steve: 2006 was 12 whole years ago. A lot can change in that time.

  11. The Eastern District of Virginia is notoriously conservative, notwithstanding that the division in which Manafort’s case is pending sits in the People’s Republic of Alexandria. The Alexandria Division contains a large number of military installations (the Pentagon, Ft. Myer, Quantico) as well as active duty and retired military personnel residing in the division. In addition, the outlying counties contain large numbers of people who moved to more rural areas to escape liberal places like, well, the People’s Republic of Alexandria. Even the City of Alexandria is not as liberal as many would claim. The Confederate memorial was only removed a few years ago from its prominent place along Alexandria’s main drag. The Alexandria Division of the EDVA contains the soon to be renamed Jefferson Davis Highway, Robert E. Lee Highway, the formerly named Jeb Stuart High School, Stonewall Jackson High School and numerous other places named in honor of slave owners, Confederate cavalry commanders, and segregationists. It is not a bad place to be if you want to avoid liberal jurors.

    1. Stop it. Jefferson Davis Highway is U.S. Route 1 and road maintenance in Virginia is a state function. We can check the codes, but I doubt the local governments have any say over the matter. That aside, the only part of NoVa which routinely votes Republican is Loudon County. Only about 15% of the population of NoVa lives in Loudon County and the Republican who sits in Congress from NoVa is a temporizer. About 70% of the Eastern District lies in the densely settled areas of NoVa, the Tidewater, and greater Richmond. All components of NoVa cast ballots for HRC, as did 3 of 4 components of greater Richmond and 6 of 8 in the Tidewater urban complex.

      1. As a great many people have noted, political leanings follow population density. Democrats are in the cities and in the urbanized suburbs. Republicans in small towns and rural areas. For that reason, the great majority of counties voted Republican. It is a philosophical question as to whether voting should be based on land area and not population.

      2. It is the City of Alexandria which is considering renaming the portion of Jefferson Davis Highway within the city limits.

        The jurors will not be drawn from the entire EDVA. They will be drawn only from the Alexandria Division. Richmond and Tidewater are not included in the Alexandria Division. Prince William and Stafford Counties are in the Alexandria Division, and they are very conservative – lots and lots of military folks, 2nd Amendment efficionados, and good old boys (and girls). There are worse places to be if you want a conservative jury.

        1. The ‘very conservative’ Prince William County voted for HRC in 2016. In Congress, part of the county is represented by a Democrat and part by Republican squish Barbara Comstock. It has voted Democratic in each of the last four U.S. Senate contests. It’s favored the Democratic candidate in 3 of the last 4 gubernatorial elections. It favored the Democratic candidate in the last two elections for Lt. Governor and in the most recent election for state attorney-general. Three of the five state senators and six of the seven state delegates representing fragments of Price William County are Democrats. Over 40% of the county’s population is either black or hispanic. About half the hispanics are Central Americans. Cubans make up 1% of the hispanic population.

          1. In the first place, I’ll take Vince’s word over yours any day of any week until proven otherwise. In the second place, what Manafort wants to avoid at all costs is a jury of his peers who work for the federal government, who have a low opinion of “swamp creatures” such as Manafort and who may very well be deeply patriotic–including especially those who may be reflexively Russophobic–such as a fair number of the military service personnel to which Mr. Jankowski alluded.

            1. In the first place, I’ll take Vince’s word over yours any day of any week until proven otherwise.

              Because, for purpuses of argument, discrete facts don’t matter to Diane.

    2. Most military are exempt except for civilian employees and all of them are in a peer group we of the real military call REMF’s Moreso when the Pentagon is added. The only place where the military voted over 50% for Clinton.

      REMF is the acronym for Rear Echelon Mother Fathers and you can translate that yourself. They are not considered peers to the combat arms components.

  12. I previously wrote how the transfer of the Michael Cohen investigation to the Southern District of New York made no sense when Mueller and Rosenstein wanted the Special Counsel to prosecute Manafort for all of these unrelated crimes

    It makes sense if you figure Rosenstein and Mueller are engaged in improvisations in service to their real object, which is to prevent elected officials from busting abusive employees in the Department of Justice. This is one bureaucracy which deserves to be brutalized.

  13. Manafort would be OK if you get a dozen jurors without much emotional investment in political life. If he gets a couple of street-level Democrats of the type who post here, the prosecution will have a hung jury no matter how insane is the bill of particulars.

    1. Your perception of Democrat(s) illustrates the problem in America today. ‘Street level’, along with your other broad brush references to those that have a degree of social responsibility, applies to the extremes on either side. The mindless right wing that succumb to Trump’s lies and finger pointing would be at least as biased if not more. It shouldn’t be that difficult for the lawyers on either side to filter out the extremes or ‘Street Level’ Democrats and Republicans. Most Democrats inhabit the center along with the majority of Republicans. The mindless extreme on the right has brought out the worst of the left. You seem to belong on the extreme right.

      One thing is for sure, as sure as the animal that lives on the top of the head of the liar in chief; if Manifort is convicted Trump will blame the bias of the jury in the ‘loaded’ district. If Maifort is found not guilty, Trump will claim total exoneration for himself; regardless of the relationship of the charges/crimes to him.

      1. I really don’t take instruction about American public life from Cannuck head cases. I’d tell you to STFU if I thought it would do any good.

        1. Spoken like a true tyrannical totalitarian. STFU if you don’t follow my views. Did Fascist Today magazine tell you all about what people think?

          1. FishWings – I did not know that Fascist Today was still publishing. I checked my local Barnes and Noble, however, they are not carrying it. Do you know who is? I would like to renew my subscription. 😉

            1. Paul C. Schulte,…
              I think they revived the publication after Trump was elected.
              From what has been said, and from articles, there was a renewed interest in fascism, based on the “knowledge” that a Trump Administration would take us down that rode.
              The conventional “wisdom” is that half of the subscribers are Trump voters, eagerly anticipating Trump saving America from democracy.
              The other half subscibe to monitor and spy on the fascist movement.

              1. PS…Your best bet to subscribe is to contact, or the RNC Headquarters.

          2. No spoken like a true American to some Canadian who continually tells Americans what’s wrong with America but will run his asstabula down to the U.S. for good healthcare and lie in the sun for vacation.

            1. “It’s my ‘merica and anyone who isn’t my kind of ‘merican should shut up and get out,” says the the not-so-Great Zambini. “Damn fereners,” he adds. Could be said by Michael Aarethun and some others, as well.

      2. and foreigners such as those from Canada. and whose opinion in this case or unless applied to the home area can be disregarded as heavily slanted and compeletely meaningless.

      3. Issac, I am still waiting for you to tell us why you came here and didn’t remain in Canada.

          1. It’s quite relevant to Isaac’s rattling on and he’s quite capable of answering for himself, Diane.

        1. Allan

          I have responded to this question on more than one occasion. I’ll accept that you may have a short attention span and/or next to no retention and respond once more. I grew up in Canada, lived for some years in France, and then back to Canada. After deciding to pursue a degree in Architecture, I found the school best suited for me was in Los Angeles. So, I came south. After graduating, I met someone, got married, applied to stay, became a citizen, and me voila, ice en Amerique.

          I am happy enough here. There are idiots in Canada as well as here in the US. People are not so different throughout the world. The problem is with those who see first the differences and not the common traits. They’re the ones who place themselves above others, not due to any real quality, but just because they were born somewhere.

          1. Issac, I don’t ever remember you telling me you married an American or pursued a degree in architecture. It’s interesting. It seemed you moved around a bit in your younger years. I think the best schools for architecture are all over the world, but you chose one in the US and along with your wife decided to remain in the US.

            I happen to like art so if you practiced the profession you trained in I hope you did some interesting things.

            1. Aw Schucks. Allan embraces Mr. and Ms. Basonkavich’s pursuit of happiness. It’s positively heart-warming. Where’s my handkerchief? Somebody else will have to make a note of it. (July 7th, 2018 at 9:18 PM.) Shoot.

  14. So can other defendants ask to be moved from conservative areas? If a Republican is on the jury can he be jettisoned for Cause? Just asking?

    1. About the only Democratic pols on the federal level anyone has tried to hold accountable for anything in the last 20 years would be William “Cold Cash” Jefferson and Jesse Jackson, Jr., whose cases were handled in NoVa and DC, respectively.

  15. “Why the Heck is Paul Manafort Being Kept in Solitary Confinement?”

    Sounds like Mueller is adopting techniques from Guantanamo for nonviolent Americans who are innocent until proven guilty. I guess human rights are only spouted by the left when it regards a terrorist who has been involved in killing a multiple of innocent men, woman, and children.

    1. May be he could be put in a detention center with the kids. He’s probably in “solitary” confinement to keep him out of general population. I’d be willing to bet it’s not the “hole”.

      1. Justice Holmes, the judge put Manafort in solitary for Manafort’s protection, most likely from anybody that Manafort owes a lot of money too. I don’t think his lawyers want him sharing a cell with a guy named Ivan.

        1. Since Manafort’s attorneys are objecting on his behalf, I’d advise you to retire that Democratic talking point

          1. Manafort’s lawyers want him in Club Fed, retire a so-called “Democratic” talking point is funny coming from a man that types with one hand because the other hand is in full salute.

      2. The stated reason was he tried to contact someone from his home phone. To which I say, “So what no more right to conduct a defense?” Manafort is going to fru the only wuestions are where, when and how many volts.

          1. Michael Aarethun – Dude, you either have to fix your thumbs or your phone. 😉

        1. He was out on bail subject to specific conditions. Tampering with witnesses violated those.

    2. Because the judge is a replica of Patrick FitzGerald’s collaborator in the Conrad Black case. Another reason for Trump to issue pardons when the time comes.

      1. Conrad Black, I think a miscarriage of justice. Do you read his columns at the Sun?

        1. Conrad Black is Manafort’s ex-partner who has done jail time (and not yet pardoned by you know who).

          1. So? We are dealing with two different people and the partnership has nothing to do with it or Manafort would have gone to jail then and didn’t. You guys are very willing to put people in jail for questionable misdoings because they offend your sensibilities, but don’t seem to want to incarcerate people here illegally that steal, rape or murder.

            1. See Mark Steyn’s columns on Patrick FitzGerald’s vendetta against Conrad Black.

            2. Did I say Manafort and Balck were the same person? No.
              Did I say Manafort should have gone to jail then? No.
              OTOH, birds of a feather….
              Yes I am willing to put the Trump crime cartel in jail for their highly questionable and highly illegal misdeeds.
              As for folks here illegally, if they commit a crime, they must do the time. However, the data is complicated but they seem to do fewer misdeeds than legal residents. So your comment is a non sequitur.

              1. “Did I say Manafort and Balck were the same person?”

                No, you just linked them together stating that the partner ended up in jail. Innuendo seems to be your preferred way of argument.

                You, Hollywood, are piss-ed because Trump wants to put the illegal rapists and murderers in jail while you look at them as potential voters and an argument against Trump. You don’t give a damn about innocent Americans injured or killed. You don’t even care about the kids at the border many of whom were abused long before they crossed the border illegally.

                Immigration is fine from anywhere in the world if it is legal and we take into consideration American security and needs. You don’t like the word legal. Is that because the new Democratic Party doesn’t believe in the law? The new Democratic Party is filled with a lot of awful people that have pushed out decent law-abiding Americans who work and support their families and the nation.

                  1. Hollywood, you sound like someone else. You don’t know what you are talking about. You make all sorts of accusations but very little makes sense. You just like to complain and don’t give a damn about children whether citizens or not. Use your brain more and your mouth less.

                    1. Where do you get this? Always with the ad hominem and the strawman BS. Think before you type.

                    2. Hollywood, I get this from you and your ilk. Don’t be surprised. If you are, read what you have written. Junk, pure junk while neglecting dangerous violent habits of many leftists today that do not believe in freedom of speech or any other freedom promised in our bill of rights. Little dictators is what we are seeing in the present day attitudes of the left.

    3. OFCOLA. It’s for Manafort’s own protection from his jail mates.

      1. Of course Diane everything the left does is for protection. That is why they start fires at universities, vandalize, threaten lives, and support illegal aliens that are murderers and rapists.

    1. Paul – Ellis did elicit from Mueller’s team that the charges relate to the campaign however. Something about getting a loan of several million over the objection of lenders when the boss was trying to become Secretary of the Army? Or maybe that was in the other trial? Manafort can figure it out while he waits in jail due to his attempts at witness tampering.

      We’ll give Manafort’s lawyers credit for throwing everything possible against the wall in hopes that something sticks.

Comments are closed.