Manafort’s Mugshot Released With Prison Phone Transcripts

1531416683549Paul Manafort is in the process of being transferred to Virginia’s Alexandria Detention Center to allow greater communication with his counsel.  The transfer was accompanied with a new mugshot and transcripts of communications by Manafort on monitored prison telephones.  This all occurs as an appellate court has turned down Manafort’s bid for an immediate release.

As described in the government’s motion, Manafort is captured on the calls saying that he was being treated as a “VIP” at Northern Neck with “unique privileges.”  He was given  a private, self-contained cell with a private bathroom and shower, a personal telephone and daily access between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 10 p.m. to a workspace. That will change at Alexandria.
Indeed, after complaining about Northern Neck, the defense team seemed to switch positions and oppose the transfer — leaving the court incredulous: “It is surprising and confusing when counsel identifies a problem and then opposes the most logical solution to that problem.”
In one call, Manafort defends Washington, D.C. as a forum for his trial despite questions over hostility in the jury pool. He states “Think about how it’ll play elsewhere . . . There is a strategy to it, even in failure, but there’s a hope in it.” It is not clear what he is referring to as the “strategy to it.”
He also says “I’ve gone through all the discovery now” — a statement that undermined the claim of the need for a transfer to review the discovery.
Manafort’s recorded calls are surprising additions to the record given Manafort’s moronic calls to potential witnesses — calls that led to the revocation of his bail and home confinement.

262 thoughts on “Manafort’s Mugshot Released With Prison Phone Transcripts”

  1. Manafort’s “crimes” go back to circa 2012?

    What was Hillary doing that year?

    Hillary’s life of crime started in 1978 with a bribe from Tyson Chicken and has been going full throttle ever since.

    How is it that the illustrious FBI can indict all of Russian Intel and the newly pesky deal maker Paul Manafort, after lo these many

    years, but it could find nothing at all on Hillary or, for that matter, any other member of the notorious Clinton Gang?

    Those stinky Wal-Mart Americans sure are stupid, huh, Gruppenfuhrer Rosenstein? They’ll buy anything.

    The reason the FBI can find evidence against republicans but none against democrats is that the DOJ/FBI is totally corrupt.

    Said corruption was only revealed by way of Hillary’s loss. Imagine had she won.

    The Constitution was nullified. The “swamp” threw a tin-horn dictator into the top spot of the American Banana Republic and the Afro-

    voodoo has American liberal, progressive, democrat, socialists-cum-communists under its spell.

    Whatever will happen when actual Americans wake up and find that their culture and nation has been “conjured” away from they?

    “Heav’n hath no Rage, like Love to Hatred turn’d,

    Nor Hell a Fury, like a Woman scorn’d.”

    – William Congreve

    Hell hath no fury like a Patriot scorn’d.

    1. I don’t know but what about Mena. The WSJ says that Bill was giving cover to the contra dope shipments. Some kids saw it and told some people. They got sad seeing what they saw, so sad that they laid their heads down on RR tracks and committed suicide. Unlikely I know, but you never know when a sad person is going to kill himself by having his head run over by a rr train instead of just od’ing or blowing his own brains out. I mean like Vince Foster did. he got sad too.

      That Mena stuff, that’s just what the WSJ said. That’s a fringe lunatic newspaper ya know.

      1. Obama’s coup d’etat in America “fundamentally transforming America” is being conducted by criminal rules.

        Obama’s coup d’etat in America “fundamentally transforming America” is being conducted against the Constitution.

        Obama has foreign allegiances inherited from the “Dreams From My Father” who was an anti-colonialist which is the equivalent of anti-American (the presidential requirement of “natural born citizen” was imposed to protect America from foreign allegiances such as Obama’s) which is the nature of Obama’s mission of “fundamentally transforming America” and diluting Americans and America out of existence.

        Foreign relations must be conducted by foreign rules. Iran/Contra was fighting fire with fire internationally.

        JFK used the mafia to circumvent the Constitution and to fix his election and on Cuban relations just like his bootlegger, rum-runner father, Joe, used the mob to make a dirty fortune and buy his son the presidency.. Dirty Kennedy money still exists. Just imagine. By the passage of time, the dirty Kennedy money has become legitimate. It’s not dissimilar to the dirty Clinton Foundation money.

    2. Crazy George’s comment, Readers Digest version:

      “But But But Hillary!!

      1. The rule of law, not man

        requires applying the law consistently, with little discretion, to those you hate and to those you love.

        If our law is not applied the same to Trump as the clinton’s then we are lawless.

    1. Barack Obama in 2012 colluding with Vladimir Putin through Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on open mike:

      “On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved, but it’s important for him to give me space,” Obama can be heard telling Medvedev, apparently referring to incoming Russian president — and outgoing prime minister — Vladi­mir Putin.

      “Yeah, I understand,” Medvedev replies, according to an account relayed by an ABC News producer, who said she viewed a recording of the discussion made by a Russian camera crew. “I understand your message about space. Space for you . . .”

      “This is my last election,” Obama interjects. “After my election, I have more flexibility.”

      Medvedev, who last week demanded written proof that Russia is not the intended target of U.S. missile defense efforts, responded agreeably.

      “I understand,” he told the U.S. president. “I will transmit this information to Vladimir.”

      1. just diplomatic talk, negotiation., good for obama that he didn’t get us all blown to hell. that’s where the current antiRussian paranoiacs are taking us, just so long as Trump goes down

  2. maybe manaford did break the law as alleged have you read the laws?

    have you folks ever actually read some of our federal criminal code statutes? it’s not clear at all what exactly the conduct is which is prohibited. i think you could hang a money laundering beef on anybody with a lot of complicated cross border transactions. it’s the governments way of reeling in rich dudes that get out of line. doesnt matter really if they are socalled organized crime or political operatives like manafort. they go to far, they get clipped

    another example of the erosion in liberty and law enforcement system credibility in america

    i recommend a good book “ten felonies a day” by henry silverglate

    1. Andrew McCarthy has discussed the money laundering charge. It’s contingent on the charge that he was conspiring to avoid registering as a foreign agent. Failure to register as a foreign agent is, per McCarthy, seldom prosecuted and usually dealt with through warnings and admonishmens, which is how it was dealt with re John Podesta.

      1. its pretty lame in other words. but easy to prove with the money laundering laws that are about as clear as mud.

    2. James Comey delineated to America the many multiple charges constituting violations of laws perpetrated by Hillary Clinton. And then Comey said that Hillary had “no intent” and that “no reasonable prosecutor would take the case.” Hillary did break the law. Thousands of prosecutors would have loved to take the case.

  3. I think the idea of moving Manafort was an expectation that the solution would be to return him to his previous monitored status at home. It failed. The judge had another idea.

    1. The Judiciary is not supposed to have ideas.

      It i supposed to protect our rights first and foremost and follow the constitution and the law subsequently

      1. And sometimes protecting the rights of someone in custody means coming up with ideas as to how to do it.

          1. The details aren’t all there. There is a great deal of discretion that goes into enforcing our laws for that very reason. As one example, prisoners, like other citizens, are guaranteed access to the courts. Inevitably some one has to determine whether the provided means actually allow such access, and if not what would.

            1. “The details aren’t all there.”
              They do not need t be.
              A right is a right.

              “There is a great deal of discretion that goes into enforcing our laws for that very reason.”
              The fact that there is great discretion is a PROBLEM, not an asset.

              Discretion is DESTRUCTIVE to the rule of law.
              Discretion is the rule of man not law – pretty much by definition.

              We can not enforce but a few laws if we do not have discretion with regard to enforcement.
              Therefore government must be limited – because enforcement of tens of thousands of laws without discretion is impossible.

              We construe law narrowly. That is a general principle of law, and it has foundations in logic and philosophy.
              Or more simply, if we do not construe laws narrowly we end up with something that does not work very well – or possibly at all.

              Just to be clear – I am partly arguing a model of government and law that is reflected in our declaration and constitution.
              But mostly I am arguing one that is very similar that comes from the same logic and reason that resulted in our constitution and declaration.

              Government is the use of force.
              There are only a few justifiable uses of force.

              Contra your assertions it is immoral to excercise discretion in the justified use of force.

              As an example – the use of force is justified in the defense of others against force.

              You may morally not shoot A who is raping B, and not shoot C who is raping D.
              There is very little room for the use of discretion in the use of force.

              Further the powers of govenrment must be clearly defined and limited.
              Again – little discretion.
              We are discussing the use of force,
              not poetry or the theater.

              The rights and freedom or individuals is the very broad space that is left.
              Real discretion belongs to individuals in their own non-violent conduct.

              All of this can be derived logically from a single premise – that man has free will.
              BTW rejecting that premise also has logical consequences and results in a radically different world that you are unlikely to like.

              “As one example, prisoners, like other citizens, are guaranteed access to the courts. Inevitably some one has to determine whether the provided means actually allow such access, and if not what would.”
              I have no idea how you think your example has anything to do with your argument.

              A prisoners access to courts is a question of facts and law. It is not some question of discretion.

              Further you are really addressing the question of govenrment oversight.
              Something that is very nearly absent in the system we have.

              1. You call it government oversight, but it is still fundamentally what you claim the courts function is, enforcing the law. You seem to present that as a simple black and white enquiry. But again, if the court is required to enforce a prisoners right of access to the courts, how does the judge do that without exercising discretion as to what is required under the specific facts. We don’t have a body of law detailing all the variables and what should be done to enforce the right under each combination of those variables.

                1. “You seem to present that as a simple black and white enquiry. ”
                  No things are not “black and white”.

                  But the objective of law and government is to make them as black and white as possible.
                  The “rule of law” requires limited discretion.

                  “But again, if the court is required to enforce a prisoners right of access to the courts, how does the judge do that without exercising discretion as to what is required under the specific facts. ”

                  You have an odd understanding of black and white.

                  Let me use killing someone as an example – as we BOTH have a clearer understanding of that.

                  There are specific justifications for killing another person.
                  absolutely a judge and jury must determine whether the facts of a given incident meet the requirements for say “self-defense”.
                  But what constitutes self defense is defined and it is very rare that the answer is not obvious.
                  I would argue that when the answer is not obvious we must err on the side of individual rights.

                  So there is alot of establishing what the facts are. There is some weighing of those facts and comparing them to the elements of a crime.

                  But there is not really alot of discretion.

                  “We don’t have a body of law detailing all the variables and what should be done to enforce the right under each combination of those variables.”

                  We do not need that.

                  Lets try “free speach”. For the sake of argument lets assume free speach is an absolute right – that is just to simplify.

                  The question then becomes – is the activity being defined as a crime speach ?
                  If the answer is yes – the rest of the variables do not matter.

                  In reality, the analysis usually goes the other way.
                  The FIRST question is do the know facts fulfill all the elements of the crime.
                  THEN the question of whether that criminal law infringes unacceptably on a right is asked.

                  The fundimental difficulty in what I am discussing is NOT discretion.
                  It is determining the facts. That is judgement not discretion. That can be minimized but not elimated.

                  Actual discretion – which is more on the order of – the facts meet the requirements of the law, but I am going to choose not to prosecute, is very close to always wrong.

                  Counters would be an officer who has pulled me over for running a stop sign and gets a call because a bank robbery is in progress can excercise discretion and let me go and go after the robber. that is rare.

    1. Paul Manafort is the new Susan MacDougal. Mespo727272, the new James Carville–unless he prefers to be the new Paul Begala, instead. Somebody remind me: Where was Brett Kavanaugh back in the day?

      1. No he’s not. McDougal was a convicted criminal who sat in jail for 18 months on a criminal contempt charge rather than offer immunized testimony.

        1. Thanks for the bright idea. I’ve forwarded it to the OSC just in case they hadn’t already thought of it.

    2. Hardly. What other fantasies do you still believe? Flat Earth?

      1. Silly Gerard. If the earth were flat, the cats would have knocked everything off of it by now.

    3. If the Left wants to believe and defend Strzok as an impartial agent in the Clinton and then Mueller investigations, then I see no reason Sessions should remain recused.

      1. OLLY – Strzok’s reasons for not recusing himself were solid and ground. Sessions needs to get back in the game.

        1. Paul,
          Of course his reasoning was solid and ground, I would expect that much. He’s a 26 year agent with the FBI, of course he would never allow his personal opinions to bias his investigative efforts. He’s also a loving and dedicated husband. Yada, yada, yada. Given the evidence of his political bias and his infidelity with his wife, is he believable? Apparently half of Congress is willing to say yes. They want to give him a medal.

          This is perfect example as to why, not only do people not trust Congress, they should NEVER trust them. Is there any doubt the “other” half of Congress would be defending Strzok if his bias was in favor of President Trump?

          1. Ollie, defenders of Trump should avoid the marital fidelity issue at all costs.
            Just sayin’….

            1. “Ollie, defenders of Trump should avoid the marital fidelity issue at all costs.
              Just sayin’….”

              Very bizzare logic.

              What is a “defender of Trump” ?

              I speak to issues. Sometimes my positions correspond with Trump’s sometimes they don’t.

              Why am I somehow constrained in speaking the Truth because I sometimes agree with Trump and sometimes don’t ?

              I would further note the issue is NOT one of marital fidelty. It is about lying, particularly lying by someone who has actually has the power to judge the conduct of others.

              Trump sometimes speaks of the conduct of others, he “judges” the conduct of others, but he does not actually decide who to prosecute and who not, and who to investigate and who not to.

                1. WildBill,…
                  Are you Late 4 Dinner?She/he has many incarnations, so while we’re checking, I thought I should ask.😃😂

            2. wildbill99 – Democrats just took infidelity off the table as a political issue by defending Peter Strzok’s infidelity during his public hearing.

                1. wildbill99 – Congresswoman Jackson Lee, with no Democrat naysayers. I watched the entire hearing. I would not let Strzok head a Wiffle ball team, much less a major investigation, much less two major investigations. BTW, Judicial Watch got 85 more text msgs from Lisa and Peter that have not been given to the committees. They are on their site. Most of the good stuff is blanked out, but there is a little interesting stuff there.

                  1. How about the exact quote where Congresswoman Lee defends marital infidelity? I googled it but nothing like that showed up.

                    1. wildbill99 – it is hard to tell for sure because they are out of camera shot, but Jackson Lee and the Rep from RI I think were the two raising objections when Gohmert went after Strzok about his infidelity. Both raised different issues. YouTube the Gohmert questioning and watch it beginning to end. To give it some context, this is late in the hearing and Strzok had been smirking his way through the hearing, not answering questions or weasel-wording his answers. Oh, and every time the Republicans got a rhythm to their questions and were getting somewhere, a designated Democrat raised a point of order which had to be dealt with by the chair.

                  2. And quite often we ultimately discover what is redacted is merely embarrasing to DOJ/FBI, not actually confidential.

                2. Infidelity is not the issue.

                  The issue is that of integrity and trust. It is about lying. It is about lying to your boss. It is about lying to your spouse. It is about either important lies, or worse important lies to people who are important to you.

                  It is about lying when you are standing on a moral soap box impugning others.

                  1. Yeah, liars are often lousy people. That’s one of the reasons I despise Trump.

                    1. Most people lie. Some more than others.
                      Some lies matter more than others.

                      Trump’s fidelity as an example is primarily an issue for those for whom the fidelity itself is fundimental.
                      Strzok’s problem is not infidelity, it is lying about it. and more so lying to those he owed a duty not to, and about something that is actually important.

                      I do not know whether Trump is faithful today. But I do know that he has never made a secret of his infidelity.
                      He may not share details and may fight to keep secret specific instances. But it is no secret that fidelity is not one of his values,
                      and that he has not really promised fidelity to anyone.

                      I have problems with Trump’s off the cuff willingness to pontificate on anything, and both the certainty and error with which he does so.

                      But if that is the type of “lying” that incenses you – the problem is with you.

                      With regard to things that matter – Trump has been incredibly truthful – to a degree we have not ever seen in Washington.

                      He made a long list of campaign promises. Some of which I oppose.

                      To an extent that I have never before seen he has either kept those or tried incredibly hard.

                      One of the reason that we have become so much more polarized under Trump is because of that.

                      The left would have greatly prefered if Trump was just another dishonest republican.
                      Who when elected changed little and bemoaned how difficult change was in washington.
                      The left is not so upset because Trump lies. But because he has actually done or seriously tried much of what he promised.

                      While republicans – even those who oppose him on somethings are watching and seeing that Trump is doing or seriously trying to do what he promised.

                      The country is not polarized because of Trump lies. But because beyond the expectations of most people Trump has done or tried to do what he promissed.

                      Further he has done much of that in 18 months. He has 2 1/2 years left. And he has kept promises against the relentless opposition of the media, the left and sometimes his own party.

      2. Did anyone actually watch Strzok testify ?

        His body language and facial expressions were incredible
        He was a lousy witness.

        1. dhlii – Strzok is a patriot and deserves a purple heart. The Democrats say so.

          1. Strzok is a patriot and deserves a purple heart. The Democrats say so.

            LOL! And if Strzok had reversed his bias, going against Clinton and for Trump, those same Democrats may still award him a Purple Heart, but it would be done posthumously.

            1. dhlii, Black ,actually. Diseased and rotting.
              If anyone wonders why there’s a concern about the conduct and character of top-ranking FBI officials, especially in 2016, watch Strzok’s testimony.

    4. Mespo,..
      Strzok performance was the best I’ve seen since that other puke, “pharmacy bro”, worked so hard at proving what a slimeball he is.
      Comey might have had mixed results, at best, in promoting himself in the PR tour and promotion of his book, A Bigger Royalty.
      Both Comey and Strzok are both fighting, in part, for their reputations.
      After being fired by Trump, Comey found some support from Democrats who had lambasted him in the past.
      PR-wise, the firing was a net plus for Comey, who is no longer equally disliked by Democrats and Republicans.
      Strzok is so far “out there” in his known conduct at the FBI, and coupled with his odious demeanor, I think he’s succeeded in seriously and irreparably trashing his reputation.

      1. Hard to say. A lawyer I correspond with (whose practice is a mix of bankruptcy and criminal cases) said he had not to his recollection encountered anyone as arrogant as Sztrok in 35 years of putting questions to people in depositions and trials. Then again, partisan Democrats see what they want to see. The meme-pusher on our list of Facebook friends was babbling some months back on the mistreatment of Andrew McCabe. They have no procedural standards, no conception of public service.

        1. dhlii, And he didn’t even have to twist their arms to “stand with him”.
          It seemed to come so naturally to them that I doubt Strzok had a role in motivating his stooges to intercede on his behalf.
          Incredible performances by some Strzok groupies on the committee.

          1. What I found most interesting is that the Democratic disruption of the hearings served only one purpose,
            interfering with the discovery of the truth.

            We get garbage like that from those on the left all the time.

            Some commenters points can be disregarded because “they are republican talking points”.
            Often that is false. Always that is irrelevant. All that matters is whether the assertions are true or not.

            If Hitler speaks the truth, you can not discount it because it was uttered by Hitler.

            The arguments of the law are nearly always semantic, words games, logical fallacies.
            They have no interest in weighing evidence and determining the truth.
            They have already decided. Their ideology provided the answers to them.

            Trump is evil – therefore the investigation of him is legitimate. Clinton is good, therefore her aquital was proper.
            Bias and misconduct can not exist if the outcome is what they expect.

            1. dhlii,…
              Yeah, it was pretty clear that some Democrats on the committee were trying to provide some degree of “cover” for Strzok by interrupting with shouting and tantrums.
              I don’t think that tactic was any more effective than Strzok’s presentation and demeanor at softening the effectiveness of the blows from their GOP colleagues.
              Many of the facts were already established going into Strzok’s appearance, but the “theatrics” and PR war was interesting to observe as this all played out.
              I don’t think that Strzok did himself any favors in his performance; if anything, hearing and observing him directly, “in person”, made him look even worse.
              His Democratic groupies on the committtee didn’t effectively disrupt and distract from the key issues, either.

              1. I have no problem with Democrats throwing up legitimate procedural hurdles.
                But their objections were out of order.

                Democrats seemed to think “point of order” means “interrupt for any reason”.

                Strzok came off as self righteously angry.

                That does not work unless you are self evidently of high moral character and have not as example sent the texts he sent.
                Strzok is asking us to believe that his actions do NOT reflect his words.
                That is possible, but it is a hard sell, not a soft one. And it is not a presumption he is entitled to.

                The presumption of innocence is something that criminal defendents are entitled to,
                it is not applicable to employment or outside of a criminal context.

                L4D as an example can beleive that Manafort is guilty – completely absent evidence.
                And she can act consistent with that beleif.
                UNTIL she finds herself on a jury.

              2. Strzok’s self righteousness came off horribly under the circumstances.
                His facial and body language was worse.
                And there was one instance – about a 15sec clip where he his face abd body language comes off positively evil.

                No, he did himself no favors.

                1. dhlii – the stills of his face make him look positively evil. 😉

                  1. PC Schulte,…
                    -To your earlier comment….Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee was the right person for the right job in mouthing off and disrupting the proceed ings.
                    She has had a lot of practice at it, both in and out of Capitol Hill.
                    One airline is reported to have recommended another airline for her to fly on….they were fed up with her behavior.
                    She’s one nasty piece of work, but I guess she’s just fine for the people in her district who keep re-electing her.

      1. Wally,…
        So you and others keep saying in worshipful admiration.
        What you think, or what I think, about Mueller does’nt mean a damn thing in the larger picture.
        At in that context, there are mixed opinions on Mueller’s objectivity, on his selection of partisan Democratic prosecutors for his Special Counsel team, and on his focus and his tactics.
        So any individual who keeps repeating the prayer “In Mueller I trust”, or any individual who demonizes Mueller is of no significance.
        Where the overall public stands on the Mueller investigation is vitally important, and it looks like confidence in the conduct and results of that investigation are increasingly questioned by the public.

        1. Mueller nicely timed his new indictments to shadow Trump’s meeting with his home boy, Putin.

          1. Mueller has an investigation premised on a lie, with investigators shot full of prejudices and running upstream against public opinion against a President with higher approval ratings than Obama at this stage of his Presidency. I like Trump’s odds. I’m starting to like Manaforts’ too. His defense should be: this is a political witch hunt using charges they cleared me from years ago when I wasn’t a Trump campaign manager. Now they want to leverage me to implicate the POTUS. I won’t lie and do it, so they are trying to ruin me.

            1. mespo, Manafort ruined himself with his money laundering, tax evasion, and efforts to collaborate with the Russians to affect the 2016 election.

              1. There’s no evidence he collaborated with the Russians for Trump in 2016. As for the other stuff, he should have been indicted on that years ago and not just because he was Trump’s campaign manager and could give Mueller some leverage.

                1. If there’s a statute of limitations argument that is valid, why haven’t Manafort’s lawyers made it? Otherwise, the trial proceeds.

                  1. Lots of arguments have already been made.

                    Many will not be decided until and unless the results are appealed.

                    Given the current federal court standards on crimes involving corruption and money, Manafort has every reason to expect to prevail in the long run.

                    There is a very long list of recent precidents – many to the supreme court that put the kibosh on Muellers extremely broad interpretation of the use of money as proof of misconduct.

              2. The Russian ‘collaboration’ is a hoax. See Andrew McCarthy on the money laundering charge. They’re contingent on a thesis that he moved money around in an effort to avoid registering as a foreign agent, an offense that is seldom prosecuted (and not at all when your name is ‘John Podesta’).

              3. “Manafort ruined himself with his money laundering”
                To launder money it must b the procedes of a crime.
                The money Manafort purportedly laundered was pay for his political work in the Ukraine.

                You are ignorant of money laundering – but that is excusable as so it Mueller.

                ” tax evasion”
                Possibly – but Manafort settled that with the IRS in 2014.
                Unless you are prepared to toss double jeophardy aside you have nothing there.

                “and efforts to collaborate with the Russians to affect the 2016 election.”
                And which would those be ?
                Thus far we are 2 years into this and the only “real Russians” who contacted the Trump campaign were Clinton/FBI/CIA plants,
                and all were universally dropped.

                We have far more contact between Clinton and the Russians than Trump.

          2. Still trying to read through the Mueller indictment,
            But thus far it does nto seem to say anything new.

            puts forth several claims that are unlikely to be true.

            And once again indicts alot of people who he will never have to prosecute and so his evidence may never get properly tested.

            Thus far the indicitment:
            Provides alot of Names from the former Russian GRU and claims they “conspired” to influence the election.
            A claim that if true would subject half the CIA and NSA to foriegn indictments.

            Has some serious factual problems.

            Guicifer2.0 has been properly debunked as the source of the DNC wikileaks emails.
            The use of Guicifer2.0 in the indictment damages the credibility of the indictment.

            It is known that Guicifer2.0 claimed to the the source of the emails, but Guicifer2.0 provided as evidence information from the DNC that was publicly available before the DNC hack.

            I am not aware of anyone outside the US IC and Mueller that has any involvement in hacking who beleives that Guicifer2.0 is anything but a pretender.

            Mueller also doubles down on the Crowdstrike APT28/APT29 Russian connection.
            APT28 and APT29 inarguably came from Russia. But just as CIA and NSA hacking toolkits have been leaked to the world, so have those from Russia.

            We know that terrorist groups, the Turks, the pakistani’s and many others have used APT28 and APT29 to hack targets.

            Again most reputable people in cyber security (ie. everyone who is not crowdstrike) does no beleive that it is possible to identify the source of any hack today absent an inside source. It is so trivially easy to run a false flag operation. In fact it would be highly unusual for Russia to use Russian tools to hack the DNC.

            We do know that APT28 and APT29 were on the DNC system as early as mid 2015
            We do not know their source, we do not know that they are the means by which the DNC emails were acquired.
            And again the actual evidence strongly suggests that claim is wrong.
            That the DNC emails were leaked not hacked.

            It is telling that just as Mueller is preparing to indict a bunch of Russians for hacking the DNC that the charges against Imran Awan were dropped.

            Mueller BTW has a very long reputation for investigating the wrong people – relentlessly.

            I am actually surprised at the fixation in the Mueller indictment on the GRU and Bitcoin.

            One of the other problems with the Russian narrative is that this is NOT how the Russians operate, and we – including the FBI know that.

            Russia turns a blind eye to a massive amount of computer crime – about 30B in computer credit card rip offs each year, done by independent hackers in Russia and the former USSR. In return it uses these to engage in the cyber warfare Mueller is alleging.
            Given access to a large pool of independent highly skilled cyber criminals with $30B in yearly resources there is no reason for the GRU to do anything directly as is being claimed here. Nor is there any reason for GRU to mess with bitcoin.

            There are claims of hacks targetting voting machines and voter registration databases.

            Again these stories have been arround for a while.
            Absolutely we need to address protecting those systems.
            But the presidential commission with that on its list was disbanded when democrats refused to participate.

            Anyway there is much more that is questionable about the Mueller indictment.

            I am very bothered by the fact that he knows there is nothing in it he is ever going to have to prove.
            It seems more designed to exhonerate him, the investigation, and the FBI/DOJ and Intelligence community than it is
            to shed actual light on anything.

            If fully true, it adds nothing.
            but it is more likely much less than True.

            1. One thing that I believe is overlooked is the content of the leak. Unlike the Trump dossier, the data that was exposed was not fabricated, It was Woodward & Bernstein..esque-level discoveries that somehow has been portrayed as stolen work papers.

            2. dhlii – I think the Russians should make an appearance and demand access to the DNC computer server. 😉

        2. Why do you think I worship Mueller. I don’t, but in times like this I’d rather trust a combat-wounded former Marine officer (never, ever call an honorably discharged Marine an “ex-Marine) than any politician. Btw, Mueller is a registered republican. Not that that matters to me.

          1. Wally – btw, John McCain is a registered Republican, however, he is really a RINO.

            1. ‘RINO’ is a silly term to apply to someone who was the Republican presidential nominee. McCain has had one phase change in his voting record (ca. 1993), but it’s been starboard at every point in his career. He’s problematic in two ways: (1) his allergy to any sort of immigration enforcement and (2) a tendency to engage in spiteful and perverse behavior (much on display the last couple of years). Most of the time, McCain has been much less of a challenge to party whips than Collins, Kirk, Murkowski, Ayotte, or Hoeven. BTW, the Republican floor leader in the Senate from 1969 to 1977 was Hugh Scott. All of those named (Collins included) get higher approval rankings from the American Conservative Union than did Hugh Scott. Ayotte’s and Hoeven’s have been fairly similar to the lifetime scores of Howard Baker, Hugh Scott’s successor. (Bob Dole, Trent Lott, Bill Frist, and Yurtle the Turtle all have had starboard voting records; With the possible exception of Frist, they had other glaring inadequacies).

              1. DDS – most of his score is based on when Goldwater was in office. Once he became the senior Senator, he showed his true colors. Problem is he has enough seniority that he keeps getting re-elected.

            2. PC Schulte,…
              If Mueller is a registered Republican, and since NO Republicans oppose Trump😉😃😂, we’re supposed to overlook the fact that the Special Counsel team is stacked with partisan Democrats.
              Don’t you accept the “logic” in that?

              1. Tom Nash – the registered Republican just hired 4 more Democrats.

              2. If you go back in time you find Fitzgerald, Comey, Mueller, Rosenstein, and some others constantly appearing for decades in nearly every major case.
                Especially every botched case.

                Mueller is not partisan – meaning protecting democrats, He is partisan meaning protecting his clique – what is being called the “deep state”.

          2. John McCain was a real hero,
            Charlie Rangle was a real hero
            Duke Cunningham was a real hero.

            Each of these has to a greater or lessor extent been much less than heroic as public servants.

            I am not familiar with Mueller’s marine corp career,
            But I can respect his service as a marine and still find him a disaster as a prosecutor.

            Why do you think being a republican matters ?
            Many of the those in this corrupt farce are republicans.

            I do not think that Democrats have some monopoly on political corruption.
            Frankly I think more republicans are likely to be pitt bull prosecutors that do not give a damn about civil rights.

            I do not think Mueller is particular partisan.
            That doesn’t mean he is not corrupt.

          3. I think that Oliver North (Marine) and John Mitchell (Navy) were both more heavily decorated than Mueller.
            Not that it matters to me, but i thought that if military resumes are repeatedly recognised as a sign of integrity and competence 50- 75 years later, that standard should be applied equally.
            I’m not downplaying the courage or leader- ship all of these people exhibited; I am saying that it doesn’ t have a hell of a lot to do with what’s playing out now.
            But if it helps, keep on bringing it up ad nauseum.
            Also, I don’t think you and others have posted the profound and stirring ” In Mueller I Trust” bit more than a few dozen times.
            It’ s so effective and convincing that you may want to use it more often.
            If you’re wondering why your sappy posts seem worshipful, take a look at your currency.

            1. I neglected to address my comment to Wally; it was a “reply” to his comment, but it’s never certain where replies will posted, so I try to remember to put the “address” in comments.

    5. You didn’t hear the testimony I heard. Time to have your hearing checked.

        1. mespo, Manafort ruined himself with his money laundering, tax evasion, and efforts to collaborate with the Russians to affect the 2016 election.

          1. There was no ‘collaboration’. It’s a hoax. The money laundering charges are part of a fan dance.

            1. The Democrat and Republican pro war fanatics of today are as kooky as the anticommunists of earlier generations, with their Russian paranoia


              I was just going to say Dems but then I remember all the stupid Republicans on the anti Russian bandwagon too.

          1. Your article is schizophrenic.

            The author claims the hearing was an oportunity congress should have taken to ask Strzok about the Clinton and Trump investigations, and about his texts.

            Republican congressmen did exactly that and democrats fought them tooth and nail far outside the rules and procedures. And Strzok ultimately refused to answer.

            Rep. Gohmert’s question was jarring, and maybe offensively framed.
            But it still had enormous merit.

            As Ross Perrot noted 40 years ago – if your wife can not trust you, then why should voters ?

            Strzok was one of the highest ranking agents in the FBI. A position that is supposed to command great respect and demand very high integrity.

            At the very least his affair with Page and his texts demonstrate horrible judgement and abysmal integrity.
            It is not like divorce is not an option today. I do not expect everything and every marraige to work out.
            But integrity means not lying to your boss, your wife, your family, your country.

            Strzok quite clearly does not have integrity. He is another of these James Comey types – whose “higher loyalty” is to some “feeling” about what is right and wrong.
            They have no actual principled basis for determining what is moral and what is not. The consequences is like James Comey Strzok made numerous unethical and immoral decisions, – but he FELT justified in each.

            God forbid Comey of Strzok should make critical decisions when they have indigestion, who knows what they would decide.

            The military academy honor code is “I will not lie, cheat or steal, or tolerate those who do”. That is a good guide to integrity.
            Something that Comey and Strzok could learn.

            If you are lying to your wife. If you are lying to your employer. Please do not try to sell me that you are a person of outstanding integrity.

            Gohmert’s accusation as inartfully phrased, but it may have been one of the most accurate comments of the hearing.

            “You Sir, Mr. Strzok are and admitted liar. Why should we now beleive you ? What right do you have to step up on an moral soap box and lecture the rest of us”.

            You have lied, you have cheated, and you have been caught. Sit down, learn some humility rather than arrogance, and start being honest for a change.

            As to those of you on the left – the fact that you can stand next to Mr. Strzok reflects badly on you.

            It is crystal clear that Strzok is biased. The only questions are how significantly did that bias effect his actions, and how far did that culture of bias extend.
            Adn to be clear, Mr. Strzok has lots of questions to answer to help us work that out.
            Bjut his oppinions on the effects of his own bias are dreck. Worthless.

            1. He has answered a lot of questions, but the republicans won’t release the transcripts of those sessions.

              1. “He has answered a lot of questions, but the republicans won’t release the transcripts of those sessions.”

                I would suggest re-reading the article.

                I did not get more than a few paragraphs in before I was tripping all over logical contradictions between the facts the author asserted and the conclusions he drew.

                That fundimentally means he did NOT answer alot of questions.

                If transcripts of public hearings are not available – I am sure you can find video of them on youtube or CSPAN.
                A claim that some group did not produce a transcript of some recorded public hearing is just stupid attempts at partisanship.

                I think to the extent possible transcripts of private hearings should also be provided, but that is more difficult and that typically requires DOJ/FBI/…. approvals.
                And those have not been forthcoming.
                Grassley as an example promised transcripts of one hearing and then had both Feinstein and DOJ/FBI redcating the crap out of the hearing and blaming him for not releasing transcripts that had been altered to change the narative.

                1. dhlii,..
                  – It’s actually an “opinion piece” rather than an article.
                  OP eds are a dime a dozen, and very often aren’t intended to be informative or halfway balanced “coverage”, or reporting, of an issue.
                  More often than not, they are “spin”.

  4. Manafort is convinced he is in the driver’s seat or, at least, he was. He knew the terms of his bail. (According to reports in our criminal justice system, many many innocent people are in jail because they can’t afford bail.). He broke them. Why should he be treated any differently than any other defendant? He had a private room and all the perks. He bragged about it. His PR machine,on the other hand, claimed he was being held in solitary to reve up the base. I saw those posts. It was so obvious that it was an attempt to suggest he was being abused.

    He asked to be moved but it was really an attempt to get released. He “won”. He’s being moved! But he lost because he was gaming the system. And the system wouldn’t play.

    1. If Manafort broke the terms of his bail – those terms were unconstitutional.
      The government is only entitled to ensure that the public is safe and that the defendant will appear at trial.

      The defendant retains all their rights until convicted.

      Manafort did not actually contact a prosecution witness, he sought out witnesses for himself.
      Nor did he bribe or threaten.

      Amendment VIII

      Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted

      1. He broke the conditions of his bail. The judge is within the law to revoke Paulie’s bail. Period.

        1. Until recently SCOTUS thought the execution of juveniles was OK.

          Currently there is no expectation of privacy with respect to who you call.
          But there is with respect to where you call from ?

          What you proclaim as the law violates the 8th, 5th, 6th and 14th amendments.

          The judge was within the law.
          She was NOT within the constitution.

    2. Many people are in jail because they can not afford bail.
      That is a serious problem, but not the issue with Manafort.

    3. Manafort should NOT be treated differently from other criminal defendents.

      ALL have the right to reasonable bail.
      All have the right to a presumption of innocence and to seek out witnesses in their favor.

      The only thing unusual about manafort is that he has the legal resources to attempt to compell the court to respect his civil rights.

    4. I do not care if manafort had a room at the Ritz Carlton.
      What he “bragged” about is irrelevant.

      The govenrment has the right to protect the public from violence – which is not an issue in this case.
      And to ensure that the defendant will show up for trial – which was also not an issue in this case.

      Nor do I care what was reported, whether it was true or what purported motives where.

      Manafort is entitled to his civil rights – his motives for demanding them are irrelevant.

      1. The government has the responsibility to prevent crime, all crime. Besides, Paulie was tampering with potential witnesses. He needs to be in jail awaiting trial.

        1. Wally – they are not a potential witness if they are not on anyone’s list.

          1. While you are correct – even that did not really matter.

            The law does not prohibit you from contacting opposition witnesses. That happens all the time.
            Nor does it preclude you from attempting to persuade an opposition witness to change their story.

            You are precluded from bribing or threatening.

            Most of us have seen TV shows portraying the way law enforcement interviews witnesses.
            Anything that a police officer or prosecutor does, a defendant or his lawyers may also legally do.

            There is not separate law for law enforcement.

        2. “The government has the responsibility to prevent crime, all crime.”
          Actually no. The government is empowered to punish crime.
          There is no empowerment to prevent it, as such a power would necescarily be infinite.

          “Besides, Paulie was tampering with potential witnesses.”
          Read Mueller’s indictment.
          The FACTS as described by Mueller in the indictment do not constitute witness tampering.

  5. The questions are the dates of the calls. I do not think he should be in jail at all and that it is punitive. I think Mueller is trying to get him to compose. However, of all the people, Manafort can play the long game.

    1. Mueller has an evidentiary and documentary record as well as Rick Gates, George Papadopoulos and Michael Flynn as cooperating witnesses. Michael Cohen might be added to that list of cooperating witnesses almost any day now. If Manafort attempts to compose anything inconsistent with the evidence, documentation and testimony from other cooperating witnesses–assuming that Manafort cops a plea to cooperate–Mueller’s crew will yank Manafort’s chain so fast that the plea agreement for Manafort will be withdrawn.

      1. Rick Gates, George Papadopoulos and Michael Flynn as cooperating witnesses.

        Again, see Andrew McCarthy on the content of their plea deals. Mueller isn’t getting jack-sh1t from Papadopolous or Flynn. He isn’t because they have nothing to offer. They have nothing to offer because the whole ‘Russian collusion’ narrative is a fraud. Mueller knows it. Rosenstein knows it. The Obama officials who propagated it know it.

        1. Flynn and Kushner were in on The Grand Bargain. Papadopoulos had communications with Manafort and Gates. Did you forget about Gates? Or was it Andrew McCarthy who forgot about Gates? Guess who Gates had communications with? You would not believe.

          1. Flynn and Kushner were in on The Grand Bargain.

            There was no ‘Grand Bargain’, Late4Yoga

          2. Will Late4Prophesy have more speculative gems and hints?
            Will Late4 Prophesy manufacture more “facts”?
            Will she be convincing?
            Tune in for tomorrow’s episode of “As the World of L4D Spins”.

          3. “Flynn and Kushner were in on The Grand Bargain. Papadopoulos had communications with Manafort and Gates. Did you forget about Gates? Or was it Andrew McCarthy who forgot about Gates? Guess who Gates had communications with? You would not believe.”

            Just making things up.
            What is the evidence you have of any “grand bargain” ? You will not even represent what this bargain is.

            If you have evidence that Papadoulis communicated with Gates or Manafort – link it.
            I am aware of no evidence that they had any contact.

            No one has forgotten about Gates.
            Do you have evidence that he has anything useful to say ?

            It does not matter who Gates communicated with.
            It matters what he directed or did.

          4. If Mueller had wiretaps of Gates talking to Putin – about the weather. He would still have nothing.

        2. L4D can not read.

          One should actually read the Mueller witness tampering indictment as an example.

          It lays out a set of facts that is not witness tampering, and then indicts for witness tampering.
          Proof you can get anything from a GJ.

          Proof that Mueller is not ethical

      2. L4D enables David Benson – after yesterday, Mueller may get all of his evidence trashed as the fruit of the poisonous tree.

        1. Paul C. Schulte,…
          Strzok and his conduct are among the greatest gifts he could have given to Trump and his defense team.
          His performance was a disaster.

      3. You seem to beleive that “cooperating witness” means “puppet”

        The Flynn deal is in limbo, it has been stalled multiple times.
        Mueller keeps delaying – likely because the moment he schedules sentencing it is likely that Flynn’s lawyers file misconduct charges.

        We do not know what is going on with Gates and Papadoulis.

        Though we do now know that the Papadoulis plea is even more corrupt than the Flynn plea.

        Papadoulis plead to lying to the FBI about something that every witness has said the same thing as Papadoulis.

        Regardless, plea deals require those pleading to tell the truth in return for their plea.
        They do not and can not require telling the story the prosecutor wants.

        The deal remains valid so long as the information they provide is truthful.
        It need not be helpful.

      4. You seem to have this bizzarre idea that the burden of proof rests with the defendant.

        Mueller must prove his case.

        His indictments though aserting numerous charges are weak and are not even close to sufficient for a conviction from an unbiased jury.

        Neither Flynn nor Papadoulis have anything they can add regarding Manafort, There is no charge against Manafort that they would be a witness to.

        Gates like Flynn did not have the resources to fight Mueller.
        A plea does not mean he has something that Mueller will be able to use.

        You are presuming a Manafort Plea deal.

    2. He’s in jail because he violated the terms of his release and because there is a risk that he could leave the country to evade trial. It’s punitive only in the sense that he is no longer at liberty, but he only has himself to blame for that.

      1. I didn’t hear any reports of testimony regarding unlawfully obtained evidence, but wasn’t able to watch the testimony. Was there some?

      2. Gerard Plourde – he surrendered his passport, do they expect him to swim to Cuba?

        1. He had multiple passports. Did he surrender all of them? He probably knows someone with a private jet.

          1. Yup, a 60 year old white man that is globally identifiable, is going on the lamb for the rest of his life ?

            Really ?

            1. dhlii – is that just one lamb or is he talking a whole flock. 😉

      3. Read the 8th amendment – there is a right to reasonable bail.

        Further he was on an ankle monitor and had not “fled” the country in the months he had already been free, the claim is lunacy.

    3. There are not “calls” Mueller’s superceding indictment is based on encrypted emails/texts.

      The timing is irrelevant. Mueller has not alleged Manafort contacted an identified prosecution witness.

      Mueller’s charge of witness tampering claims it is illegal for a defendant to reach out to a person not identified by the prosecution as a witness, and say something to the effect of
      “would you be willing to testify to the accuracy of the information in this news story ?”

      Mueller’s idea of the law is that only prosecutors are permitted witnesses.

      1. actually this is a really touchy subject in criminal procedure. really touchy. the allegation that he was witness tampering is not that surprising and a lot of prosecutors would have said the same thing.

        1. The fact that alot of prosecutors would do the same thing – does not change that it is wrong.

          I am very familiar with Criminal law. We have spent 4 decades shredding defendants civil rights.

          Prosecutors are pretty much free to do as they please and unaccountable.

          There is no meaningful oversight of the courts and prosecution and law enforcement side of our justice system.
          Where there is no oversight, corruption is inevitable.

          No Mueller’s actions do not surprise me and are not unusal

          They are still unethical and wrong.

    4. Manafort is on the horns of a dilemma. He’s hoping Trump will pardon him, but perhaps not too soon. But he doesn’t want to get out of jail too soon and get killed by GRU.

      1. Wow!

        Can I interest you in information on the shooters on the grassy knoll ?

    5. The judge revoked his bail, not Mueller. Mueller informed the court of manfort’s actions-influencing witnesses-and the court revoked his bail.

      1. Wally – I might be wrong, but I think Mueller charged him with witness tampering and the judge withdrew the bond.

      2. The law requires a judge to revoke bail for a defendent when there is probable cause they have committed a crime while on bail.
        An indictment is prima fascia evidence that the defendant has committed a crime while on bail.

        The error is on the part of Mueller in seeking an indictment for facts that do not constitute a crime.

  6. When his family entered the United States a generation or so back they showed up at Ellis Island and asked to enter and be citizens. Their last name was spelled Manafart. The folks at Ellis Island made a name change to protect the innocent. This information can be found on-line.

  7. What does desperation read like? See below wherein it is suggested that the presumption of innocence should prevent pre-trial detention, the monitoring of inmate communications, and the indictment of the defendant for witness tampering as alleged by at least one of the witnesses who reported the alleged witness tampering. That’s what desperation reads like. Perhaps the presumption of innocence should also prevent the secret presentation of evidence to grand juries who issue search warrants for suspected criminals. Failing that, perhaps the presumption of innocence should compel the public discovery of the evidence secretly presented to the grand jury that issued the search warrants and then returned indictments against the suspected criminal.

    After all, if defendants truly are to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt at a trial before a jury of their peers, then why must our system of justice require grand jury proceedings to remain secret even unto to the public press and thereby the jury pool before a trial is conducted? On what basis ought we the people of The United States of America presume any given criminal defendant to be innocent other than full public disclosure of all of the evidence against that defendant prior to trial, including especially the evidence secretly presented to the grand jury for the purpose of securing search warrants and indictments? Surely it is not enough for the defendant and the defense counsel to discover the evidence to be presented at trial before the trial is conducted so that the defendant and defense counsel can prepare an adequate defense against the charges. The public press and thereby the public writ large as well as each and every last prospective juror who chooses to follow the public press must be given full discovery of all of the evidence against the defendant before the trial is conducted.

    Unless and until all trials are conducted openly in the public press from beginning to end, the presumption of innocence will remain just another dead letter in American jurisprudence. Desperation demands no less than complete transparency at each and every last step along the way. How else should the defendants, themselves, know for an absolute fact that they are indeed innocent?

    1. L4D the alleged witness tampering charge is a crock.
      Manafort contacted a party NOT identified by the SC as a witness,
      He provided them with a link to a news article.

      There is no means in the world that is witness tampering.

      All you do is demonstrate you are lawless. That you have zero problem with applying the law one way for friends and another for enemies.
      That makes you hypocritical and immoral.

      You are arguing that the mere accusation of a crime deprives someone of their rights.
      According to you Manafort is not free to seek out witnesses of his own – because that is what he was actually doing.
      Manafort could have been far MORE directive in his communications.
      In fact he could have reached out to an actual Mueller witness.
      Attempting to persuade a witness against you is not “witness tampering”
      Bribing or threatening them is.

      The prosecution is not entitled to deprive a defendant of free speech prior to trial.
      They are not entitled to threaten and coerce witnesses as they please while depriving the defendent of contact with anyone.

      Mueller and his crew have been bullies from the start.
      It is not even secret that Mueller’s prosecutions of Manafort, Flynn, Papadoulis, Gates are all efforts to coerce them into testifying for him.


      The objective of the SC is supposed to be to get at the Truth, not to bring down big game.

      Where are the indictments of Podesta ?
      We are increasingly discovering that Clinton and her campaign had significant ties to Russia – as well as the Ukraine during the election.
      Where is that investigation ?

        1. Ah, yes, this ludicrous “manchurian candidate” argument.

          The left has gone entirely round the bend.

          And the moon landing was faked too.!!

      1. If the witness tampering was a crock, why did the judge find Manafort in contempt and send him to jail?
        Simply denying facts and spinning with unsupported arguments is not going to carry the day.

        1. Because this judge, like the one who presided over the Conrad Black case, is an accomplice of the prosecutor.

          1. Another failed metaphor. Until recently, based on Judge Ellis’ remarks on the case being brought to cause Manafort to flip, you wwere all praising the judge and anticipating a dismissal. Now, that things haven’t gone your way, Judge Ellis is an “accomplice.” Good luck with that argument.

            1. Did you actually read Ellis’s oppinion.

              He pretty clearly said he has not revised his assessment of the case.

              But after a careful review of the law found no basis for stopping it.

              He found it likely that Mueller had exceeded the initial scope provided him,
              but that ultimately that would not matter, as Rosenstein was free to extend the scope.

              I am not aware of anyone calling Ellis and accomplice.
              Manafort should actually take delight in Ellis’s oppinion.
              While allowing the case to proceed he made it crystal clear he still thought the case was dubious.

              Mueller will likely have a great deal of difficultly getting a conviction in front of Ellis.

        2. No one has held Manafort in Contempt.

          The judge revoked bail.
          She was obligated to do so once Mueller indicted.

          The issue here is that Mueller sought and received an indictiment that is on its face fraudulent.
          That is a violation of the rules of ethics, probably a section 1983 violation, and probably a crime.

          If you want us to have faith in Mueller it would help if he played by the rules.
          If he interpreted the law narrowly as he is required, if he did not file indictments where his own facts do not support the charges.

    2. nice speech but I just couldn’t follow it. what was the point exactly?

      1. The indictments against Manafort were brought by grand juries. The search warrants that led to those indictments were issued by those grand juries. The sum total of dhlii’s dithering digressions on the presumption of innocence necessarily presume that the grand juries that issued those search warrants and returned those indictments against Manafort have somehow, someway deprived Manafort of the presumption of his innocence before either of his trials has begun. That the grand juries have done nothing of the sort will eventually be demonstrated at Manafort’s trials. Until then, the evidence that had been secretly presented to those grand juries will remain secret to all concerned except for Manafort, his defense counsel, the Judges and the prosecutors. None of us will hear that evidence before the jurors at Manafort’s trials hear that evidence. Those jurors are the ones who must presume Manafort’s innocence until Mueller’s team proves Manafort’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

        It is Manafort and Trump (with whom Manafort has a joint defense agreement) who seek to try Manafort’s cases in the public press.

        1. Aside from the claim that this grand jury – like most grand juries everywhere has abdicated its responsibility,

          I am NOT “blaming the grand jury” I am blaming Mueller.

          I have little doubt that A DC GJ, or a DC Jury will convict Manafort of Witness tampering based on the facts Mueller presented.

          That does not alter one iota, that the facts Mueller presented are not even close to “witness tampering”.

          I have noted before that my Wife is a Criminal defense attorney.

          It is here experience that the more serious the crime the less evidence a jury needs to convict.

          One defendent here was convicted of murder, the only actual evidence being on “witnesses” “dream” that he did it.

          Further. if you have the slightest familiarity with our criminal justice system you know that those people capable of assessing difficult to understand evidence are virtually always excluded from the jury. And BTW it is the prosecution that typically excludes them.

          If you are a scientist, doctor, engineer, most professionals, you will not get on a jury.
          No one who is actually capable of evaluating technical evidence ever will.

          No one who understands probability will.

          Do you as an example understand that some circumstantial evidence is dependent and some is independent ?

          That which is independent is additive – two pieces of independent circumstantial evidence raise the probability beyond that of either alone.
          While two pieces of dependent evidence LOWER the probability.

          F. Lee Bailey has actually written extensively on this, decades ago, nothing has changed.

          But Mueller’s indictment is particularly damning.
          The indictment lists the facts that purport to demonstrate the crime.
          They do NOT. Mueller KNOWS that.

          To get an indictment he had to misrepresent the law to the GJ.

          I repeatedly tell you the law must be construed narrowly.

          This is important. If the law is not as a matter of principle construed narrowly, that means “equal protection” does nto exist.

          We are debating here the fact that a GJ in DC or a Jury in DC is highly likely in this case to reach a different outcome than one in Smallsville OH.
          That is not actually typically true of most crimes.

          The fact that is true in this instance inherently means that we have an equal protection problem

          We have a lawlessness problem.

          We get those when their is bias. And the simplest route to bias it to interpret the law broadly in one place and narrowly in another.

          Again that is lawless.

          Tony Podesta is not being subject to law applied the same as Manafort. Even if he was charged and tried a DC Jury would likely aquit him of the same facts.

          That is the definition of lawless.

          The presumption of innocence, the burden of proof, our criminals rights are all supposed to be impediments to the unequal application of the law.
          Because ultimately the law is applied by humans, and it is hard for us to escape our biases. We need rules and laws, and principles and multiple layers of due process to increase the odds that at some step in the process our natural biases will be thwarted.

          The presumption of innocence is not real. It is a legal fiction. It is not true. But still we TRY to live up to it. We use it as an impediement to get in the way of our biases.

          Otherwise we are lawless.

          The left complains about the partisanship, the political division in the country.

          That is a problem of their making and one that is easily solved.

          So long as there are sufficient obstacles, procedural, and otherwise – and the requirement to construe law narrowly is an important one of those,
          it will be very hard for government to act.

          It will be hard to convict Manafort – if the prosecutor is truly required to conform narrowly to the law, if the judge and the jury are equally obliged to do so.
          Neither Manafort nor anyone else will be convicted absent TRULY evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

          This also goes beyond courts and crime.

          If legislation must be passed with overwhelming support,
          it if must be clear. If the courts routinely strike down legislation that is not clear, over broad, or offends the constitution,
          Requiring legislators to get it right.

          Then the only laws we will have are those with overwhelming support that do not offend our constitution.

          We will be closer to limited government and farter from partisanship and polarization.

          It is not the legislation that congress does not pass that tears the country apart.
          It is what DOES pass.

          Changing the constitution, making new law, using force – this should always be DIFFICULT requiting more than the weak blessing of a narrow majority.

        2. Manafort is entitled to try his case in the press.

          AGAIN rights belong to individuals. The state has powers.

          The obligation to speak only through the evidence and only in court is an obligation of the state and the prosecutor.
          Not the defendant.

    3. Of Course Manafort is desperate.

      He is an unsympathetic character being prosecuted aggressively by a team with a long reputation of prosecutorial misconduct and brutality that lead one innocent target to commit suicide, and ruined the lives of many other innocent victims. Mueller has lost several multi-million dollar lawsuits for this and thinks he has done nothing wrong.

      Mueller has set the venue such that conviction is assured, Manafort is being tried quite litterally by the 30% of the country that already buys the idiotic theory that Russia stole the election. He does not stand a chance in hell with a Jury, yet no one in their right mind would beleive that Mueller could get a conviction from an actually representative jury.

      When Trump says this is a witch hunt he is quite right, and Manafort is the first sacrifice.

      1. dhlii, show us the backup for your unsupported claims against Mueller. These are right wing talking points that are untrue.

        1. What unsupported claims ?

          Are you familiar with Muller’s hounding of Richard Jewel ?

          Mueller fixated that the 2001 Anthrax attack came from Ft. Dietrick, the NSF ultimately concluded it more likely came from Iraq.
          Mueller first hounded Steve Hatfill and when that did not pan out they went after Bruce Ivin’s who eventually was driven to suicide.

          The Jewel and Hatfill cases ultimately resulted in multimillion dollar claims against that the government lost.

          Nor is this the only examples of stubborning chasing down the rabbit hole by Mueller.

          Mueller has been directly or indirectly involved in just about every botched investigation for 3 decades.

          It takes very little effort to chase down Mueller.

          Nor do his associates in the OSC have much better records.

            1. but don’t be so sure Mueller is a bungler. Probably I think all that “botched anthrax investigation” was just a cover up. I seriously doubt Fort Detrick lost those samples by accident. I don’t have any special information into that just suspicions.

              Kind of like I suspect that the official narrative the Brits have spun about Novicuk is phony too

              1. Mueller – and to a lessor extent Comey as well as some others on Mueller’s team are tied to nearly every FBI/DOJ bungled operation in 40 years.

                There are myriads of remakrs by people near Mueller than he is a pitt bull. That once he gets something into his head he is relentiless.

                That is great if he is right, but historically he has been wrong alot, and right or wrong nothing disuades him.
                He has no problem pushing a clearly dead investigation beyond anything reasonable into persecution and destruction

                He is pretty much the epitomy of what is wrong with law enforcement.

                He will not accept the possibility he is wrong about anything ever.

                That is the defintion of someone who should NEVER have power.

      2. dhlii,..
        – I just noticed that you’ve been dissed with a demeaning “dithering digression” allegation.
        Those of us in the “base readership” here don’t believe that you should let that pass, so as a tight-knit and the dominant group here, we await your reply.😉

    4. Do you read your own arguments ? You are incapable of distinguishing between ends and means

      The secrecy of an investigation is a means not an end. The END is the protection of the rights of the defendant while achieving justice.

      You left wing nuts are have elevated the secrecy in prosecutions to a weapon AGAINST the defendants.

      Yesterday we had DOJ/FBI and Strzok as well as half of congress fighting to prevent congress and the american people from gaining any knowledge of an investigation that leaks like a seive where the only ones benefiting from “secrecy” are the members of the DOJ/FBI who are hiding their own incompetence and misconduct.

      Again you have confused the ends with the means.

      It is the defendants right to a fair trial – which went out the window a long time ago, that is protected by the rules of secrecy of the DOJ/FBI.
      Given that leaks from FBI/DOJ – many of which are false have already poisoned the public, absolutley nothing is served by your demands for secrecy

      Regardless as was pointed out – though nearly drowned out by the din – Oversight actually trumps secrecy.
      The right to a fair trial, includes the right to an investigation that is conducted honestly.
      It is self evident that DOJ/FBI did not do so with Clinton and are not doing so with Trump.

      We learned yesterday – we have known this for a long time, but not “officially” that some possibly all of the clinton emails were accessed by a hostile foreign power – and not Russia.

      Do you think there is a chance in hell that Clinton would have avoided Jail much less gotten elected, if the people knew that here recklessness compromised national security ?

      These are the kinds of information that are being hidden from not just the american people – but congress.
      And those on the left like you are actually conspiring to do so ?

      1. dhlii, no yesterday we had Gowdy, Issa, Gomert, et al. hunting for Strozk’s scalp. They failed miserably, only demonstrated their dishonest partisanship. They tried to rally themselves with stump speeches, but again they failed.
        So now the fallback position is that secrecy is preventing them from getting at the truth which they claim (with no evidence) exonerates Trump, et al.

        1. LOLZ you guys crack me up. Only dyed in the wool DC parasites and Democrat gravy train people can’t see the writing on the wall. Sztroke has done immense damage to the FBI but really it was good for conservatives to trust their government a lot less. the FBI is filled with a lot of good people but also a lot of political hacks like Sztroke. It’s become a sort of political prosecution machine and he really epitomizes it.

        2. Aparently you watched an entirely different hearing that I did.

          Lets start from the Top – though this was all addressed in the hearing.

          The DOJ/FBI do have a policy of not commenting on ongoing investigations. Such policy is not law, nor does it supercede the congresses power and authority according to the constitution. Congress is prefectly free to demand whatever information they want – in public or private about nearly anything the executive is doing. The only legally recognized executive priviledge barring disclosure is executive priviledge, only the white house can assert that, and it only pertains to direct communication of advice between someone in the executive and the president.

          Congress often defers where National Security is an issue, but there is no national security priviledge that allows the executive to deny information to congress.
          Members of congress and their staffs, particularly on the intelligence committee’s have security clearances. If necescary the hearing can be done behind closed doors.
          The FBI/DOJ can complain about leaks and prosecute them. But it can not deny congress information it demands.

          The FBI attorney is not Strzok’s attorney. There is no priviledge to communications between Strzok and the FBI attorney.
          Nor is Strzok subject to discipline when congress demands that he act contrevening DOJ/FBI policy.

          There is a risk associated with discussing an ongoing investigation in congress. That risk is best reflected by the Iran Contra investigations where the congressional investigation and testimony made subsequent criminal prosecutions impossible.

          But the call on that is for Congress – not DOJ/FBI.

          What I saw was half the committee attempting to excercise oversight on the beginings of the Trump/Russia investigation.
          A “matter” where there are very serious questions.
          A matter where the conduct of the DOJ/FBI is extremely problematic.

          The Democrats were bussily trying to use false points of order, bad parlimentary procedures, and every other illegitimate tactic possible to impede the committee doing what it was scheduled to do.

          Please explain why Strzok was before the committee – if you concurrently beleive he can not testify about anything ?
          If Democrats had an issue with Strzok testifying – they should have raised it earlier.

          I saw Peter Strzok testify – or mostly duck testifying. He came off cocky and arrogant, and challenging Congress.
          He came off incredibly self righteous. IF you step up onto the moral soap box – you had damn well better be pure as snow.
          You do not get to say I am the most ethical man in the room when you have all those hystrionic texts.

          Get a clue, he undermined his credibility severely. You can cede the texts as a mistake, and try to assert they did not effect your judgement.
          But in doing so you properly make inquiry into your intentions and actions material.
          What you can not do is say – I made a mistake, it did not effect my judgement, and you have no right to inquire into whether it did.

          Rep. Gohmert lost his temper at Strzok – probably as a consequence of some of the idiotic faces that Strzok was making at congressmen.
          Did you actually look at Strzok ? While one particularly sequence was unbeleivably shocking, from begiinning to end he looked like an arrogant definat teenager demanding “Make Me” not one of the most senior FBI agents in the country.
          But Gohmert also noted one of the most interesting facts.

          Strzok’s emails demonstrate that a hostile foreign power – not Russia, gained access to some, possibly all of Clinton’s bathroom server emails, including atleast one that was secret.

          Comey’s exhoneration of Clinton, rests on the weak reed that she was reckless but caused no harm. Strzok’s emails shred that reed.

          Does anyone think that Clinton could get elected dog catcher if it was revealed that her Sec State classified emails were being read by hostile foreign powers as a result of her own recklessness ?

          I listened to alot of republican questions.
          The House democrats actively sought to provide cover for Strzok and the DOJ/FBI,.
          Strzok grand standed badly and refused to answer.

          1. dhlii,…
            I wonder if a substantial percentage if Demicrats will protect and “adopt” Strzok the way they’ve am”adopted” Comey.
            Especially those up for re-election.
            A little experiment might reveal something about the “outrage” and obstruction of some of the Democrats in the committee yesterday:
            Everything is exactly the same, except that you substitute Hillary’s name for Trump’s in the Strzok-Page texts.
            That includes the bit about ” we will stop her”.
            And Strzok prioritizes the renewed Hillary-Abedin-Carlos Danger laptop investigation, instead of sitting on it for a month.
            Those same Democrats throwing the tantrums yesterday
            about how rough Strzok was being questioned would be throwing even bigger tantruns directed at the obnoxious, sneering Strzok.
            That same exoeriment can be applied to those Democrats everywhere who are stumbling all over the place trying to understate the seriousness of what Strzok, and others, did.
            On the point about the FBI’s policy re commenting about ongoing investigations; I just saw part of the recent testimony of IG Horowitz and FBI Dir. Rhay before the Senate committee.
            It looked to me like changes to and/or defining FBI/ DOJ policies, procedures, regulations, etc. is still a work in progress.
            They both said as much, and one exchange involving a Senator’s question about an investigation illustrated what they were wrestling with.
            The Senator asked Horowitz about the status of an investigation….I think it concerned the information Giuliani got , the advanced notice that the Hillary email investigation was to be reopened.
            These guys are now so gunshy that they would not confirm or deny that there even was an investigation.
            Comey has mentioned that investigation ( he wasn’t able to track down the source of the heads-up to Giuliani), committee menbers probably know that there is ( or was) an investigation, committes have oversight issues and responsiblities and are entitled to some information, etc.
            Just this one exchange, on this one narrow issue indicated to me that either 1.- The DOJ/FBI had finalized an ironclad, universal ban on releasing any information about an active investigation to anyone, or 2.- they were still trying to decide if they should go that far, and box themselves in.

            1. They”ll continued to be stonewalled until the Sergeant-at-Arms shows up at Rosenstein’s home with some Capitol Police officers and claps him in chains in the basement of the Capitol. When they’re in contempt, that’s what you have to do, or nothing will be done. (Well, you can refer it to the DoJ, ha ha).

        3. We have several competing narratives at the moment – some have evidence. Some do not.

          The first is that the Obama administration used the power of the IRS CIA, NSA, State, DOJ/FBI to protect friends and target enemies.
          That goes beyond the mess they made of the Trump/Russia investigation.
          There are plenty of facts to support that Narrative.
          Had Republicans supported Nixon’s misconduct they way democrats have Obama’s Nixon would have finished his term

          Of every issue we face right now, this is the most serious.

          If Russia actually hacked our election – this is more serious.
          If Trump actually colluded with Russia – this is more serious.

          Political Corruption in our government is more serious that of other governments or private political corruption.

          The next is that Russia interfered in our election.
          If they did so via “persuasion” – Social Media – so what ? there is little you can do, and nothing you should do
          Further the left seems to think the Russians have magical powers of persuasion far beyond those of madison avenue.

          If they actually hacked our elections – that is something we can do something about. But democrats ran away from the presidentical election commission that was supposed to investigate that.

          Frankly the evidence is pretty thin.

          Further there is a separate issue – again one that is the legitimate scope of congress.
          The Intelligence community has a reputation for error on major matters – like Iraq, the collapse of the USSR, ……
          It is extremely legitimate for congress to question their conclusions and to demand proof.
          While it is the Role of the intelligence community to provide us with such assessments. it is the role of congress to determine whether we can trust those assessments.
          The IC has a long reputation for bad judgement. There is no “just trust us” that is applicable here.
          Serious scrutiny is required.

          Finally there is the issue of Trump/Russia coordination.
          After 2 years of thorough investigation – that is a fantasy. We have more links between Russia and Clinton than Trump.

          Of all these things the left seems to but them in reverse order of credibility.
          The most serious with the most evidence they pretend is fabrication.
          The least serious with the least evidence is dogma.

    5. The right of the public to know, is a right to know what our government is up to, not what our neighbor is up to.

      Your logic and argument is complete crap.

      A fair trial is the right of the DEFENDANT.

      The government has powers, not rights.

      It is the defendant who is entitled to both know the entirety of the governments case AHEAD OF TRIAL, and to have a jury pool hho has not been polluted by government misrepresentations of the case.

      It is the defendant who has the right to secrecy – or NOT as they so choose.
      The courts have no actual right to silence a defendant or defense council, but an absolute right to silence the prosecution.

      The Defendant also has the right to a prosecution by judges, juries, and even prosecutors and investigators who are not biased against them.
      Who are prosecuting crimes, not people.

      1. dude you better believe governments have rights too and a lot of them,. most importantly the right to say what our rights are ! LOL I’m crying as I type that

        1. you better believe governments have rights too and a lot of them,. most importantly the right to say what our rights are !

          That will certainly be heard as music to Annie/Inga/L4D’s ears.

        2. Nope,

          Rights belong solely to individuals.
          Nor does government decide what they are.

          You seem to think that because a criminal commits a crime and gets away with it, that makes it OK

          We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,

          1. Ahem. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    6. We’re you a classmate of Mike Cohen at the country’s worst law school? Of course Mueller monitored his phone calls with people other than his lawyers. With manfort’s history I’d be surprised that his called weren’t monitored.

      1. Absent a warrant you are not free to monitor just anyones phone calls.
        We can monitor convicted prisoners – because they are convicted.

  8. Paul wasn’t eating junk jail food either. How do you like your steak? Medium rare.

    1. I do not care if Manafort is getting serviced daily by prostitutes.

      At this point he is considered innocent legally.
      An accusation is not sufficient to deprive him of his rights.

      1. He has a right to a trial by jury. Since he engaged in witness tampering, he remains in jail. He may be safer there.

        1. According to the facts from Muellers indictment, Manafort contacted a person who was not identified as a Mueller witness and queried whether they agreed with a story in the media.

          Only Mueller and left wing nuts – and a DC Grand Jury would call that witness tampering.

          1. you gotta understand this. federales don’t like the accused doing anything to talk to anybody it’s a pretty common form of pressure against defendants. people know this.

            by contrast one thing I find most sinister against Manafort is them busting him for FARA compliance. nobody cared about that before Mueller dusted it off and put it into action.


            somehow that’s not an issue, off the radar, nobody cares. its a fast news cycle and has no depth. Dhilli, you have good ideas about the rights of the accused, consider law school

            1. My ideas are not new, they are hundreds of years old.

              I am 60. I am not going to law school

      2. Mueller has provided the judges (DC and VA) sufficient evidence of crimes. The judges look at that and other factors when determining bail. Manafort was out on bail when he attempted to influence potential witnesses. He belongs in jail.

        1. The first place a Judge must look when determining bail is the 8th amendment.
          Reasonable bail is a constitutional RIGHT.

        2. You really need to read Mueller’s indictment, you have your facts wrong.

          The person Manafort contacted was not a person Mueller identified as a witness.

          Mueller has Manafort’s text’s to that person.

          They are neither an effort to bribe or threaten.

          You seem to think that linking to an article that says Manafort’s consulting group did not operate in the US,
          and agreeing is witness tampering.

          Please explain how ?

          I would further ask – isn’t the defendant permitted the same lattitude when dealing with potential witnesses as the prosecutor ?

          If Manafort’s text is witness tampering, then I do not know a police officer or prosecutor that should not be in jail for witness tampering.

          There is not one law for law enforcement and another for the rest of us.

  9. Our friends on the left don’t like the 1 st and 2 nd amendments. Is presumption of innocence next?

    1. The presumption of innocence died a long long time ago.

      My arguments regarding it are spitting into the wind.

      Though they are still valid arguments and demonstrate how screwed up our system is.

      Further left and right have both been complicit in the destruction of our rights.

      1. Your concept of the presumption of innocence is apparently not grounded in reality. It means that the prosecution must prove at trial, through presentation of evidenced, both physical and testimonial, that the defendant committed the offense. What has been established at this time is that sufficient probable cause exists to charge Manafort with a crime and to proceed to trial on those charges. HIs current incarceration is due to his willful violation of the terms of his release on bail. There is nothing odd or unusual about the process so far. I suggest stepping away from the video games and immersing yourself in the real world, beginning with some reading on the criminal justice system and its historical development.

        1. what Gerald said about probable cause and revoking his bail was rude but basically right. yet, I think there are two odd things.

          1- his prosecution emanates from a probe of Russian tampering in our elections, but, the criminal conduct alleged relates to things that came long before the election. so there is a hint of persecution about it on that level.

          2- correct me if I am wrong but one of the charges was failure to register as a foreign agent which is a law almost universally observed only in the omission. nobody has mentioend that in a while but i recall it was a topic when the indictments were revealed. so that seems like persecution too.

        2. “Your concept of the presumption of innocence is apparently not grounded in reality.”
          “It means that the prosecution must prove at trial, through presentation of evidenced, both physical and testimonial, that the defendant committed the offense.”
          Basically correct
          “What has been established at this time is that sufficient probable cause exists to charge Manafort with a crime and to proceed to trial on those charges.”
          While I do nto actually agree that probable cause exists, there is an indictment which is prima facia evidence of probable cause – and in this instance that you can get anything from a grand jury.
          “HIs current incarceration is due to his willful violation of the terms of his release on bail.”
          The 8th amendment establishes reasonable bail as a right – not something you have to negotiate for.
          “There is nothing odd or unusual about the process so far.”
          Correct – Manafort is not being treated unusually. Most criminally defendents are treated unconstitutioanlly.

          “I suggest stepping away from the video games and immersing yourself in the real world,”
          I am almost 60, and have played maybe 3hr of video games in my life.
          I suggest that you need some time in the real world as you are jumping to assumptions.

          “beginning with some reading on the criminal justice system and its historical development.”
          I am quite familiar with the justice system.
          Would you mean things like
          The Magna Carte
          The Bill of Rights of 1689
          The Habeus Corpus act of 1679

  10. We have a criminal statute here dealing with just this issue:

    RCW 49.44.040

    Obtaining employment by false letter or certificate.

    Every person who shall obtain employment or appointment to any office or place of trust, by color or aid of any false or forged letter or certificate of recommendation, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

    [ 1909 c 249 § 371; RRS § 2623.]

    I find it interesting how statutes such as this remain unchanged for over a hundred years, often the result of falling into obscurity through lack of interest or enforcement. They can prove useful occasionally yet trying to get the prosecutor’s office or LEA administrators to go along is often difficult since it involves form out of the box thinking.

    1. This was not obtaining a job, this was obtaining a raise.
      We construe the law narrowly.

      Frankly I am quite iffy on the law.

      The forgery itself might be an independent crime.

      I have zero problem with terminating employment.

      We to often confuse what is immoral with what should be illegal.
      That is a bad idea.

    2. There is a statory construction issue here. Is it any forged letter but only a forged certificate If it is one of recommendation or or must the forged letter be one of recommendation.

    1. Do not care.

      Our system pretends that we are innocent until proven guilty.
      Being accused of a crime may not cost you rights that the government could not infringe on had you not been accused.

      Presuming that the court properly took Manafort’s liberty away pending trial – which is another huge debate.
      that does not allow them to spy on him without a warrant.

      I understand that is not the state of the law, and that the supreme court has condoned this abuse of rights.
      That does not change the fact that it is despicable and immoral.

      Nor do I care whether we are talking Manafort or jack the ripper.

      Once you have been convicted, then the government can deny you of your rights.
      Before that you are innocent and must be treated as such.

      1. Just curious as to what you would do with an accused Jack the Ripper who had the means to run and/or eliminate all witnesses against himself?

        1. deny bail. but manafort is not accused of murder. he’s accused of money laundering and failure to register as a foreign agent which i think is almost never prosecuted in the first place. so the gravity of the crimes are pretty different.

        2. Whether an accused has the means to run or to kill all witnesses against them is irrelevant.

          To restrict one’s liberty you must demonstrate the probability that they will do so.

          Much regarding Manafort’s bail revokation fixates on the terms of his “release”.
          That is an error.

          There is one and only one compelling issue.
          Mueller indicted Manafort for tampering with a witness.
          While I believe that indictment is on its fact a fraud and an ethical violation on Mueller’s part.
          From the courts perspective it is prima fascia evidence that Manafort committed a crime while on bail.
          That is the only legitimate basis in this instance for bail revocation.

          And worse that rests on misconduct by the OSC.

  11. It is entirely possible that Mueller’s effort to jail manafort was explicitly so that he could monitor his phone calls.

    I would remind everyone that Manafort is not convicted of anything,

    But our justice system shits on the presumption of innocence all the time, so I am not surprised that it does so regarding Manafort.

    1. Manafort violated the terms of the Court Order releasing him to the high-intensity supervision program. That alone could have landed Manafort in pre-trial detention. But the OSC indicted Manafort and Kilimnik for witness tampering as well. The idea that the presumption of innocence prohibits the revocation of a defendant’s release to the high-intensity supervision program is equivalent to the idea that those defendants who are presumed innocent must be left free to commit fresh crimes or to flee The Court’s jurisdiction, or both. Besides, Manafort signed a contract, then breached that contract. No more special pleading for Manafort.

      1. So because Manafort ignored one unconstitutional restriction on his liberty government may take away his liberty entirely ?

        You seem to think the government is free to do with us as it pleases.
        That courts can order whatever they please.

        Manafort is presumed innocent, he is entitled by the 8th amendment to bail.

        There are very few legitimate reasons government can incarcerating him without convicting.
        None of those existed.

        Mueller did indict Manafort for Witness tampering.
        The facts listed in the indictment do not constitute witness tampering.

        Manafort did not threaten or bribe anyone, and he did not contact (though he does have the right to) an identified witness of the prosecution.

        The text of Mueller’s indictment says that Manafort sought our someone to act as a witness in his favor, and asked if their testimony would match that of a news article.
        That is not witness tampering. That is preparing for trial.

        All that the indictment proves is the adage that a prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.

          1. New York State chief judge Sol Wachtler was famously quoted by Tom Wolfe in The Bonfire of the Vanities that “a grand jury would ‘indict a ham sandwich,’ if that’s what you wanted.”

      2. The high intensity supervision program is itself an unconstitutional infringement on a defendant’s liberty.

        Rights belong to individuals – you do not lose your rights because you are accused of a crime.

        The govenrment can seek to assure that Manafort is not a danger to others pending trial, and that he can not flee.
        That is ALL.

        The government is no entitled to subject a defendant to unusual scrutiny or any other loss of rights.

      3. Not merely the presumption of innocence, but all of an individuals rights remain sacred until one is convicted.

        You can not contract away your rights.
        You can not sell your self into slavery.

  12. While it might be considered necessary to monitor prisoner’s calls, it seems outrageous that transcripts would be released to the public, or to anyone.

    1. Manafort is not convicted of a crime. There is no reasonable basis for monitoring his calls.

      I understand that is not how our system works – but it is wrong.

      1. The presumption of innocence does not afford one any expectation of privacy while in the custody of the jail.

        1. “The presumption of innocence does not afford one any expectation of privacy while in the custody of the jail.”

          Yes, it actually does.

          Your logic is inverted.

          The governments breach of one right, can not itself justify breaching others.

          1. Because pre-trial detention is supposedly unconstitutional, therefore monitoring the communications of defendants in pre-trial detention is supposedly unconstitutional. IOW, the government has no power to put criminal defendants into situations where those criminal defendants have no reasonable expectation of privacy. In consequence of which the government also has no power to compel criminal defendants to submit to the jurisdiction of the courts wherein those criminal defendants shall exercise their right to a fair and speedy public trial. Moreover, the government has no power to prevent criminal defendants from committing fresh criminal offenses while out on bail nor after having fled the jurisdiction of the court.

            Ergo, The Constitution truly is a suicide pact.

            1. “Because pre-trial detention is supposedly unconstitutional, therefore monitoring the communications of defendants in pre-trial detention is supposedly unconstitutional.”

              The 8th amendment requires reasonable bail.
              The 4th amendment requires a warrant to conduct a search.

              The 4th amendment does not have “expectation of privacy language” and if you read Carpenter, the court is properly headed away from “expectation of privacy” and back towards do you have established rights in what is being searched.
              i.e. You communications may not be searched because they are YOURS,
              You can loe the expectation of privacy when you AFFIRMATIVELY release it – as by posting your letters on a public builitn board.
              But you do not lose it merely because YOUR phone service – something you contracted for from a third party, is provided to you by a third party who keeps records of YOUR communications. These are still YOUR records, and you have not affirmatively waived privacy.

              With respect to monitoring phone calls during detention.

              Infringing you your freedom of movement – justifiably or not, does not create a grant to government to infringe on your other liberties.

              If you are detained awaiting Trial – can the government conduct medical experiements on you ?
              Of Course not!.
              The loss of one right is not the loss of all rights.

              “the government has no power to put criminal defendants into situations where those criminal defendants have no reasonable expectation of privacy. ”
              Bzzt, wrong.

              Does logic entirely escape you ? Do you not grasp that you are essentially saying that once government has the right to detain you.
              The convience and desires of government Trump all your other rights ?

              The entire purpose of government is to secure your rights. Even while being detained.
              Do you lose your right to a speedy trial – if you are detained ? Of course not!
              In fact in most cases the opposite is true. The government typically has LESS time to try you if it detains you.
              Further it must release you withour bail if it detains you beyond that limit.
              Under some circumstance if the government detains you to long it loses the power to try you at all.

              “In consequence of which the government also has no power to compel criminal defendants to submit to the jurisdiction of the courts wherein those criminal defendants shall exercise their right to a fair and speedy public trial.:

              Does this sentence mean something ?

              “Moreover, the government has no power to prevent criminal defendants from committing fresh criminal offenses while out on bail nor after having fled the jurisdiction of the court.
              Ergo, The Constitution truly is a suicide pact.”

              The requirement that government respect our rights, that it provide procedural and substantive due process, are not a “suicide pact”

              If Government is unable to detain you before trial without violating other rights – then it may not detain you.
              It is that simple.
              If it is unable to convict you without violating your rights, then you are legally innocent.
              That simple.

      2. As usual, you are incorrect about the law.

        If a judge rules you are in contempt of court, you will be jailed. There are no excuses for disobeying a court order to not contact witnesses.

        If you believe the court made a mistake in ordering you to stop contacting them, the appropriate step is to take the case to appeal.

        He deserves to be held until the trial is over.

        1. First, there is lots of bad law out there.
          We should all acknowledge that.

          I am not making an argument based on the law as it is – which is a self contradictory mess.

          That said,
          Contempt is a civil not criminal matter,
          and the court can only jail you until you clear the contempt.

          Next Manafort did not disobey a court order not to contact witnesses.
          Manafort did not contact any of the 56 witnesses Mueller identified.

          Mueller’s claim that he did would be unethical. Either Mueller failed to identify all his witnesses as required as part of discovery,
          or he is lying about whether the person Manafort contacted is a witness.

          But you do not seem to are about ethics much.

          Nor can the court constitutionally prohibit contact with witnesses.

          The defendant has the right to contact even the prosecutions witnesses,
          But may not threaten or bribe them.
          Manafort is not alleged to have done either.

          There is virtually no right of appeal – as the trial will be long over before any appelate court would decide.

          “He deserves to be held until the trial is over.”
          That is pretty much exactly the opposite of what the 8th amendment says.
          It is also damning evidence that you have abandoned the presumption of innocence.

          1. It will be the jurors at Manafort’s trials who shall presume Manafort innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. One of the principle reasons for the secrecy of grand jury proceedings is to avoid contaminating the pool of potential jurors with prejudice against the defendant.

            1. L4D,…
              Of course the jurors that have unfavorable preconceived notions/ prejudices will be weeded out.
              All jurors are screened to be SURE😉 that they have a presumption of innocence going in.😒
              And the protections against negative pre-trial publicity are evident in the lack of any negative coverage of Manafort, leaked or otherwise.
              So we know that the jury pool will be uncontaminated, if they are illiterate.

              1. If L4D beleives the evidence is compelling,
                Then try the case in smallville OH.

                Aside from convenience which is not a right,
                there is no legitiamate reason for a prosecutor to actually care about venue.

                A criminal defendent has a right to atleast try to secure the jury least likely to convict him.

                The prosecution does NOT have a right to the jury most likely to convict.

                Personally this is a stupid farce.
                I expect Manafort will be convicted or some of what he has been indicted for.
                I expect his lawyers will slowly whittle away at that through appeals.
                If there is anything left after SCOTUS has spoken Trump will years from now pardon Manafort for that.

                In the meantime we will have wasted half of forever and accomplished nothing.

            2. “It will be the jurors at Manafort’s trials who shall presume Manafort innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. ”
              Nope, that presumption starts the moment that the government takes an interest in you lasts through to conviction, and applies to the entire government throughout the process.

              “One of the principle reasons for the secrecy of grand jury proceedings is to avoid contaminating the pool of potential jurors with prejudice against the defendant.”

              All government actions including grand jury proceedings are required to protect the rights of citiznes.
              That is the sole purpose of government.

              That is an obligation of GOVERNMENT – it is not an obligation of criminal defendants and their lawyers.

              The Grand Jury must be silent. The prosecutor must be silent – outside of presenting his evidence in court.
              The court must be silent.
              The defendant can say whatever he pleases.

              Individuals have rights, Government has powers.

      3. Yes, there is a basis for monitoring him. If you commit contempt of court, you lose your right to privacy while you are being jailed for it.

        This is Criminal Law 101.

        He absolutely should be in jail. The correct move to take if you disagree with a court order is to take it up on appeal.

        If people could pick and choose to obey whatever court orders they wanted, the legal system would become chaotic.

        1. Manafort did not “commit contempt”.

          He contacted a person that he was not precluded from contacting, and tried to determine if they would be a witness in his favor.

          Manafort is not being jail for contempt. He is being held over for trial in a manner that violates the 8th amendment.
          You lose some of your rights when you are actially convicted of a crime.
          That has not occured.

        2. I am in the midst of a legal conflict right now where the law, the facts, and several court orders are being ignored completely.

          The legal system is chaotic.

          I am asking you to return to the rule of law.
          To abandon this nonsense that you can support the law when it suits and favors your friends or harms your enemies and oppose the same law when the opposite is true.

          1. dhlii: The judge in this case ordered him not to talk to any witnesses as a part of the terms of his house arrest.

            He did this, and therefore violated the court’s order. This is a prima facie case of contempt.

            The law does allow judges to place a ban on contacting witnesses before a trial because defendants often try to get witnesses to lie to protect them.

            Courts can also place gag orders on parties to a case from talking to the public because they can attempt to prejudice juries by have cases tried in the press.

            Contempt of court can be either a civil or criminal violation.


            See section 3 of this statute.

            1. “The judge in this case ordered him not to talk to any witnesses as a part of the terms of his house arrest.”

              Manafort was not under “house arrest” – he is not even now “under arrest”.
              He is being detained while waiting for trial.

              The 8th amendment requires reasonable bail – it is a RIGHT.
              There are limited conditions under which that right can be infringed.

              The fact that Manafort agreed to some terms to preserve rights he never should have had to give up is meaningless.

              Separately Manafort did not contact a “witness” – unless everyone in the world is a witness.
              Mueller provided the defense a list of witnesses, the person Manafort contacted was not on that list.

              Manafort does actually have a right to contact Mueller’s witnesses.
              What he may not do is bribe or threaten them.

              There is not a prosecution right to corral its witness and protect them from any influence that might cause them to rethink their views.

              Manafort contacted a non-witness, linked a news article that supported his innocence and offered a few words afirming the correctness of that article.

              At most Manafort was soliciting a witness for his own defence.

              Are you actually going to argue that criminal defendents are not permitted to seek witnesses that will testify favorably for them ?

              BTW – virtually everything above comes from Mueller’s indictment – the “facts” are not in dispute.

              To indict Manafort Mueller spun the facts above into a crime, and persuaded a Grand Jury to indict.

              That is a major ethical failure.

              “He did this, and therefore violated the court’s order. This is a prima facie case of contempt.”
              Manafort violated a court order that violated his rights – it is the court that is contemptible.
              The rule of law requires that the court follow the constitution and protect the rights of the defendant – even when the defendant is unappealing.

              “The law does allow judges to place a ban on contacting witnesses before a trial because defendants often try to get witnesses to lie to protect them.”
              In the unlikely event you find law that says what you claim – it is unconstitional.
              The law on witness tampering requires the threat of force or bribery. Those were not present.

              At the moment we do not know what the Truth is – though Manafort’s version of the specific fact in dispute is more credible than Mueller’s.
              You have no idea whether Manafort was attempting to get a witness to lie, or attempting to get a witness to tell the truth.

              Your argument violates the presumption of innocence. You are essentially saying – the prosecutor says you are guilty. Therefore any effort to get a witness to say otherwise is witness tampering.

              “Courts can also place gag orders on parties to a case from talking to the public because they can attempt to prejudice juries by have cases tried in the press.”
              Bzzt, wrong, The courts authority is primarly over the prosecutor, to a lessor extent it is over the defense attorney – as they are an officier of the court.
              The court has little authority over the defendant, and can not legitimately supress their right to free speach.

              The right to an impartial jury belongs to the defendant NOT the prosecutor. Government has powers NOT rights.
              The defendant, and third parties have unlimited freedom to spin a case in the press however they wish and the court can do nothing to stop them.

              “Contempt of court can be either a civil or criminal violation.”
              Criminal contempt is something quite different. Everything we are dealing with here is civil contempt – it it is any violation at all.

              Judges are not free to create crimes from whole cloth.
              I would further note that Criminal contempt is a crime. That means Manafort is entitled to a presumption of innocence and a trial – by another judge.

              Civil contempt is far more powerful, because the judge alone can imprison you – pretty much without appeal until you clear the contempt.

      4. I would say that everybody knows that calls from jail are monitored unless protected by atty client privilege so there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.

        there is a far bigger issue to pick where we are all, citizens, most likely still having our calls surveilled by the NSA with no warrants in mass data collections, the way we were before Snowden’s revelations, and that kind of just went away as an issue.

        1. You are upside down on this.

          Even presuming that govenrment can legitimately infringe on one right of a presumed innocent person while awaiting Trial, it can not contstruct that infringement such that it infringes on other rights.

          The expectation of privacy in your communications is the DEFAULT.
          Placing manafort in a situation where he not only is incarcerated, but has lost many other rights unnecescarily is beyond what the government is entitled to do without conviction.

          I fully agree regarding mass surveilance.
          But we have to start reclaiming the 4th amendment somewhere.

          1. if you are interested maybe you should go to law school and join the national association of criminal defense lawyers. and sign up for a paycheck from the county or US working for public defenders. then you can challenge this kind of thing day in and day out and have fun wrestling with Leviathan

            1. Mr. Kurtz.

              My wife is a prominent criminal defense attorney and has been for decades.
              She went to UofP as an adult and graduated with honors.
              I was her study partner. I already have the equivalent of an Ivy league legal education.
              Further though I am neither the lawyer, nor want to be that she is. I do not have the personality for it,
              and I can not cope with the mess that our politicians have made of our legal system,
              between my wife and I, I am the better informed on constitutional issues.

              She consults me for two things – the first is the state of constitutional law, as well as the theoretical basis.
              And as a sounding board for how a jury will respond.

              I am pretty poor at the latter, as I am far more logical than ordinary people,
              regardless, if I will not accept the possibility of someone’s innocence, she is not going to make any ground with juries or judges.

              As to your suggestion – follow it to the end and you will see exactly why I will not take your advice.

              I have most of the skills necescary for a great defense lawyer – save one major one.
              I can not tilt at windmills every day all day and lose all the time.

              Our government and our legal system was intended and really is required to be both small, and absolute.

              Simple bright line rules that apply equally to all. Black, white, gay straight, rich poor.

              We have destroyed that. At this moment the left leads the charge for “the rule of man, not law”, but advocacy of lawlessness has been a facet of both parties politics at one time or another.

              We are debating all kinds of issues regarding Manafort here.

              But the legal principle that one is presumed innocent – not only is supposed to be enshrined in our law,
              but is actually a logical requirement for a working system. Most of our rights are not constructed from whole cloth.
              Most can be derived logically from the first principle of free will. Just as mathmeticisns and logicians derive entire systems from a few principles – axioms.

              From free will we can logically derive the presumption of innocence.
              From that we can derive the 8th amendments requirement for reasonable bail.
              And from those we can relatively quickly establish that our handling of unconvicted defendents, violated the 8th amendment, violates the presumption of innocence and violates the core principle of free will that western society rests on.

              The logic and reasoning is immutable. You can not refute it without introducing fallacies.

              I have noted before that I am an embedded software developer. My work is very near pure logic. You can not make an appeal to emotion to a CPU. It will not listen, it will not care. Your logic must be perfect, or it will not do what you want.

              Free Will does not require that everything is logical – in fact it is pretty much the opposite.
              But it absolutely requires that the use of force aka government and law must be logical. which is also why it must be limited.

    2. It is not necescary and not proper, but it is done and the courts allow it.

      1. Excerpted from the Politico article to which Turley linked in the Original post for this thread:

        “Manafort is not allowed to send or receive emails while in jail. But Mueller’s prosecutors said Manafort ‘appears to have developed a workaround.’ During his monitored phone calls, Manafort has told people he reads and composes emails on a second laptop that his lawyers have ‘shuttled in and out’ of the jail. Then his lawyers sent the messages after they’ve left the prison.”

        OMG. Manafort is a dope. And his lawyers are also dopes–unless they read those emails to screen out incriminating statements before they sent the messages.

        1. L4D

          Restrictions on a person who is accused’s communications prior to conviction is an unconstitutional violation of his rights.

          You may not infringe on a persons rights without convicting them first.

          Whether Manafort and his lawyers are “Stupid” or not is their problem.

          Manafort has the right to communicate with whoever he pleases.
          If government wants to monitor that communication – it needs a warrant.

          1. While you are in jail, you do not have a right to privacy. Your calls will be monitored.

            People will watch you in the shower. They will watch you use the toilet. They will watch you getting dressed.

            In Virginia, Neil William Lyness was charged in 2013 with two counts of involuntary manslaughter, accused of causing a wrong-way crash in which a mother and daughter died. At the time of the crash, he had four kinds of medication in his system, including a pain reliever called Tramadol. While awaiting trial, Lyness was asked during a recorded jail call how much Tramadol he took. “Who knows,” he said. “I probably did like I did before and ate 50 … ” After that phone call became part of the prosecution’s case, Lyness pleaded guilty instead of going to trial. Then, before sentencing in 2015, he spoke on the phone with a woman who exhorted him to go into court and show remorse. Lyness laughed, according to The Virginian-Pilot, which wrote up the conversation like this:

            “It’s hard to talk to you about [expletive] like that because, I don’t know, I don’t really feel like that,” Lyness said.

            The woman tried again: “Well, you don’t feel the least bit terrible that there was a little girl and a mother that got killed, honey?”

            “What the [expletive] am I supposed to feel?” Lyness responded. “There’s nothing I can do about it.”

            The prosecutors played that tape for the judge, who hammered Lyness, giving him a 20½-year sentence, twice again as long as the state’s recommended sentence.

            1. “While you are in jail, you do not have a right to privacy. Your calls will be monitored.”

              Bzzt wrong – and quite stupidly so.

              By your argument the government can infringe on anyone’s rights, merely by charging with a crime and denying them bail.

              Rights do not work that way.

              Whether you are a criminal defendant or not, you retain your rights until you are CONVICTED of a crime.
              Even after conviction, you retain many rights. But that is a completely different debate.

              I am aware of myriads of cases like your example. I am not arguing that our rights are not routinely violated.
              In fact I am arguing the opposite. Prosecutors routinely seek to place criminal defendants in jail specifically so that they can monitor their calls and subject them to snitches.
              Basically to put them into a pressure cooker where hopefully they will break and say or do something stupid.

              The norm is that real criminals don’t. They “know” how the system works, they have no expectation of getting off and they are used to the environment.
              The innocent, or the less guilty on the other hand are fragile and stressed and often do something stupid.

              I would suggest reading John Grishom’s “an innocent man” – it will give you a very good idea of the various games that prosecutors, police and jails play to stress those in their custody into doing something stupid.

              I do not know VA, but in my state – which is NOT a fountain of enlightenment regarding Criminal rights, a sentence significantly outside the normal range without far more justification than provided is an “illegal sentence” and would easily be overturned on appeal.

              I would further note that the police and prisons are not entitled to record the converstations of prisoners for the purposes of obtaining evidence of the crime they are charged with.
              They are permitted to do so using the pretextual justification that they need to do so to ensure the safety of the prison.

              Unfortunately our courts – including SCOTUS have found that pretext sufficient to permit violating a persons 4th amendment rights.
              But then the courts – with support from nutjobs right and left such as yourself have spent the past several decades shredding the 4th amendment.

              But the words still remain in the text of the constitution.

              If you want to search a person, their property, their papers, their communications.
              Provide probable cause that the search will yeild specific evidence of a crime and get a warrant.

              That should apply to manafort as well as ever person in jail awaiting trial.

              It arguable should apply to those in jail convicted of a crime.
              Because all rights are not waived by a criminal conviction.

              1. In Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 104 S. Ct. 3194, 82 L. Ed. 2d 393 (1984), the Supreme Court declared that prisoners do not have a Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures of their property because the Fourth Amendment is inapplicable to them.

                1. Marry – technically Manafort is not a prisoner, he is just being held waiting for trial. Not sure if your case hits all four corners.

                  1. I would be surprised if SCOTUS has not already ruled on cases Like Manafort.

                    And I am certain they have ruled wrongly.

                    Give Marry Time she will find that case.

                2. That would be prisoners Convicted of a crime.

                  AGAIN, one does not cede ones rights, merely by being accused of a crime.

                  Separately. Hudson V. Palmer is wrongly decided. I think there are many rights that one legitimately loses as a consequence of a criminal conviction does not mean one loses all of ones rights.

                  I think it is reasonable to conclude that a prisoner has LESS 4th amendment rights – it is reasonable to allow prisons to search cells for weapons.

                  It is NOT reasonable to monitor their communications.

                  BTW YOUR expression of Hudson says that Prisoners have no 4th amendment rights with regard to searches of their Cells.

                  That is not the same as a loss of 4th amendment rights to warrants for wiretaps.

        2. Manafort is smart but they guy is under a lot of severe pressure and he made a mistake, at best, contacting the witness. It may not have been intentional witness tampering but i am not surprised the judge didnt like it.

          1. Alleging that someone committed a crime is not supposed to suddenly subject you to the whim of what a judge likes or does not like.

            Freedom is what you can do that others do not like.
            The presumption of innocence means you remain free until that presumption is overcome.
            It means you are free to do things that others do not like – just like people who have not been accused of something.

  13. It seems if the prison telephone transcripts were expected to be used during an investigation, why were they released to the public disclosure?

    1. One could say the photo posted shows Manafort as relaxed and healthy looking for a man in his late 60’s. If I was family, that photo would reassure me

    2. They were legitimately used in a court filing in response to a motion filed by the defense..

  14. Candidly, Manafort got what he deserved at this stage. He tried for a change of venue which I suspect will be denied (if it hasn’t been). He tried to claim discovery required him to be moved closer to counsel. Now, he’s changing his tune. Karma.

    1. I guess you have never heard of the presumption of innocence.

      Regardless do you doubt that being in prision significantly complicates preparing for trial ?

      As to Venue – why exactly does it matter to you – or Mueller ?

      The crimes Manafort is alleged to have committed and not local. There is no special reason for a specific jurisdiction.
      Mueller was venue shopping – except the government has powers not rights.
      It is Manafort who is entitled to a jury of his peers.

      Why not select a jury at random from the entire electorate ?
      Do you think such a jury would convict ?
      If you thing a Jury from the country at large or from rural Ohio would not convict, then you have already made Manafort’s venue case for him.
      In fact you have made the case for his innocence.

      I do not like Manafort, but this prosecution stinks to heaven of political corruption – Mueller’s!.

      Sen Menendez was not convicted of more serious charges.
      I can name a long list of D’s who have done exactly what Manafort is charged with – none are being prosecuted.

      1. It’s odd that his recorded calls were made public given the fact Manafort wants a change of venue. Are the trying to taint the entire jury pool so a venue change wouldn’t matter? It would certainly lay a foundation for appeal.

        1. The disclosure was of evidence submitted to the court in opposition to a defense motion. Such evidence is generally available to the public.

              1. It certainly is reasonable and as you say, it is legal. But it certainly does not seem to be just.

        1. cute? i think that is just smart. what’s wrong with asking for a change of venue? gosh

        2. You seem to think that adjectives enhance arguments.

          Cute or not, Manafort is entitled to a fair trial by a jury of his peers.

          If you and Mueller beleive that DC or Alexandria provide no advantage – then have the trial in Indiana, or Ohio.

          If you do not want this to appear to be a political witchhunt Get a conviction in Trump country.
          If you succeed there most everyone will accept the results.

          If you get a conviction in DC that will just increase partisan conflict.

          It will also strengthen Republican arguments for moving as much of government out of DC as possible.

Comments are closed.

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