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. Manafort wants to get away from Judge Jackson. That’s what this is about.

  2. “Though past presidents have typically waited until the end of their term to pardon controversial figures, Trump has pardoned five people during his 17 months in office. Most are unexpected or benefit political supporters. In addition to D’Souza, who pleaded guilty to violating federal campaign finance laws in 2014, he has granted forgiveness to former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio, Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, former Navy sailor Kristian Saucier and the first black heavyweight boxing champion, Jack Johnson, thus far.” -CNN link

      1. “You are missing Alice Johnson.” -dhlii

        She wasn’t pardoned; her sentence was commuted. So there have been five pardons, and two commutations: Alice Johnson and Sholom Rubashkin.

            1. Your the one making an issue of the pardons.

              You are the one claiming there is something wrong with each.

              1. “Your (sic) the one making an issue of the pardons.” -dhlii

                Uh, no.

                “You are the one claiming there is something wrong with each.”

                Again, no.

                I simply clarified the numbers. -dhlii

          1. “That is two blacks, one jew and one indian.”

            That is diversity.😀

    1. You are missing Alice Johnson.
      Regardless, the only one I have a problem with is Arpiao.

      All the rest are well deserved.

      Like or dislike D’Sousa, he is the only one ever jailed prosecuted for violating this law, everyone else was fined.

      D’Sousa was singled out because he was an open enemy of Oabama.

      The use of the power of the government to persecute political enemies is far worse than anything D’Sousa did.

      I am fully prepared to send Preet Bharara to jail for mailicious prosecution.

      The Scooter libby prosecution was even worse.

      Acting AG Comey appointed Fitzgerald as SC despite KNOWING there was no crime and KNOWING who the actual source of the leak was.

      Comey should have been fired for Cause years ago.

      The appointment of Fitzgerald was a blatant effort to target Chenney.

      I do not like Chenney, but before you can go after anyone, you must have a REAL crime.

      1. “I am fully prepared to send Preet Bharara to jail for mailicious prosecution.”
        That’s not how malicious prosecution cases work.

        1. You seem to think I care precisely how the left has wreaked havoc on our law and constitution.

          When you prosecute someone because of their politics rather than because of their acts, it is YOU that belongs in jail.

          In fact whenever you start going after a person, and then finding a crime, rather than prosecuting a crime, and then finding the person who committed it,
          you breach John Adam’s precept – the rule law, not man. You breach equality before the law.

          If you do not understand that as a foundational principle for our justice system – then I have zero interest in your oppinion regarding the law.

          Put differently – Rosey O’Donell did exactly the same thing as D’Souza at nearly the same time, why didn’t she end up in jail ?

          If Trump uses the IRS to target #resist groups – is that OK with you ?
          If Donald Trump has the CIA/FBI/DOJ secretly spy on Warren or Sanders during the 2020 election is that OK with you ?

          If they approach the Sanders campaign offering dirt on Trump and entrap Sanders – is that OK with you ?

          This is simple – one system of laws. That applies the same to everyone.
          Rich or poor, black or white, Red or Blue, Gay or Straight.

          That alone is not sufficient to guarantee the rule of law.
          But that is a necescary if not sufficient requirement.

          If you do not understand that – you are lawless.

          1. Every thing you say is either wrong, misinformed or idiotic. It is Trump who is lawless on a daily basis.
            You have made no case against Bharara. You don’t know what malicious prosecution is. You don’t know how it can be addressed.
            You say “This is simple – one system of laws. That applies the same to everyone.” Yet you support Trump who falsely and illegally contends he cannot have conflicts of interest and then exploits those conflicts for his personal gain. Trump maintains he is above the law. He isn’t and that violates your supposed standard. He maintains he can pardon himself. If one law applies to everyone, then no he cannot pardon himself. I am not lawless. I am lawful. You are either a Trump shill or being conned by Trump and his kind.
            You need a cold shower and a period of time to reflect on what illegal acts Trump is pursuing. Until then, all is lost for you.

            1. Every thing you say is either wrong, misinformed or idiotic. It is Trump who is lawless on a daily basis.

              Irony is dead.

                1. As I am awaiting yours TSD merely responded to you with your own words.

            2. Of course I have made a case against Bharara.

              No one else has ever been criminally prosecuted for this. PERIOD. That is prima fascia evidence of selective prosecution.
              Worse still we have those in power prosecuting political enemies for political crimes – that is a horrible fact.
              So horrible it just never should have happened.

              You lefties make pretense of being law abiding an honest, but you are political thugs.
              What has disturbed me most about the post 2016 election revelations is the exposure of the horrible political corruption of the Obama administration.

              While Louis Lehrner’s conduct was reprehensible and obviously criminal. Government can not engage in viewpoint discrimination PERIOD.
              You can not elide the constitution.
              Worse still Lehrner was explicitly connected to leaking Tax returns – another serious crime.
              But I persuaded myself that Lehrner was just an exhuberant Acolyte acting on her own. There were allegations of a whitehouse connection, but nothing substanative.

              But as we learn more – the Obama administration spied on congressmen, they spied on political opponents, the slow walked a criminal investigation of Russians to hide it from congress, and on and on, my view of Obama has diminished greatly.

              What is increasing evident is that Obama succeeded where Nixon failed.

              Nixon wanted to use the IRS to target political enemies – Obama did.
              Nixon wanted to use the FBI against political enemies – Obama did.
              Nixon wanted to use the CIA against political enemies – Obama did.

              The left is fixated on Trump and the Trump campaign, and thus far the only “evidence” is that Trump and Company were repeatedly offered dirt on Clinton by agents of the FBI/CIA or MI6 posing as fake russians. Regardless, there is to this day no actual connection between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government, and yet we have an ongoing investigation.

              At the same time we have evidence that not only was that investigation politically corrupt, but that it started without any basis, That it targeted Trump – not Russia from the begining. and that it turned a blind eye to Clinton’s extensive ties to both the Russian and Ukrainian governments.

              So do I have the slightest problem beleiving that a prosecution of D’Souza that stands out in it unusualness and uniqueness is evidence of political corruption ? Not even a little.

              And yes, I would jail Bharara and everyone in this entire mess that used the machinery of govenrment as a political weapon.
              Just as I would have prosecuted Nixon for the trying to do what Obama succeeded at.

              What I want to know is where is the outrage on the left ?

              If Pres. Obama in 2019 directs the CIA and FBI to investigate Warren and Sanders for their ties to foreign powers – are you OK with that ?
              If the Trump IRS starts investigating all 501c(3)’s with Resist in their names are you OK with that ?
              If Trump starts spying on congress and reporters – are you OK with that ?

              These are all things the Obama administration actually did.

              The left fixates on emotion and trivially manipulable claims of motive or intent.

              An act is right or wrong based on the act, not who did it or why. That is the rule of law, not man. Anything else is lawless.

              If you prosecute D’Souza, you prosecute O’Donnel – and many others – otherwise YOU are criminally politically corrupt.
              Recent FEC reports have documented atleast 40M in donations to Clinton that were above the limits.
              That is likely 10’s of thousands of people who committed the same “crime” as D’Souza.

              Is it OK with you if Trump sends every one of that to jail for a year ?

              Nor is this the only example of egregious conduct by Bharara.

              Just after the election the 2nd circuit court of appeals – not some bastion of conservatism reversed a raft of convicitons by Bharara as based on a legal theory that substantially overreached the law. In otherwords he was making the law up as he went along.

              These were not “political” – but there were high prestige convictions that helped Make Bharara’s name.

              I have no problem with going after any prosecutor that uses the law as a weapon, rather than enforcing it narrowly and dispassionately.

              This is not Berria’s Russia and “show me the man, and I will show you the crime”.

              But then it should not surprise that left wing nut resort to soviet tactics.

            3. I do not “support Trump”

              I assess each and every issue indepently following my principles.

              I do not actually agree with Trump on very much at all.
              Nor do I expect to.
              I am not entitled and not likely to get a president I agree with perfectly on all issues.

              But I am capable of agreeing more with Trump on some issues that others.
              As well as capable of resisting those things I do not agree with through legitimate means – like writing my congressmen and voting.
              Rather than bashing in cars, demanding impeachment for political differences, making up or bending the law beyond recognition.

              There is no such thing as an “”illegal contention”. Acts are illegal, not thoughts, words, arguments.

              With respect to “conflicts” – the left has made these emoluments claims. I think they are crap, but ultimately the courts – and probably SCOTUS will decide.
              I hope they decide on the plain language of the constitution.
              Beyond that – if you do not like the law and the constitution as they are CHANGE THEM.
              Who knows you might find me agreeing.

              As to conflicts – Obama and your crew profited to the tune of hundreds of millions from their time in office.
              Again things we do not hear until after they are out of office.
              When you go after that I will take your claims against Trump more seriously.

              Trump is not “above the law” and has not maintained that.

              He has asserted PROPERLY that you can not “obstruct justice” by acting as you are constitutionally empowered to do.
              And he is correct. Nixon obstructed Justice by acts that were outside his constitutional powers as president.
              Firing Comey was within his constitutional powers.

              And again – acts are legal or not – regardless of your guesses about motive.
              Bad motives do not make a good act into a bad one.

              But this fixation on motives is a common stupidity of the left.

              Even the christian god does not judge people by their intentions but by their actions Matthew 25:31-46

              The left thinks they know better than god ?

              Trump can pardon himself – there is precedent going back more than a century as well as the plain language of the constitution.
              If you do not like that – CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION.

              “If one law applies to everyone, then no he cannot pardon himself.”

              Trump can be impeached – for ANYTHINg – and of course congressmen are answerable to their constituents for their actions including impeachment.

              Further I have zero problems with expanding the oversight of govenrment.
              But that requires changes to the law and constitution.
              And any changes apply to ALL subsequent elected federal politicians.

              Warping, stretching and mangling the law just to get Trump makes YOU evil – more evil that he.

              “I am not lawless. I am lawful.”
              Bzzt, wrong. And obviously so – whether it is D’Souza, or IRSGate, or Trump Firing Comey or spying on political opponents,
              You absolutely support lawlessness.
              You are completely unwilling to apply the same law the same way to those you like as to those you do not.

              Obama as an example publicly declared in the middle of the FBI investigation that Clinton’s conduct was reckless, but not illegal.
              That is atleast as much obstruction as Trump firing Comey – it is arguably more.
              Firing Comey would not and could not end the investigation.
              Nor did it direct the FBI regarding the investigation. While Obama’s statements were clear and arguably a command.

              But guess what – Obama’s public exhoneration of Clinton mid investigation was stupid and unethical, and impeachable, but not illegal.

              Whatever the law is it must be construed narrowly and applied equally.

              It is absolutely self evident that you can not do that.
              Therefore you are LAWLESS.

              “the fault is not in your stars, but in yourself”

            4. “You are either a Trump shill or being conned by Trump and his kind.”

              Yes, we know, when you can not make an argument resort to insults.
              Guess what – everyone is not as stupid as you seem to think.

              “You need a cold shower and a period of time to reflect on what illegal acts Trump is pursuing. Until then, all is lost for you.”
              More ad hominem rather than argument.

              Make your case – I am listening.

              If you claim that something Trump is doing is illegal
              Demonstrate that – with a narrow reading of the law.
              Further however broadly or narrowly you construe the law – demonstrate to me that you are not a hypocrit – that you are applying the law equally and interpretted the same to all.
              Trump, Obama – the same
              D’Souza O’Donnell and all those who contributed $40M more than they were legally allowed to Clinton – the same.

              IF contact with Russia in the course of a political campaign is improper, even criminal, then doing so through cuttouts is too.
              Trump, Clinton – the same.

              No one is gaining obvious benefits from their legal trade with Trump’s businesses.
              But it was obvious that “donations” to the Clinton Foundation assured at the minimum expedited treatment by Clinton’s state department.

              When you are prepared to apply your construction of the law to your tribe – then I will start to take seriously that you are not lawless.

              Finally I would note that narrow construction and equal application are necescary but not sufficient for “the rule of law”
              The law itself must be a justifiable use of force, and there are very few legitimate justifications of the use of force.

      2. Dhlii, the D’Souza prosecution demonstrated one of worst federal prosecutions in recent history. The prosecutors treated our judicial system as if we live in a dictatorship. Anyone, left or right, should read the details of the prosecution and guilty plea virtually forced upon D’Souza. Imprisoned every evening D’Souza was incarcerated with a whole group of criminals and exposed to their way of thinking. He learned all about criminality and wrote the book “Stealing America: What My Experience with Criminal Gangs Taught Me about Obama, Hillary, and the Democratic Party”.

        The Amazon blurb follows:

        What do the Democratic Party and a gang of criminals have in common? Funny you should ask!

        In the fall of 2014, outspoken pundit, author, and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza found himself hauled into federal court for improperly donating money to a friend who was running for the Senate. D’Souza pleaded guilty, apologized for his offense, and was sentenced to eight months in a state-run confinement center near his home in San Diego. In the facility, he lived among hardened criminals – drug dealers, thieves, gangbangers, rapists, and murderers. Now, in this timely, fresh, provocative, and entertaining audiobook, the best-selling author explains how this experience not only changed his life but fundamentally transformed his perception of his adopted country.

        Previously, D’Souza had seen America through the eyes of a grateful immigrant who came here as a student and became successful by applying and defending conservative principles. Again and again D’Souza made the case that America is an exceptional nation, fundamentally fair and just. But his prolonged exposure to the criminal underclass provided an eye-opening education in American realities. In the view of hardened criminals, America is anything but fair and just. Instead it is a jungle in which various armed gangs face off against one another, with the biggest and most powerful gangs inhabiting the federal government.

        Applying this hardboiled perspective to American politics, D’Souza saw that America is becoming less exceedingly exceptional every day. Indeed, it is in danger of becoming just like India and other corrupt third world nations, run by gangs of kleptocrats. As for American liberalism, it is not a movement of ideas at all; it is but a series of scams and cons aimed at nothing less than stealing the wealth of the American people.

        With biting wit and literary brio, D’Souza describes these liberal cons and the rationales and methods used to justify and execute them.

        1. D’Souza is not the only bad prosecution of Preet Bharara.

          He had a raft of insider trading convictions thrown out on appeal, because he played fast and loose with the facts and used an overly broad application of the law.

          Bharara and the left never heard Blackstones’ admonition

          “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer”

          1. I agree, Dhlii, but I say D’Souza is one of the worst because I believe his conviction was solely based on his books and his movies not on what they said he did which I believe in all other cases led only to a fine. D’Souza was naive and that was proven because he could have given the same money or thousands of times more to a PAC without any problem what so ever.

            Freedom speech was not valued by those that convicted him. I those people don’t value our freedom of speech they are despotic.

            1. As far as I am concerned out campaign finance laws are unconstitutional.

              The government may not restrict campaign contributions. Money is a facilitator of speach and you can not regulate speach through the back door.
              Regardless, there is no clear grant of power in the constitution to do so.
              The constitution was intended to define the powers of the federal govenrment.
              What it did not provide for, would require a constitutional amendment if we subsequently deemed necescary.

              Those among our founders who thought a bill of rights was a mistake because it would be presumed those are out only rights have been proven correct.
              Worse still while ALL rights should be subject to strict scrutiny, only a few are.

              Absolutely D’Souza screwed up. He painted a giant bullsey on his back and then was oblivious to the fact that he had guaranteed powerful people would be out to get him.

              At the same time, his case demonstrates exactly what is wrong with our country today.

              D’Souza is pretty intelligent, but he is also prone to some pretty extreme conspiracy theories.

              But I do not care if he was a white supremist neo-nazi.

              We can not target PEOPLE. The governing process is to prosecute CRIMES.

              That distinction might seem small but it is critical
              It is the different between the rule of law and the rule of man.

              Absolutely there are times when finding the difference is hard.

              D’Souza is not one of those.
              Only one person ever has been jailed for his mistake.
              Tens of thousands of people make that mistake every year.

              In fact even if you allow his actions to be a crime – which they never should be,
              they should NEVER result in more than a fine.

              But we are seeing alot of this prosecute the man not the crime garbage.
              Self evidently the entire Trump investigations has been exactly that.

              And that is lawless.

              1. “As far as I am concerned out campaign finance laws are unconstitutional.”

                Dhlii, you can consider what you wish to be unconstitutional but it is the law of the land until the Supreme Court says otherwise. Even then you can argue about its Constitutionality but that is the law. Imperfect and not neatly packaged.

                Like you I prefer the amendment process to the legislation of 5 individuals some of who believe in what feels right to them rather than what the law says.

                I find it egregious when we target individuals based on race. Many people recognize that but cannot see that it is improper to target individuals based on politics. That demonstrates that many people have narrow minds and cannot think past their own personal desire for equal justice under the law.

                I don’t find D’Sousa that conspiratorial though he most definitely is a partisan. He can be a bit hyperbolic but his essential points are totally correct and within the bounds of reason. He is a bit more of a realist than you.

                1. You do not get rid of bad law – without noting that it is bad law.

                  The current trend on campaign finance cases is leaning correctly towards finding restrictions on donations unconstitutional.

                  We need to amend the constitution when it does not say what we want.

                  The constitution specifies the powers of the federal government.
                  I do not see anywhere in it where it empowers government to regulate campaign donations.

                  While SCOTUS has thus far found campaign finance laws a violation of the first amendment.
                  I would prefer to say – govenrment is only rarely empowered to restrict what people do with their own money, and this is not one of those instances.

                  With respect to discrimination.

                  Equal protection of the law requires that government may not target people but for very few limited reasons – such as they have commited a crime.
                  The rule of law requires the same – government may target people for only a few limited reasons.

                  Conversely the constitution does NOT prescribe the relationships of private people with each other.

                  SOME forms of private discrimination may be morally reprehensible, but they are outside the scope of govenrment.
                  But we are free to protest, boycott or shun those who discriminate.

                  My positions tend to be politically difficult to acheive.
                  They are otherwise extremely realistic – they work.

                  Communism – as purely theory sounds incredibly attractive and has quite frequently garnered trong political support.
                  But it does not work.

                  Which would you call more realistic – communism or minarchy ?

                  1. dhlii – communism works in monasteries, but what is minarchy?

                    1. Minarchy – limited government.

                      There is not hard definition – just as there is no hard definition of socialisn, communism or democracy.

                      Start with Functional courts, law enforcement, and defense those are the minimum universally agreed functions of government.

                      We can individually debate how much more is still minarchy.

                      Total government in the US is about 40% of GDP. In europe it is closer to 50%, in a few places over 50%.
                      Hong Kong and Singapore it is 20%.
                      In the 19th century the US peak was 8% during the civil war, for most of the 19th century and early 20th it was 3-5%

                  2. “You do not get rid of bad law – without noting that it is bad law.”

                    Bad law is frequently created and gotten rid of without noting that it is bad law.

                    We both agree that the nation has been grievously harmed by those legislating from the bench. We also create laws that should at best be temporary but are made permanent. In the process, we are creating divisions in the nation.

                    “My positions tend to be politically difficult to acheive.”

                    Your positions are impossible to fully achieve, but they are a perfect direction to move towards.

                    1. Sorry, misstatement.

                      Bad law rarely disappears magically.
                      Usually we must recognize that it is bad to get rid of it.

                    2. “Bad law rarely disappears magically.”

                      Yes, this is a much better statement. In fact in general we should be reducing the number of laws, not increasing them.

                    3. “Your positions are impossible to fully achieve, but they are a perfect direction to move towards.”

                      I can live with that.

                    4. “I can live with that.”

                      I think that is what our founders thought.

              2. dhlii – he was not a white supremacist, he is Indian which makes that racially impossible.

                1. Paul, a white supremacist is anyone who is against the violence and tribalism of the left. To some leftists, Clarence Thomas is a white supremacist. You might say no one is that dumb but think again for I bet many leftists don’t know who he is or even that he is black.

        1. So a judge saying that a unicorn is not a unicorn makes it so ?

          Name a single individual other than D’Souza ever who was criminally prosecuted for this ?

          I specifically noted Rosie O’Donnell as she did exactly the same thing at the same time.

          But I have separately noted that the FEC has found $40M in contributions to clinton by people who exceeded their allowable limits.
          Each and every one of those has committee exactly the same crime as D’Souza.

          Get a clue.

          Singling a political enemy out as the sole person to ever be prosecuted by a law is text book political prosecution.

          Regardless, until you are prepared to apply the same law construed however you wish to construe it equally to all,
          there is ZERO reason to place any weight in your arguments.
          Until you are prepared to do atleast that,
          you are obviously lawless, and obviously immoral.

        2. Hollywood, you are enamored with spin sites and the best you can do is copy and paste or paste a website that you neither understand nor are you aware of a complete set of facts. Dhlii provided you with information that you are unable to contest. Your spin sites frequently skirt the issues so they never actually answer the question.

          Hollywood, you are proving yourself ignorant and foolish. Take any bit of information provided by Dhlii and pursue that information logically if you can. Then you can get to a better truth if you are interested. Otherwise, you are just spouting nonsense.

        3. Hollywood, you should learn more about the judge and justice in America where politics are involved.

          D’Souza was incarcerated unwillingly, though the facility was an intermediary one. You should learn about it. He had to return every night and was kept with prisoners that were near release and put into this type of center. If he didn’t show up D’Souza would have been incarcerated in a standard jail. Generally, those convicted of his type of “crime” are not placed among hardened criminals. He was rather surprised and scared when he found out the violent crimes committed by those in the same facility.

          He was abused by our judicial process.

          1. Allan,…
            – Newt Gingrich was never a good “retail politician”.
            He never “caught on”as a presidential candidate, and whie effective and brilliant in some respects, did not get on well with many of his House colleuges as Speaker.
            As Speaker of the House, he once asked Bob Dole “why people took such an ‘instant dislike’ to him”.
            Dole’s magnificant sense of humor is largely unknown to the public, but well-known in DC.
            Dole quipped, “They do it to save time, Newt☺😀😂😂.
            I don’t dislike anyone on this thread, but I’ll say that there are some that I don’t have a hell of a lot of respect for.
            I won’t review all of the small number of people who are in that category, and why they deserve no respect.
            Usually, that total lack of respect develops over time.
            “Hollywood” has gone out of his way to “save time”.
            I don’t know how long Hollywood may have posted here, or has read these columns and comments.
            But I’ve never seen anyone, seemingly right out of the gate, go out of the way to “not understand” the comments, haughtily dismiss the comments of other, lie, whine, and go out of his way to be an obnoxious waste of time.
            But I will give him credit for “saving time”.

            1. “Dole quipped, “They do it to save time, Newt☺😀😂😂. … “Hollywood” has gone out of his way to “save time”.”

              Tom, exceptionally well said and funny. I think Hollywood is a new alias for an old player. If correct then based on what he says I understand his need for a new name. He wore the old one out.

              1. Could be, Allan. Looks like there’s some past experience in trolling.

        4. The judge was the prosecutor’s accomplice. Does that make this better?

          What he did was something that’s very seldom treated as a criminal offense and it had no practical effect.

          1. What he did was excercise his constitutional rights.
            His “criminal” actions should not be illegal.

    2. ” Most are unexpected or benefit political supporters. In addition to D’Souza, who pleaded guilty to violating federal campaign finance laws in 2014,”

      The sentence of D’Souza was a horrible example of prosecutorial abuse and selectivity.

  3. prosecutors in special counsel Robert Mueller ‘s office want to ask potential jurors at the upcoming trial of former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort about their views of the IRS and Ukraine, among other topics.

    There is NO reason Jurors should be asked those questions. Particularly when no tax crime has been alleged. I’m still waiting to hear from team Mueller on income tax evasion — but so far ZIP!

    Can you get your act together please?

  4. Turley is correct about the current state of the law.

    But has not seriously addressed the question morally or ethically.

    If someone is accused of murder – we would not expect results much different whether they were tried in alexandria or peoria.

    If Manafort was tried in a community that voted for Trump 2:1 who beleives the outcome would be the same ?

    If Manafort was tried by a randomly selected jury of 12 people from accross the US, it is likely he would get atleast on juror that would not be willing to convict.

    If Manafort is convicted by the jury he is likely to get, a significant portion of people are certain to conclude the outcome is due to political bias not the strengh of Muellers case.

    We are dealing with cases that are inherently political and pretending that the leftmost part of the country can legitimately and fairly sit in judgement of the political sins alleged of the right.

    I doubt that Manafort is going to get a venue change.

    I also doubt that Manafort is going to get a fair trial. Even if he is actually guilty of something – he has not been treated fairly thus far.

    1. What is more than a little “hilarious” is that Mueller claims Manafort did not file proper FISA forms. How does he “know” this? Because Manafort filed lobbyist forms disclosing his income. He’s not claiming that Manafort behaved in a surreptitious manner. Or that he (Mueller) had to spend ANY investigative time uncovering this. He’s claiming Manafort filed the wrong forms — somewhere between 2006-2015 — when the Justice Department never informed Manafort of any problems in this area.

      The reasonable response to an improper form is a fine — possibly a hefty one. Reasonableness is not an operative concept here.

    2. You do realize that they are asking for a change of venue primarily to get the trial date continued in the new venue. They’d like a date after the mid-terms.

      1. “You do realize that they are asking for a change of venue primarily to get the trial date continued in the new venue. They’d like a date after the mid-terms.”

        Manafort is sitting in jail.

        I doubt that Paul Manafort give a flying fig about mid terms or politics at the moment.
        He is essentially on trial for his life with a pit bull prosecutor with a decades long reputation of prosecuting innocent people to bankruptcy and suicide.

        I more than take Manafort and his lawyers at their word – they want the trial out of Alexandria.
        I would want the same thing if I was in his position.

        Mueller’s indictment is long on weak claims but very thin on substance.
        The political biases of the jury may well be the sole difference between a determination of guilt of innocence.

      2. It is not Manafort that cares about the political timing – it is you.

  5. Manafort is Muler’s worst nightmare – the patsy who refused to flip. Already in jail and he aint flipping. Now Muler stuck with this mess of a trial of a decade-old unrelated cold case in which one way or another Manafort is going to walk i.e. jury acquittal, judge dismissal, overturn on appeal, or drumroll please — yes if all else fails a presidential pardon. The Manafort case will take Muler down both in court of law and court of public opinion.

  6. Mueller filed the indictment in Alexandria because of the Dem leaning jury pool, make no mistake about that. The defense motion just points that up. It was never expected to win over the judge. – just the court of public opinion and maybe the Pardoner -in- Chief

    1. The OSC in their own words:

      Prior to instituting this criminal action, the Special Counsel’s Office met with defense counsel to go over the proof underlying the bank fraud charges (the tax charges were already the subject of charges before this Court) and to provide counsel an opportunity to present any arguments as to why these charges should not be brought. The Special Counsel’s Office also alerted defense counsel for each defendant that the government was prepared to bring all of the charges before a Grand Jury in the District of Columbia, if the defendants were willing to waive venue (since otherwise we could not do so legally). If venue had been waived, the defendants would have faced a single indictment in one district, and not two indictments in adjacent districts. One defendant elected, as is his right, not to waive venue. The Special Counsel’s Office accordingly has proceeded in the Eastern District of Virginia.

      1. Manafort is the defendant who refused to waive venue. Manafort chose EDVA. EDVA has a reputation as a “rocket docket.” Manafort chose poorly–again.

        1. No Manafort did not choose EDVA – he chose not to have everything tried in DC.

      2. What in the Wide Wide World of Sports does any of this have to do Russian meddling in 2016 election? If not for Manafort’s brief stint as Trump campaign manager this decade-old cold case would not have been re-opened. Witch Hunt!

      3. Do you read what you write ?

        The OSC basically told Manafort – you have a choice – you can be convicted by a jury that is overwelmingly biased against you in DC, or you can be convicted by two different juries that are overwhelmingly biased against you in DC and Alexandria.

        If you think that DC and Alexandria are appropriate venues for a political prosecution, than why not try this in a venue where the jury is 2:1 Trump voters ?

        It is highly unlikely that a defendant accused of murder would have a different outcome if tried in a Trump district or a Clinton district.

        It is near certain that Mueller’s cases would have radically different outcomes in differnet venues.

        Why ? Because the entire process is political not criminal.

        Ken Starr thought he had a prosecutable case against Hillary – but he did not think he could get a conviction in DC.

        Most of the country thinks Hillaries handling of classified documents was criminal.
        But it is unlikely that you could get a conviction in any major city in the US.

        Manafort is not entitled to a change of Venue. He is entitled to a dismissal of nearly all charges.

        He should not be facing prosecution for things no one has ever been prosecuted for that are over a decade old.

        If we are going to prosecute Manafort for this – then why not Tony Podesta or Glenn Simpson ?

        The rule of law – not man means that we enforce the law blind to politics.
        We prosecute democrats and republicans for the same actions.

        You fail to see that when Comey with the lefts blessing exhonerated Clinton of obvious wrong doing,
        you concurrently exhonerated everyone in the Trump campaign for the same or lessor malfeasance.

        1. dhill wrote: “Do you read what you write ?” No Mr. Hill, Ms. Late4Yoga does not read what she writes. She is just another lefty loon still in shock from her beloved HRC’s 2016 failure. For her and her ilk logic, due process, civility etc suspended for resistance/wiishful thinking movement.

          1. The remarks regarding L4D were really rhetorical.
            I know she does not think before writing, or read what she rights.

            A separate clarification.

            My name is not D. Hill.

            D H L ii are my initials.

      4. Choosing between DC and Alexandria to avoid Democratic leaning jurors is like choosing between Rome and Venice to avoid Italians.

        1. The right to an impartial jury belongs to the defendant.

          The prosecutor does not have the right to a specific jury.

          There is no special reason these cases are being tried in either DC or Alexandria.

          They could be tried anywhere in the country.

            1. The government does not have rights, it has powers.

              Two sides in a civil case are equally entitled to an impartial jury.

              The govenrment is not.

              Just to be clear – I am arguing based on principle, natural law, and the constitution.

              I have no doubt you can find caselaw that says something different and stupid.

                1. Nope, rights belong to individuals.
                  Government has powers. Not rights.

                  There are not collective rights – rights that only exist in groups.
                  There are aggregate rights – rights of individuals that remain when they form voluntary groups.

                  1. dhlii and mespo – I think I am going to agree with dhlii on this one. The government has powers and money, lots of money, pots of money. They own the darn money printing press. People have rights.

    2. If this is a truly local case that has a legitimate basis for being tried by an Alexandria court and Jury – then Mueller should turn it over to the US attorney for Alexandra.

      Mueller is a special counsel. His jurisdiction is national and we are dealing with alleged crimes that are not local in nature.

      There is no right on the part of the prosecutor to a specific venue based on the facts of the case.

      There is a right on the part of the defendant to a fair trial by a jury of his peers.

    3. “Pardoner-in-Chief?” Trump hasn’t exercised his pardon power anywhere near that of Obama. Trump pardoned Scooter Libby; a dead black boxer; and a woman who received an excessively long sentence for selling drugs. That’s it, to my knowledge. He brought up the possibility of pardoning Mohammed Ali, until he found out that Ali’s conviction had already been overturned. And he toyed with pardoning Blagoyavich, but then didn’t do anything. I’m sure the latter situation has made Michael Cohen rather uncomfortable…..


        Washington (CNN)The White House has assembled the paperwork to pardon dozens of people, two sources with knowledge of the developments tell CNN, signaling that President Donald Trump is poised to exert his constitutional power and intervene, in some instances, where he believes the Justice Department has overstepped.

        The administration has prepared the pardoning paperwork for at least 30 people, the sources tell CNN.

        1. First – “an anonymous source” – really ?

          Your story may be true, false partly true or god only knows what.

          The record of unidentified sources – particularly during the Trump administration has been abysmal.

          But lets assume it is true – because it is likely that there are 30 pardons/clemency petitions in the works.
          That is probably true of any president at any time.

          What we know thus far is that Trump actually has used his power to correct errors and injustices.
          The petition for Boxer Johnson has been before many presidents.
          It should have been granted long ago.

          That there was even a SC on the matter scooter libby was prosecuted for was ludicrous.

          DOJ knew who had leaked what to whom BEFORE the investigation started.
          They also KNEW that plame was no longer NOC at the time and therefore no crime was possible.

          Yet Comey appointed his buddy Fitzgerald for the purpose of going after Chenney who had nothing to do with this.

          I really do not like Chenney – but we do not investigate people merely because we do not like them.

          Comey should have been sacked AT THAT TIME.

          After that we have the clemency of Grandmother Johnson – that bother you ?

          Further Trump has explicitly asked the football players “taking a knee” to do something actually productive and bring him peole they think should be granted clemency or pardons.

          Thus far there are no terorrists or traitor’s in Trump’s pardon list – Obama can not say the same ?

      2. You are bassackwards.

        Cohen is smart.

        Cohen has knowledge.

        One data point that Cohen possesses is that Cohen will definitively preclude a pardon if he reveals anything about Trump and,

        presumably, endanger himself (no one in their right mind would cross the Clintons, LBJ, the Kennedys, the “kinder and gentler”

        Bushes, etc.).

        Cohen won’t say one word.

        Cohen is smart.

          1. I would tend to agree, but there is actually a debate regarding that and from what I can tell the concensus is that wherever state and federal law overlap, a federal pardon prohibits state prosecution.

            But again – if you disagree – change the law and the constitution.

            The constitution does not provide the Federal government with a “general police power”.

            That should have invalidated nearly all federal criminal law. But lefties have bent and broken the constitution and are now disturbed because the broad powers they have improperly justified are being used against them.

            If the federal govenrment does not have the power to enact a criminal statute prohibiting some act, then there is no supremecy of such a federal law over a state law, and no ability of the president to pardon.

            But so long as you construe the constitution broadly you are stick with the mess you have made.

            1. Do federal and state, or constitutional and state powers to tax overlap. The Constitution provides specific and limited powers to tax. Are those specifications and limitations applicable to state assemblies?

            2. Do state assemblies, like Congress, also have merely the power to tax for “…general Welfare…” not individual welfare?

          2. What exactly is Obergruppenfuhrer Mueller’s charge?

            Is “Russian collusion” a “state crime?”

            I started this artificial and fabricated “Russian collusion” charade confused and I’m getting confuseder and confuseder every day.

  7. Just checking.

    Does Manafort represent “Russian Collusion” or the revised rendition, “Russian Meddling,” by candidate Trump?

    Herr Mueller IS looking for “collusion/meddling/pesky republicans/whatever,” right?

    That’s his charge, right?

    Right, Herr Rosenstein?

  8. I never would have classified Alexandria as “lefty” but then I suppose I haven’t kept up this century…

    1. The last thing Manafort wants is to be tried before a jury of his peers (a.k.a. “swamp creatures”)

  9. He’s right about lefties in that area. In that jurisdiction they might convict him as a slap for Hillary.

    1. Don’t be naive. This is Federal Court. The judges there control what juries do. If the jury makes a mistake, the judge will likely correct it.
      State court is a different ballgame.

Comments are closed.