Below is my column in the Hill newspaper on the Manafort trial and why Manafort is pursuing a high-risk litigation strategy over a plea deal. The strategy looks strikingly like a pardon pitch and it could be working. President Donald Trump took the rare step of commenting on a case at trial to not only praised Manafort but analogized his case to the treatment of Al Capone. He tweeted that “Looking back on history, who was treated worse, Alfonse Capone, legendary mob boss, killer and ‘Public Enemy Number One,’ or Paul Manafort, political operative & Reagan/Dole darling, now serving solitary confinement – although convicted of nothing? Where is the Russian Collusion?” Of course, both could well be guilty and both could find that a criminal count with a ten year sentence is just about the same as another in terms of its impact on your life.\
Here is the column:
Hunter Thompson once decried the fleeting fortunes of gamblers as “tomorrow’s blinking toads, dumb beasts with no hope.” Paul Manafort is about to discover if he is one of those “blinking toads.” The trial of the former Trump presidential campaign chairman in Virginia, on more than a dozen criminal counts of tax fraud, bank fraud and reporting violations, is about to begin. Rather than take a plea, Manafort has taken the gamble of a trial and the lingering chance of a pardon.
Manafort is in the worst possible legal position of having to “run the tables” by not only beating 18 counts in Virginia but then beating seven counts in a separate trial in Washington. He needs a sweep or nothing. That is quite a gamble and, frankly, Manafort is a bad bet. While he needs to beat all the charges, special counsel Robert Mueller needs only one conviction on one count to put Manafort away for as much as a decade.
That is what it means to “play the house.” The house usually wins. Right now, Las Vegas would give Manafort about the same odds of acquittal as it would give the Baltimore Orioles to win the World Series. Indeed, the one thing the Orioles, ranked worst in the MLB, have going for them is that people actually want them to win. That is not the case with Manafort, and that lack of empathy is likely to grow considerably in coming weeks with the expected witnesses at his trial.
The first challenge for the defense is that Manafort can be easily painted as someone who made millions off some of the most disreputable characters in the world. The more that jurors learn of Manafort, the less likely they are to find him relatable or likable. To the contrary, his lavish lifestyle will place a wide social and economic chasm between him and the jury. That is by design, as prosecutors know his lifestyle could leave jurors less inclined to give him the benefit of any doubt.
For that reason, they intend to call a myriad of minor witnesses, from a ticket vendor for the New York Yankees to a tailor to a Mercedes Benz salesman. Jurors will hear about his six homes, $2 million worth of antiques, a $500,000 landscaping bill, two silk rugs costing $160,000 and almost $1.5 million in clothes for himself. All of this is part of a lifestyle that seemed to be collapsing under its own weight, necessitating the alleged fraudulent efforts to secure nearly $25 million in bank loans.
This type of evidence invites class resentment and an unconscious desire to see an elitist fall. The legal chasm may be equally challenging. Jurors will be buried in a mountain of transactional and bank documents from numerous countries. Manafort is accused of hiding $30 million to evade U.S. taxes by using accounts in the United Kingdom, Cyprus and the Caribbean island nation of St. Vincent. Prosecutors claim he may have made more than $60 million in working for Ukrainian interests.
With multiple counts and such a daunting record, a jury often inclines to rely on prosecution witnesses. In this case, the witnesses will include Manafort’s former aide and confidant, Richard Gates. The combination of a less than sympathetic defendant, a tower of financial documents and a flipped former associate makes conviction on at least some of these counts a high likelihood. So why hasn’t Manafort sought a deal with Mueller? Well, several possible reasons exist.
First, Mueller might be a bit short on mercy. He is unlikely to cut a deal with Manafort that did not involve pleading guilty to at least one count. Mueller would have to clear counts in both Washington, D.C., and Virginia, and that could not be done easily with a walk-away plea. Any plea likely would put Manafort behind bars for years. At age 69, a 10-year sentence could be the same as life in prison. Moreover, most of these counts would run concurrently so, while even one conviction is enough to hold him for much of his remaining years, Manafort may not find a deal as attractive.
Second, unlike former Trump attorney Michael Cohen, Manafort still has hope for a pardon. If President Trump were to go nuclear in shutting down the special counsel investigation, he likely would issue a slew of pardons. At this point, he is more likely to pardon Hillary Clinton than Cohen, but Manafort has remained loyal and silent throughout the probe.
Finally, just as Mueller might not be able to give Manafort what he needs, Manafort might not have enough to offer Mueller. The problem with being the matinee defendant for the special counsel investigation is that a plea bargain is more costly to secure. Manafort would need deliverables on Trump, and he may not have them. Short of a quid pro quo understanding with the Russians, or confirmation of the president’s knowledge of the Trump Tower meeting with Russians that implicates Donald Trump Jr. and others, Manafort may not have a deliverable.
Trump was not known to be close to Manafort, though they had interactions going back years. In other words, Manafort may not have a “get out of jail” card to use against Trump or key figures. For any of these reasons, Manafort may simply view a deal as offering too little and risking too much. Conversely, a pardon could mean no jail time and a clean slate.
If Mueller convicts Manafort, it is likely to be celebrated as proof of the legitimacy of the special counsel investigation. In truth, it is not. Manafort’s charges have nothing to do with Mueller’s original mandate involving Russian collusion, obstruction or any of the allegations directed against the president. That does not make Manafort innocent, but this was not the game Mueller was supposed to be playing. Manafort still has a defense to present, so it is too early to declare him a loser. However, he is taking a gamble in not taking a plea. In playing against the house, his odds at trial are long and, if he ever comes up for sentencing, his credit is short.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
“Manafort has remained loyal and silent throughout the probe.”
I don’t like the wording of this sentence. It seems to say that Professor Turley believes Manafort has something on Trump he is not revealing. I think the Professor has drawn a conclusion without having knowledge of the facts when all he might have is his suspicions.
It might be that ole JT is bailing, In the past he was picking nat shit out of pepper. Now JT seems to think the evidence is stacking up too high. But like any lawyer he will play his hand out till he knows the game is over.
One weird trick that JT plays repeatedly is to isolate one Trump action. He then examines whether that one action (statement, tweet, forced reisnation, executive action, etc.) constitutes obstruction or collusion. He then goes back and forth examining the one act in some detail and concludes, nope, that’s interesting but it’s not enough.
It’s time to stop playing this advocate’s game and examine the totality of the circumstances, Professor. Then, give us a fair reading on the proffered evidence.
It’s time to stop playing this advocate’s game and examine the totality of the circumstances, Professor.
You do realize the totality of the circumstances, would include everything and everybody involved in any way with the 2016 election, right? FBI, CIA, FISC, Warrants, probably NSA, DNC, RNC, Emails, Texts, Meetings, Obama and his administration, Trump and his campaign, Clinton and her campaign, FEC, Campaign Financing, Awans, the Media, Foreign Agents, WikiLeaks, CrowdStrike, Brennan, Clapper. And likely more.
Expose everything, in totality. We’ll see if and where there was collusion, conspiracy, corruption, espionage, treason. Anyone actually interested in the truth would have no objection to putting all the cards on the table.
Ready, go.
Russian money in the bank for the NRA too? Why do think the Republican Congress shut the investigation down so quick? Follow the money is the one thing they were not going to do.
Sure, follow all the money. Bring it on.
Not the whole world, just the totality of the allegations against Trump and his campaign. So far as I am aware the Clintons, et al. are not on trial.
Neither is Trump, yet we have an IC only searching for crimes within Trump’s sphere of influence. How does that narrow investigation address all available evidence of actual crimes? Wouldn’t the American people be better served and perhaps more importantly, begin to trust our system of justice, if they saw an investigation that pursued everything and everyone I identified? What is the downside of the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Let me try this again since I haven’t seen a response.
So far as I am aware the Clintons, et al. are not on trial.
Neither is Trump, yet we have an IC only searching for crimes within Trump’s sphere of influence. How does that narrow investigation address all available evidence of actual crimes? Wouldn’t the American people be better served and perhaps more importantly, begin to trust our system of justice, if they saw an investigation that pursued everything and everyone I identified? What is the downside of the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Although I know you are not a lawyer, when you start to propagate the clap-trap that you’ve heard from some Pravda Faux News shill, you will necessarily need to understand some legalisms. First, investigations are not instigated by popular vote, or something advocated by a TV talking head. Rather, credible evidence has been presented that there were potentially-illegal activities engaged in between the day glo bozo campaign and Russian nationals. As an aid for your understanding, Google “Order No. 3915 – 2017” for the parameters of the Special Counsel investigation. That being said, the other persons whom you’ve referenced have either been investigated and cleared, or not investigated at all as there’s been no credible evidence presented that such persons or entities were or are engaged in illegal activities–no matter how many time Hannity lies about it. or how terrified the day glo bozo’s enablers become as the net closes in. Pro tip: just because a lawyer debases himself by appearing on Pravda Faux News, doesn’t mean he’s knowledgeable on the matter; it’s more likely he’s looking for billable hours from a piece of the day glo bozo pie. Pro tip: character does matter, you can’t ignore reality much longer.
this is to olly
Mark,
Your inability to remain civil in a discussion undermines your credibility. Using terms like Day Glo and Pravda News are something to expect from ignorant hacks untrained in the art of debate. Pro tip: If you are a lawyer, act like the professional you were educated to be.
Thanks for the link, I did look up the document and Mueller was provide essentially a blank check on this investigation.
any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation;
the other persons whom you’ve referenced have either been investigated and cleared, or not investigated at all as there’s been no credible evidence presented that such persons or entities were or are engaged in illegal activities
There has been a significant amount of credible evidence, much of it from the IG’s report indicating that Mueller under his SC authority should be looking at the FISA process, all matters relating to the dossier, including funding, Crowdstrike, FBI handling of the Clinton investigation, AG/Clinton meeting, missing hardware, missing emails, and the list goes on.
I have no fear of an investigation into all things Trump. Mueller’s blank check allows him to pull on any thread and that’s exactly what he’s doing. If people have committed crimes then they should be prosecuted. Mueller’s blank check does not prevent him from investigating everyone and everything. Your response to that challenge is to defend Mueller’s very narrow application of his authority when he actually has very broad authority.
Pro tip: Don’t try to sell sunshine when it’s pouring rain.
” just because a lawyer debases himself by appearing on Pravda Faux News, doesn’t mean he’s knowledgeable on the matter;”
One has to remember that this comment comes from Mark M. who is closer to roadkill than being a lawyer. To date, he has demonstrated little knowledge of the law that would be expected from a normal educated individual.
The US military is developing software that will let it secretly manipulate social media sites by using fake online personas to influence internet conversations and spread pro-American propaganda.
A Californian corporation has been awarded a contract with United States Central Command (Centcom), which oversees US armed operations in the Middle East and Central Asia, to develop what is described as an “online persona management service” that will allow one US serviceman or woman to control up to 10 separate identities based all over the world.
The project has been likened by web experts to China’s attempts to control and restrict free speech on the internet. Critics are likely to complain that it will allow the US military to create a false consensus in online conversations, crowd out unwelcome opinions and smother commentaries or reports that do not correspond with its own objectives.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networks
that was from 2011 and believe me, it was already old hat for them by then.
you guys are clueless
“If Mueller convicts Manafort, it is likely to be celebrated as proof of the legitimacy of the special counsel investigation. In truth, it is not. Manafort’s charges have nothing to do with Mueller’s original mandate involving Russian collusion, obstruction or any of the allegations directed against the president. ”
The above statement is the most important in this thread. It is not proof of legitimacy. In addition, the special prosecutor’s actions are reprehensible. “This type of evidence invites class resentment and an unconscious desire to see an elitist fall.“
It seems that we are inserting class warfare and tribalism into the judiciary.
Manafort stole the bank’s money fair and square. The bank can’t have it back. The bank should go steal somebody else’s money–fairly and squarely. And don’t get Allan started on tax fraud and tax evasion. Those are sacraments and devout observances in the religion of Holy Tax Martyrdom. Any prosecution to the contrary is “inserting class warfare and tribalism into the judiciary” while violating the First Amendment protection for the free exercise of the religion of Holy Tax Martyrdom.
Diane, what you have written is a bunch of idiotic nonsense. None of us seem to care if he is convicted of a crime that he willfully committed. We don’t want class warfare to determine a verdict. You can take your stupid-hat off and put a smart-hat on whenever you choose.
I don’t care if he’s convicted if his prosecution is consistent with every other person doing the same activity. So how did Manafort get back on the government’s radar? If it was because he was in Trump’s orbit, then that would bring in all sorts of discovery related to the infamous dossier, FISA warrants, spies and Crossfire Hurricane. (fruit of the poisonous tree)
Excerpted from a CNN article (no time to link):
“A secret order authorized by the court that handles the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) began after Manafort became the subject of an FBI investigation that began in 2014. It centered on work done by a group of Washington consulting firms for Ukraine’s former ruling party, the sources told CNN.”
That FISA warrant was allowed to expire in late 2015 or early 2016–shortly before Manafort was hired by the Trump campaign.
Manafort got back on the radar because it never left. When the prosecutors seen that Manafort was making deals with Ukrainian and Russians, I’m sure the flags were up and flying again. Manafort jumping into Trump’s orbit just made plain what was going on. And for no money? It does seem clear that maybe Trump was right when he said he only hires the best, the best. And the prosecutors could not agree more.
Again, there are few wire transfers listed in the Alexandria indictment which occurred after February 2013. Manafort’s work in the Ukraine after February 2014 consisted of consulting contracts with the Opposition Bloc, a Ukrainian political party good for about 12% of the vote. The DC indictment complains of concealed income, but not for any year past 2014.
stop letting facts get in the way of a good story Spas
Yeah, he seems to know about everything that means nothing.
Manafort got back on the radar because it never left. When the prosecutors seen that Manafort was making deals with Ukrainian and Russians, I’m sure the flags were up and flying again.
So what you’re saying is Obama’s IC/FBI were fully aware and tracking the activities of Manafort when Trump chose to bring him into his campaign and they did nothing to warn Trump?
I’m no lawyer but that certainly sounds like entrapment.
They warned Trump about Flynn, and he did nothing, they warned McConnell and Ryan, and Trump and republican leadership did nothing. If Manafort was being worked as a asset by the Russians, why would they tell the asset that he was being watched?
If Manafort was being worked as a asset by the Russians, why would they tell the asset that he was being watched?
Huh? I’m not following your logic. Who’s the asset?
Olly, there is no logic.
I have no idea what other blogs folks like Fishwings comment in, but for some reason they post their nonsense here and expect it to fly unchallenged. They have no humility.
Olly, it is hard to believe that most of these leftists have such poor arguments. If they were smart they would exercise their minds by debating the opposite side. One big problem they have is they rely on news that has already been predigested and spun so they are unable to filter out the noise from the facts. They seem to have little knowledge of history which helps greatly when considering the facts of the day. They are very shallow.
Manafort was cooperating with the FBI back in 2014.
because supposedly it was a matter of particular national relevance, ie, the election and its integrity, and its legitimacy is a higher concern than catching a supposed money launderer
“duh”
but then again, maybe they’re just kind of um exagerrating the supposed “threat” to the elections now because their preferred candidate lost
thus proving, ironically, that Americans actually can vote their own way and not just be lead by their noses by the NYT and CNN. ooops, what went wrong? indict someone, fast
no, Flynn’s conversations with Kislyak were perfectly legit and lawful.
the opinion of those conversations by the “deep state” was that they were bad
that’s why they tried to get Trump to cancel out Flynn
you guys only see what you want to see. oh wait; that presumes you are actually just “concerned citizens” and not actually working a job here commenting about this as systematically as a bunch of “bots”
oh wait do you think Uncle Sam does that too? of course
and has been doing it a long long time
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networks
The US military is developing software that will let it secretly manipulate social media sites by using fake online personas to influence internet conversations and spread pro-American propaganda.
A Californian corporation has been awarded a contract with United States Central Command (Centcom), which oversees US armed operations in the Middle East and Central Asia, to develop what is described as an “online persona management service” that will allow one US serviceman or woman to control up to 10 separate identities based all over the world.
The project has been likened by web experts to China’s attempts to control and restrict free speech on the internet. Critics are likely to complain that it will allow the US military to create a false consensus in online conversations, crowd out unwelcome opinions and smother commentaries or reports that do not correspond with its own objectives.
And then there was Obama’s former White House Counsel, Gregg Craig who was implicated for his dealings with Ukraine along with Clinton pals like Tony Podesta and others. Perhaps this had something to do with the FBI not pursuing the case five years ago?
The clear reason Manafort is being targeted is because he worked for Donald Trump. They are making an example of him and using this as a way to intimidate other heavy hitters from working on Trump’s reelection campaign. They’ll go after them too. That’s the message.
Bring it on then! I’ll pop the popcorn.
oh, well, lets see. you tie a mistake on a tax return to some wires and then you have a plausible case of money laundering. for about 10 million people out there. of which not even 1000 get prosecuted. so yeah it’s pretty selective prosecution
In Mueller I trust.
Nuf sed.
Me, too, bro Marco.
suckers. the same guy that goofed the anthrax prosecution and failed to rectify the Whitey bulger fiasco and also buttressed the Iraq WMD deception. what a fraud Meuller is but he’s going out with the adoring love of you fools so maybe he can do a book tour in three years like comey
https://www.lawfareblog.com/seven-theories-case-updated-one-year-later-what-more-do-we-know-about-laffaire-russe
My money is on No. Five (sort of): Conspiracy to Defraud the United States would be more accurate.
•Theory of the Case #5: Russian Intelligence Actively Penetrated the Trump Campaign—And Trump Knew or Should Have Known.
L4D still enables David Benson – the FBI/DOJ refused to give the Trump campaign a defensive briefing. This will not end well. The people who can be put on the stand for the defense is a literal who’s who of the “deep state.”
Will not end well for whom?
Jay S – My guess, and it is a guess, is that it will not end well for Mueller and his team.
No. 6 is still viable–especially when you consider the full range of possibilities from suspected financial crimes to the post-election back-channel communications and even to the conspiracy to defraud the United States, itself.
•Theory of the Case #6: Kompromat.
The referenced article presents a very clear view of all the possibilities. A nice essay. I think my vote would be #6.
The referenced article presents a very clear view of all the possibilities.
That’s great, and appropriate! From a Lawfare Blog that has a link in it to Support Lawfare. Um, no thanks. Not even the original story or the updated version includes all the possibilities. This is only all the possibilities if you purchased multiple copies of the book What Happened to give as presents to your family and friends.
From the original:
We’ve confined our overview of the facts to those most directly related to Russia’s interference in the election and the possible links between Trump associates and the Russian government. There are plenty of details we’ve left out[you don’t say!]—notably statements by Trump associates and the president himself that have had the effect of kicking up dust and confusing the public conversation about L’Affaire Russe.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/seven-theories-case-what-do-we-really-know-about-laffaire-russe-and-what-could-it-all-mean
lawfare is a pretty good blog but the coverage of this is super weak
If Manafort is proven guilty and gets a prison sentence it will be in part because he broke the law, in part because he is one of Trump’s mob, and in part because this happens far too rarely. The wealthy in America enjoy a separate justice system that they can purchase with their gains, ill gotten or otherwise. The wealthy and those who get away with stuff, like Trump, often represent a sort of Wild West Bandito anti hero to some, Trump’s core for instance.
Hopefully, if Manafort is guilty he will get the Bernie Madoff treatment and get nailed to the cross. If Trump pardons him it won’t be much different than when Clinton pardoned that scumbag, whose name is forgotten. However, Clinton pardoned him when he was finished looking for votes/approval from the populace. Trump pardoning Manafort now, before running for reelection, will only more clearly illustrate that Trump is the chief oligarch and designs and lives in a society with two justice systems, one for the wealthy, privileged, and dirty and another for the rest of us. I kind of hope Trump does pardon Manafort if Manafort is guilty of something; anything to get rid of this disaster and shame.
Marc Rich.
ok so you can keep on maintaining whatever preconceived notions you have and I will do the same. ta ta
Isaac Baconovitch, it’s so cute how you Clintocrats perfectly project the corrupt stink of your idols on to the opposition.
When your champion(s) rot from within and start to stink, the old Trump routine of diversion by Clinton attack surfaces, in all its putrid glory. You have learned well grasshopper.
“tomorrow’s blinking toad”
https://i.imgflip.com/e6el.jpg
Is Mueller the lawyer in court who is trying the case? Or is he back in his office somewhere? If I was defense counsel I would keep showing photos of that dork Mueller to the jury. Maybe get fans in the audience to wear tee shirts which say: Mueller Sucks.
Mueller is the supervising attoreny coordinating the various cases and apparently in talks with Rudy about interviewing POTUS. You could not show Mueller photos or do the tee shirt thing (anymore than the prosecution got to show the coat or could wear Trump sucks shirts). You’d be ousted and probably be fined.
“Mueller is the supervising attoreny coordinating the various cases ”
The problem is that he is supposed to be looking into Russian collusion or conspiracy not a whole bunch of cases that do not involve his job.
Allan,
I think Mueller fancies himself a cold case investigator with powers now to breath life into investigations (prosecutions) he couldn’t close in his prior life.
Don’t ya just love Cold Case? Lily and her peeps show up in a suburban Philadelphia neighborhood 40 years after the fact and all the same people live on the block and have a clear memory of the Fuller Brush salesman who worked the territory in 1967. They close the case when the now 85 year old perp (who, strangely, looks about 60) signs the papers admitting his guilt (or her guilt).
ha ha no he is just another typical BS prosecutor doing what somebody above him tells him to do. just a jarhead at the beginning and a jarhead at the end.
no offense to jarheads
You probably failed to notice that he has spun off a number of cases to other offices of the US Attorney. I’m sure he’ll keep an eye on those, but he is the big picture guy on obstruction and on conspiracy to defraud.
he’s the special prosecutor. he is a career bureaucrat too. if he is a big picture guy you can bet it’s not the picture that you are imagining
Since you are omniscient, you tell me.
“spun off a number of cases ”
Old cases, cases that will never be tried and could have been made almost at any time. The investigation is a waste and causes harm to the nation not that any leftist would care about.
Some citizen who shows up without a contact with defense counsel and sits in court has a First Amendment right to wear a tee shirt with a logo. A photo of Mueller taking a dump. Yeah, the judge can have him kicked out of the courtroom but right in front of the jury. Who is the judge going to blame? Manafart’s lawyer? Prove there was a relationship.
Free Speech!
So, when are we going to get a list of what we can buy with our own money and what we can’t buy.
Depends on whether or not your own money was obtained overseas from dubious sources, and never reported as income.
When the obstructor in chief is on your side, I guess you think you own the house. The judge is biased and the president has decided to try and manipulate judge jury and public with a story about solitary confinement. Manafort believes that he’s safe. Tax evasion is nothing for Republican operatives. After all, only little people pay taxes!
Justice Holmes:
Obstructor in Chief? Please detail all instances of claimed obstruction of justice which are unrelated to Trump’s exercise of Executive authority under Article II of the Constitution which of course can’t form the basis for any criminal charge under Article VI. Specificity helps us evaluate your perjorative as fair criticism or caustic envy.
Once Mueller reports the case in chief (ConFraudUS), the obstruction of justice charge comes along for the ride.
The ‘obstruction of justice’ charge is a silly partisan meme. He’s ‘obstructing’ the investigation of a non-crime by firing an employee he has every right to fire and which a prudent executive would fire. And the investigation continues after he fires him.
gotta give them a lot of cud to chew like the cows they are
Trump was not yet President at the time that his son, son-in-law, campaign manager and other members of Trump’s campaign allegedly conspired to defraud the United States. Not to mention the solicitation of an illegal foreign campaign contribution. That is why the obstruction of justice charge “comes along for the ride” once Mueller reports the case in chief for ConFraudUS.
BTW, Trump has been the one pushing the obstruction of justice storyline to the access journalist, Maggie Haberman, at The NYT. As strange as is may seem to you, The NYT has been carrying water for Trump the whole way through. It’s good for subscriptions. And that’s good for advertising revenue.
How does article Vi of the Constitution come into this. It reads: All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Let me get this straight, in your opinion, the President may use his executive authority to obstruct justice or impede a criminal investigation and that’s just fine and dandy because he’s president? Is that because if the President does, it it is legal?
I’m just trying to figure out your specifics!
Considering the tone on this thread “obstructor in Chief” is hardly caustic!
QUESTION: “How does article Vi of the Constitution come into this.”
***********************
ANSWER: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby…” That means you answered your own question with this quote and didn’t understand that the Supremacy Clause means that no government or judge can’t pass or enforce a law (as the case may be) saying the POTUS, when exercising his Constitutional prerogatives under Article II, is guilty of a crime.
QUESTION: “Let me get this straight, in your opinion, the President may use his executive authority to obstruct justice or impede a criminal investigation and that’s just fine and dandy because he’s president?”
**********************************
ANSWER: That’s not what I’m saying because that statement of yours is classic circular reasoning. We were talking about the threshold question about just what is the legal definition of “obstruction of justice.” What I said was that a President acting under his Article II powers over the Executive Branch is not guilty of obstruction of justice because the Constitution says it’s not. It expressly authorizes him to control the Executive Branch regardless of motive. You cannot be deemed guilty of a federal or state crime by following the dictates of the Constitution in exercising your power over the Executive branch (i.e. firing the FBI Director). Oh and there’s a myriad of other reasons why this doesn’t meet the various statutory definitions of obstruction of justice (which I’ve detailed on the blog before before) but you’ll already got enough of a legal education for one day.
QUESTION: “Considering the tone on this thread “obstructor in Chief” is hardly caustic!”
***************************
ANSWER: It is when you don’t know what obstruction of justice really means in the context of a constitutional officer.
AFAICT the Constitutional power to execute the laws rests in the chief executive. And the only constitutional means of disciplining or removing a president that I can see are 1) vote him out next time, 2) impeach. I see no provision wherein vindictive bureaucrats get to attack their superior and overturn the people’s choice.
Then again, I’m not a lawyer or a “progressive,” and I guess I’m too poor to afford those cool invisible-ink-reading glasses.
The Supremacy Clause does not prevent any given US person from being charged with obstruction of justice before that given US person swears the Oath of Office for President of the United States.
The Supremacy Clause does not prevent any given US person from being charged with obstruction of justice after that given US person no longer holds the Office of the Presidency of the United States.
If a given US person commits offenses against the United States before that given US person swears the Oath of Office for POTUS, and if that given POTUS interferes with the investigation of the offenses against the United States that that US person had committed before that US person became POTUS, then The Supremacy Clause and The Article II powers of the Chief Executive cannot prevent that US person from being charged with obstruction of justice AFTER that US person no longer holds the Office of the Presidency of the United States any more so than any of those constitutional provisions would have been prevented that US person from being charged with obstruction of justice before that US person became POTUS.
Because the person is NOT the Supreme Law of The Land. Because the person is NOT the Office of the President. Because the person is NOT the Article II powers of the Chief Executive. Because the person is NOT The Congress of the United States. Because the person is NOT the Supreme Court of the United States. And, most of importantly of all, The US Constitution is NOT a passel of antinomies for the amusement of LAWYERS.
It’s amaing how someone can fire so many words and utterly miss the point.
Your point was that firing Comey was an exercise of constitutional authority. Your point is deliberately too narrow. An exercise of constitutional authority undertaken for the corrupt purpose of interfering with an investigation of the campaign of the very person who subsequently exercised that constitutional authority by firing the investigator in no way whatsoever vitiates the corrupt purpose behind that exercise of constitutional authority. The POTUS, Trump, is not the Supreme Law of the Land. The Constitution is.
L4D still enables David Benson – The Constitution says that Trump can fire him. Rosenstein said he should fire him. The OIG said he should be fired. What else do you need? A visit from the Holy Spirit?
PC Schulte,…
I would think that she relies more on Wiccan advisors than the Holy Spirit.
That’s why he’s home free.
By the way, note the part about treaties as being also “the law of the land.” Trump and company feel no compunction about repudiating treaties whenever it suits them.
What treaties are you talking about? More importantly, did President Trump violate the constitution and separation of powers?
The “agreement” with Iran was not a “treaty”….it’s very unlikely that it would have been approved as a treaty by the Senate.
If Jay S. has any examples of “repudiating treaties”, I’d like to know what they are.
When a President bypasses the Senate and reaches “an agreement” with another state solely via the Executive branch, he can probably count on that agreement lasting (at least) through his term.
If he is instead going for a durable, binding result, he needs the Senate for treaty ratification.
The “agreement” with Iran was not a “treaty”…
Neither was the Paris climate accord. Seriously Tom, these nitwits do not understand that if you live by the sword, you will die by the sword. That’s what their uber President meant when he said elections have consequences. Unwinding the actions of Obama is a necessary step towards shifting power back to the Legislative branch.
Olly, are you expecting Jay S to know anything about the Constitution or the country he lives in?
That expectation would be unreasonable. I thought he would have the stones to try to justify his comment, but that too was unreasonable.
Olly, Jay S lacks more than stones.
Manafort is afraid. Yes, Trump is trying to affect the outcome, but he may be hurting more than helping Manafort. The judge isn’t biased. He’s conservative, trying to run a quick trial that does not wander all over the place, holding the prosecution to its burden of proof and making all close calls in favor of the defense in order to eliminate issues for Manafort on appeal after he is convicted.
He knows it’s a paper case and that the paper before him is enough for conviction. It will be instructive to see what jury instructions he approves and if he even directs a verdict on some charges.
The instructions are already approved.
From the Wikipedia article on “Argot.”
“An argot (English: /ˈɑːrɡoʊ/; from French argot [aʁˈɡo] ‘slang’) is a secret language used by various groups—e.g., schoolmates, outlaws, colleagues, among many others—to prevent outsiders from understanding their conversations.”
When Mueller’s crew seized Manafort’s communications, they captured Manafort’s entire communications network. Manafort, Gates, Konstantin Kilimnik, Oleg Deripaska, Roger Stone and a great many Members of the Trump campaign were part of Manafort’s communications network. This means that Mueller’s shop knows the argot in which the Trump campaign communicated. Thus, when Trump Jr. says “adoptions” or “Magnitsky,” Mueller’s crew knows what those terms really mean. And the OSC can prove it. I mention this primarily because it is important to resist the impulse to believe that somehow Mueller’s shop doesn’t know anything more than, say, The NYT, for instance.
L4D still enables David Benson – even if they were writing in secret ink, the meeting at Trump Tower that you are so worried about was not illegal. I know you are obsessed with this meeting, however, Manafort does not seem to be charged with anything about this meeting.
52 USC 30121 Solicitation of an illegal foreign campaign contribution.
YAWN
http://www.uky.edu/electionlaw/analysis/foreign-contributions-us-elections
Mr. Kurtz,..
This is an area where the statutes need to updated/clarified, and enforcement needs to be even-handed.
Based on current interpretation of the law, and enforcement, it does not appear to considered a “contribution” if the foreign “contribution” is bought and paid for.
Specifically, when a British businessman and former spy is hired through intermediaries to have his Russian contacts elicit opposition research from the contacts’ sources, that may not a violation since the intermediaries, Christopher Steele, and perhaps the contacts were all paid off by the DNC, and by campaign funds.
Foreign opposition research was previously considered off limits by campaigns.
Breaking new ground in 2016, a Brit directing Russians to gather dirt on a candidate from other Russisns is “bought and paid for”, so it gets a pass because tecnically it is not a “contribution”, but merely payment for a “service”.😊😀😃
But the Trump Tower meeting might be “treason” because the Trump campaign never “sealed the deal” with a payment to Veselnitskaya.
Had she delivered the “dirt in Hillary” and had the Trump campaign cut her a check for that dirt, then that would be neither “treason” nor a “contribution”.😏😞😊
That’s about as much “sense” as I can make out the current “laws” or “rules” for campaigns.😕😦😯
The Steele Dossier was not a campaign contribution at all–let alone an illegal foreign campaign contribution. The best that you could get is that The Steele Dossier was a campaign expenditure. There’s no way in Hades that you Trump Troopers are going to twist the Russian hack and leak operation into a Trump campaign expenditure rather than an illegal foreign campaign contribution. You do see the difference; don’t you, Ptom???
If that’s the stsndard, then those from the Trump campaign at the The Trump Tower meeting should have received the dirt on Hillary, then cut a check to Veselnitskaya.
Then it would just be a “campaign expenditure”, and everyone would be understanding about it because that’s the way “things are done”.
Also, opposition research of any kind is supposed to be reported seperately from other campaign exoenses.
The Hillary Campaign Fund paid about $10 to Perkins Coie for “legal expenses”, and according to what has been published, no one bothered to break down the c. $ One Million $ paid to Fusion GPS through Perkins Coie.
That concealment and the use of intermediares …DNC-/Clinton Campaign Fund>to Perkins CoieCoie>to Fusion GPSGPS>toOribis/Christopher Steele was the reason it took so long to confirm who vas behind the funding of the Russian Dossier.
Reporters who tried to dig into the funding aspect of the Dossier were met with denials from Democrats and Perkins Coie about who funded the Russian muckraking operation.
I’ll once again quote Maggie Haggerman,a senior NY Times reporter; They lied, and with sanctimony, for a year” about who funded the Steele-Russian opposition research.
When FusionGPS was finally forced to disclose the source of funding for the dossier, the measures taken by the Demorats for concealment unraveled.
It was at that point that they went, in unison, with the only story that they could; this Russian Dossier project was undetaken purely out of a patriotic concern for the security of the United States, and we’re proud to have done so.
And they were so proud that they went to considerable lengths to conceal their role in funding this project.
I have mentioned a number of times that I left the top line blank, for the first time ever, in the 2016 election.
IMO there was no “lesser of two evils” choice, so I could not vote for either candidate.
I’ve also said that here that I don’t care if Trump stays or goes.
To spin that out as a statement that this somehow nakes me a “Trumper Trooper” is not a big surprize, given the source; those kinds of stunts are common as dirt from Ms. Spinner.
Who regards facts as unimportant; I’m not going to spent all weekend rehashing that argument with that loon.
But no amount of spin, even from a shameless, experienced liar like 24D/ Diane, changes the facts on the ground the the DNC and Hillary Campaign Fund authorized, paid for, and likely knew of Simpson and Steele’s efforts to get this story covered in the media before the election.
The total paid to Perkins Coie for by the Democrats for “legal fees was c.$10 Million.
Of that, one $million was paid to Fusion GPS, so IIRC, at least 10% of the $10Million paid to Perkins Coie for “legal fees” was not properly categorized as opposition research.
Of the $1,2 Billion total spent on the Hillary campaign, I haven’t seen an assessment if the degree over overall compliance with FEC reporting compliance.
That evaluation may never take place, there may be no consequences if other clear violations were committed, or U.S. Attorney John Huber may be investigating that aspect of the 2016 campaign.
Unfortunately, the FEC itself, which should be in the forefront of reviewing the questionable activities in the 2016 campaign, appears to have nearly disappeared as a functioning entity.
Tom Nash said, “If that’s the standard, then those from the Trump campaign at the The Trump Tower meeting should have received the dirt on Hillary, then cut a check to Veselnitskaya. Then it would just be a “campaign expenditure”, and everyone would be understanding about it because that’s the way “things are done”.
L4D had previously said, “There’s no way in Hades that you [expletive deleted] are going to twist the Russian hack and leak operation into a Trump campaign expenditure rather than an illegal foreign campaign contribution. You do see the difference; don’t you, Ptom???”
Obviously Gnash does not see the difference. Most likely Gnash deliberately ignored the words “Russian hack and leak operation” for the sake of substituting the words “dirt on Hillary.” This is the distilled essence of the false equivalency that you [expletive deleted] are twisting beyond recognition. The Russian hack and leak operation was a crime. The Steele dossier was not a crime. The emails the Russians hacked were published during the 2016 election. The Steele dossier was not published during the 2016 election. The Democrats paid for the Steele dossier. Did the Trump campaign pay for the Russian hack and leak operation? Nobody is alleging that Trump paid “money” for the Russian hack and leak operation. But, boy, if he did, then that would indeed be a crime, for sure. Wouldn’t it. Ptom???
“The best that you can get from the Steele Dossier is that it was a campaign expediture”.
I don’t intend to spend the rest of th the weekend playing word games with duplicitous whacko like Late4 Dinner.
If she wants to play that game, it would be best that she played it elsewhere.
The quotation in the first paragraph above is from L4D’s post which sought to downplay the serious nature of the activities DNC and the Hillary Campaign Fund.
Through intermediaties, they hired a British businessman, fornerly. a spy, to gather second and third hand allegations against a presidential candidate.
I won’t review all of the moving parts to this, and I am unable to draw L4 D a picture on this device; were I able to do so , the picture would probably be smugged and distorted when she would come back,and say ” Tom Nash drew this”.
Steele uses contacts in Russia, who in turn gather information from Russian informants/ sources, and that informatmtion is sent back to Steele.
So a British businessman, who probably has not been to Russia in over 20 years, is paid to use Russian contacts ( not clear if they were paid) who in turn go out and gather opposition research from their ( the contacts’) sources.
If this isn’t foreign involvement in an American election, I don’t know what the hell is.
To dismiss that are merely “a campaign expenditure” is asinine.
Going forward, we can either draw the line against this kind of crap, or we can just decide that there are no limits on the use of foreign actors working on behalf of a campaign.
We have been over this again and again and again, including the attempts on the part of Steele and Simpson to get the press to publish information frim the dossier.
Only one fringe publication, Mother Jones, did publish material based on the dossier, about 10 days before the election.
So L4D states that “the Steele Dossier was not published during the 2016 election”, ignores the briefings Steele held with major publishers in an attempt to get INFORMATION FROM the dossier published before the election, and only gets one minor rag to do so.
The reason that publications like the WaPo, CNN, and others refused to bite was that they refused to publish foreign, unverified opposition research on a candidate right before an election.
There is no need to publish the dossier itself if you can get publishers to parrot information from the dossier, and that attempt was clearly made.
Shouldda got this comment in a bit earlier; now we have to wait until L4D’s early morning frenzy to see how exactly how she spins, rinses, and distorts, and colors everything I wrote.😕😆
Turley wrote, “Manafort would need deliverables on Trump, and he may not have them.”
Since we do not yet know very much about what information Manafort has to offer Mueller, Turley’s statement, above, is true enough for us. However, there’s a high degree of probability that Mueller already knows a great deal about what Manafort has to offer Mueller from the warrant returns for the searches and seizures of Manafort’s communications–which, in turn, have led the OSC to the communications of all of the people with whom Manafort had been communicating.
As such, it is possible that the main thing Mueller really needs from Manafort is the whole truth about the Trump Tower meeting (assuming that Mueller doesn’t already have that, as well). Whatever that whole truth might be, it might be “deliverable” against Donald Trump Jr. and Jared Kushner. If so, then that would be Manafort’s best bargaining chip with respect to a pardon from Trump. Otherwise, Manafort could offer Mueller some leverage against Roger Stone, Mike Caputo, Sam Nunberg and, believe it or not, Michael Cohen.
Unfortunately for you, digging too deep into the “Trump Tower Meeting” will only further expose Obama and Clinton’s culpability. Too funny…Leftists hung their hat on the meeting, only to see it blow-up win their face.
If you have any evidence that Obama or Clinton attended the Trump Tower meeting, you should forward that evidence to Mueller–STAT.
There’s no such thing as digging too deeply into the Trump Tower meeting.
boring meeting about russian adoptions. yawn
Yeah, maybe Pelosi was there also !
L4D still enables David Benson – Manafort has said he has nothing to give, which means Mueller wants him to compose rather than sing.
Like I told you before, Mueller will not allow Manafort to sing any lyrics other than the ones already written in the evidentiary record (a.k.a. The Libretto).
L4D still enables David Benson – so, what you are saying is that Mueller has already done the composition.
Mueller seized Manafort’s entire communications network with well-nigh everyone involved in the Trump campaign and L’Affaire Russe.
“The Libretto” already IS Manafort’s “composition.” I’m not sure I would call his Magnum Opus, though.
Sitting in Judgment. Manafort should be judged by his peers
The jurors should have a minimum net worth of $10 million as well as the presiding judge.
Judge Judy would be perfect. She has an annual salary of $47 million/year & a net worth of $400 million. Good luck to anyone trying to find Judy’s clothing closets. There’s so many. Judy just bought another massive mega mansion in Newport, Rhode Island for $9 million….. Adding to her real estate portfolio.
All that crime and punishment has given Judge Judy (Judith Susan “Judy” Sheindlin) a life of luxury.
The world according to Reality TV is a YUGE part of the explanation for how our country got into this mess to begin with.
Jerry – I was thinking they should bring in Oprah as a financial witness. She owns what 8-9 houses? Or LeBron? You don’t think he owns some pimped outed jackets? And the press has been complaining about the opulence of Trump’s penthouse with the gold fixtures. Maybe we could have Barron give them a tour. Our Zuck’s place in the sun. A trip to the Heart Castle could be refreshing.
You know, if Trump were really as smart as his supporters assume him to be, he would make a deal with Putin to get Russia to denuclearize North Korea and then pitch that to the Congress as a reason for providing exemptions to Russia from the sanctions for furthering the vital national security interests of the United States.
L4D still enables David Benson – Xi has more control over NoKor than Putin does. You know as much about foreign policy as Hillary.
Your first observation is true, but irrelevant to Trump’s predicament. Putin won’t wait forever. Trump has to deliver some sort of sanctions relief or policy pay-off to Putin while Trump is still POTUS. If Trump can’t convince Putin that Trump can get reelected in 2020 (with or without Putin’s help), then Putin is going to demand his due before November of 2020 or else let slip The Dawgs of Kompromat.
L4D still enables David Benson – it appears the Russians are supporting the Democrats in the midterms. How does this help Trump?
Diane is upset with Putin because he doesn’t match Stalin’s commitment. Diane idolized that commitment.
Trump has been the worst thorn in Putin’s behind for a long time. Putin fondly remembers the days of Obama when he could get away with anything.
Yeah, but Judge Judy dresses better.
Two updates: Mueller attempted to list costly items Manafort purchased, including at least some of the items Turley listed above. “Surprise, surprise!” The Rep. conservative judge, thought to a prosecutor’s friend, put an end to Mueller’s tirade, and disciplined Mueller right in front of the jury, which Judge Napolitano said is very, very rare. The judge told Mueller that spending money is not illegal no matter how high the apparent sum. Also, Mueller attempted to use the word “oligarch” to described one of Manafort’s client’s, which term the Judge forbade, calling it “pejorative.”
Second, Gates is out, and won’t testify. If anyone knows or suspect why, please post.
So far this is not looking good for Mueller. It could well be, and IMO is, that the Judge is very clear of the many apparent wrongdoings on the part of Mueller and his pal Weinstein (I think that’s his name), and the fact that really, Mueller should never have accepted this job considering his close personal relationship with subject Comey.
I hope to hell Manafort gets off and if not, Trump IMO must pardon him or at least commute his sentence.
Mueller is the scum who belongs in prison.
Mueller is the one who told Nobel Peace Prize Winner Geezis Soetoro Obama that Obama can even kill American citizens on American soil without judicial charge. This was after Obama feloniously murdered 2 Muslim Americans on foreign soil without judicial charge, both named Anwar Al-Awlaki, father and 16 year old son. Both had the bad luck of Obama adding their names to Obama’s “Secret Kill List.”
Thanks sparky for the update, did you get this from your ham radio.
Given the information known and applying realitic objective. 2-7 for one minor count with a no lo contendre plea, The seven meaning walks with time served whiile awaiting trial only Loss of any professional license and possible loss of passport for the same time period.Fines based on standard for the no lo con or guilty plea on the one charge only. The 2 means Not guilty all counts.
I included some unknowns that may or may not apply when ‘fruit of poisoned tree’ rule is applied. The 2 also includes the Judges sentence to the Judge tossing the whole thing based on the whole thing resulting from the offer to make a deal meaning if you back us up we’ll recommend no time to serve and no fines. AKA We’ll break the law and so will you but you get off the hook while the real target .. etc…..
Five to One Meuller ends up with a face full of eggs.
Five to one, baby
One in five
No one here gets out alive, now
You get yours, baby
I’ll get mine
Gonna make it, baby
If we try
The old get old
And the young get stronger
May take a week
And it may take longer
They got the guns
But we got the numbers
Gonna win, yeah
We’re takin’ over
Come on!
Yeah!
Your ballroom days are over, baby
Night is drawing near
Shadows of the evening crawl across the years
Ya walk across the floor with a flower in your hand
Trying to tell me no one understands
Trade in your hours for a handful dimes
Gonna’ make it, baby, in our prime
How did Jeff Sessions, agent of the “deep state” “swamp,” as the tip-of-the-spear of the Obama coup d’etat, institute a criminal
“malicious prosecution” of an innocent and duly elected sitting President?
Lisa Page to Peter Strzok,”…potus wants to know everything we’re doing.”
Lisa Page to Congress, “…the texts mean what the texts say.”
Man of the Decade.
Man of the Century.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions, “…a dupe which will live in infamy.”
George it’s starting to come out strongly that Robert Mullah , his FBI & the DOJ at that time facilitated pedophilia & other associated sick crap.
The people leaking this type stuff are claiming to be Military & LOE intel & foot soldiers.
It’s an ugly topic, but that’s why many believe the Deep State is in such a panic about Trump & his people as they hate that sick sheeeit.
We’ll see how the evidence turns, well I don’t what to see, I want that sick shiiiit stopped.
Sessions should resign, and get Mayor Giulliani in there. I am sick and tired of Mr. Magoo, and wish he’d take his show back to Alabama.
All this proves is that Mueller cannot build a case on his own.
Mueller might need to crack the cover story for the Trump Tower meeting. Then again, maybe Mueller already has cracked the cover story for the Trump Tower meeting. Just because we don’t know what Mueller knows doesn’t mean that Mueller doesn’t know whatever Mueller knows. So much for Paul’s “proof” against Mueller.
L4D still enables David Benson – Good, you finally admit you don’t know what Mueller knows. You do act like you have a direct pipeline into the SC office.
I am and always have been a law-abiding citizen. It is literally against the law for me to know what Mueller knows before Mueller’s Final Report is made public. If Mueller reports the weak case of ConFraudUS, then I will be sorely disappointed. And here’s why: The NSD indictment of the 12 GRU officers for hacking makes precious little sense unless Mueller intends to report the strong case for ConFraudUS.
ah that was confusing
“. Indeed, the one thing the Orioles, ranked worst in the MLB, have going for them is that people actually want them to win. That is not the case with Manafort,”
Mr Turley vastly underestimates even the regulars on his own blog, many of whom want Manafort to win, despite having little doubt of his actual guilt.
enigma – it is not so much we want Manafort to win as we want Mueller to lose. 😉
Paul – Would it be going too far to say that some of you don’t care a whit if Manafort (or Trump, Trump Jr, Kushner, et. al) are guilty of actual crimes, you just want Mueller to lose?
Since this was a “some of you” question, allow me to jump in:
Yes, that would be going to far.
How does this narrow investigation address all available evidence of actual crimes? Wouldn’t the American people be better served and perhaps more importantly, begin to trust our system of justice, if they saw an investigation that pursued everything and everyone? What is the downside of the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Here, let me help: BENGHAZI!!!!! WHITE WATER!!!!! SETH WHATEVER HIS NAME IS!!!! URANIUM!!!!!
this is to “don’t worry, it only sounds crazy when you say it” olly
LOL! Well that certainly speaks volumes about your ethics. As for Lady Justice, she’d be pointing at you with the #MeToo claim.
Marky Mark Mark – putting it in all caps just means you are losing bigly.
enigma – I think I have said it before, but if Kushner goes to jail or Ivanka, I will not shed a tear. 😉
Manafort has and has had for some time a terrible reputation as a professional influence peddler. (ave had a better reputation if he were a Democrat had a sister employed by National Public Radio. I can never figure out how these guys bring in revenue in season and out, but maybe some people are really talented at hustling their clients). Manafort and his ilk may be rent-seeking pustules, but the problem there is one identified by Michael Kinsley a generation ago: the scandal isn’t what’s illegal; the scandal is what’s legal. It’s difficult to craft laws which put these types out of business. Coloring within the lines in what is fundamentally a parasitic line of business is what these types do. My wager would be that the Department of Justice begged off on prosecuting Manafort and Gates because they figured the manpower allocation required would make it not worth the candle. Well, the objects of the Department of Justice have changed, and Judge Ellis identified why in open court. That’s not a good thing, even if he is guilty of tax evasion and / or bank fraud (which, I suspect, he is; the DC charges look like humbug, however).
It’s my understanding Manafort’s lawyers could have consolidated the charges into one trial but wanted the Arlington locale where they hoped for a better jury pool.
It’s being held in Alexandria. “Better jury pool” means HRC’s margin was between 1.4:1 to 4.5:1 depending on the jurisdiction, not 10:1 as in DC.
How many innocent 16 year old American Muslim children did Manafort incinerate with a drone fired missile? We know your demigod Messiah Obama did that at least once, to Anwar Al-Awlaki. I guess you give Obama a pass because he apologized.
JoJo suggests that everything is always relevant to everything else; such that, nothing is ever irrelevant to anything else.
Drive some more of your black sisters to get an abortion. You and the DNC are up to 45%, maybe you can reach 100% and then you’ll be really happy! /sarc off
Huh ?
Again Enigma you are misstating the views of many others. I and many others cannot know if Manafort is guilty or not. Many might not like Manafort on a personal level but that has nothing to do with whether or not he committed a crime. What we don’t want is Manafort convicted based on envy and the fact that he spends money in a fashion all of us are unlikely able to afford. I think many don’t like the fact that it appears Manafort might only have been charged to get at Trump. To me the way this case has been handled is unamerican.
There is nothing occurring in the Manafort trial that doesn’t occur in federal courtrooms across the country on a daily basis. I didn’t hear any of your ilk crying when it was 19-year old crack dealers at the far table.
this is to “true, but I only care about the constitutional rights of old white guys” allan
Marky Mark Mark – how do you explain those wire transfers by your crack dealer clients?
yeah i like manafort
i like his buddy roger stone too
stone’s a swingin dude
Prof Turley,
Did you not hear? Rod Rosenstein, aka American hatin Commie/Nazi investigated Manaport 8 years ago , 4 the IRS, on these same charges & had to let him go.
Why do you continue to get your info from Fake News, CNN, NYT, Wapo, Hill, USA Today Etc?
Try Infowars Wars & the many other creditable news source.
Hell, if you’ve not had your balls cut off surly you are anough of a wordsmith to let the famous Alex Jones interview you.
Prove me wrong, I like you, but I think you’ve turned a ball-less coward & in the revolutionary war you’d have sided with King George the 3rd.
Make me apologize by proving me wrong!
Maybe you could address the current issues of the 1st amd & Freespeech?
tenured professors are not allowed to say the words “alex jones” they have to pretend they never heard of him
otherwise they will get snicked at when they go to a university cocktail party
Awesome. Real people do more than snicker at people who reference that klown as anything other than the punchline to a joke. So sorry for your loss.
this is to “I never got invited to ‘university cocktail party'” kurtzie
Please post more materials on “Infowars” “Alex Jones” and other “creditable” (sic) news sources. The posts made after you’ve gotten into the still are much more entertaining, for what it’s worth.
this is to “t’aint seen nuttin yet, I gotta fresh batch comin’ out tonight” okie