Did Manafort’s Lawyers Just Commit A Serious Violation In Its Closing Argument? [Updated]

ManafortThe end of the trial of former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort today proved controversial after the defense counsel made reference to the alleged selective prosecution by the Special Counsel. If accounts are accurate, it would seem a direct violation of the prior understanding with the court that no party was to make reference to selective prosecution and the Special Counsel investigation of President Donald Trump.

According to reports, the defense team made reference to how the underlying loans by Manafort were not matters of concern until the “Special Counsel” entered the field and then “stack up the counts.”  That sounds awfully like special prosecution – a major issue raised in pre-trial hearings. The defense also referenced Manafort’s work as campaign chair for Trump, which is not a direct violation but reinforces the selective prosecution argument.

There was a pending motion in limine that was mooted due to the agreement of the parties.  However, the court ordered that references to any decision not to prosecute by prior prosecutors was grant.  This is from the docket for July 24th:

ORDER for the reasons stated from the BenchORDERED that the government’s motion in limine to preclude defendant from presenting argument or evidence at trial that the Special Counsel was not authorized to prosecute this case is DENIED AS MOOT.ORDERED that the government’s motion in limine to preclude defendant from presenting argument or evidence at trial that defendant was selectively or vindictively prosecuted is DENIED AS MOOT. ORDERED that the government’s motion in limine to preclude defendant from presenting argument or evidence at trial that any former government investigation of defendant ended with a decision not to prosecute defendant is GRANTED.

The prosecution showed considerable restraint and raised the issue after the jury left the room.  As discussed in my last column,  Judge T.S. Ellis III is known to controversial and unrestrained comments in this and other trials.  He has been unrelenting in his critical asides against the prosecutors in this case and has raised some potentially troubling issues.  Ellis did not reportedly say much after this issue was flagged by the prosecutors and took the objections under advisement.

If the accounts are correct, most judges would seriously consider sanctions for such a breach of an earlier order.  In the very least, an instruction might be issued to the jury.  It was clearly a premeditated and risky act by the defense.  While some lawyers may choose the option of “better to ask forgiveness than permission,” this seems a case of promising and then breaching.

What is surprising is that this comes after little significant progress made by the defense in the trial.  The defense did very little to rebut the criminal allegations against Manafort while attacking his former aide Rick Gates.  It then rests without presenting a single defense witness or having Manafort take the stand.  After the vacuum left by the defense during the trial, they have now tripped a wire of a potentially serious breach of the standing court order.  That is not an improvement.

We are awaiting a response from Ellis on what the Court intends to do after the objections from the government.

Update:  Ellis appears to have simply added an instruction that the jury should not consider whether the government had any special motive in pursuing Manafort. It was one of those warnings that cuts both ways. It reminds the jury that there may be a special or selective motive.  Ellis notably was far more restrained (at least so far) in dealing with the defense than he has been with the prosecutors.  In this matter, the defense was dead wrong in making the argument given the earlier agreement.

256 thoughts on “Did Manafort’s Lawyers Just Commit A Serious Violation In Its Closing Argument? [Updated]”

  1. Jon Turley Hype Machine needs to keep re-posting mug shot of Manafort because that is only known photo of this international man of mystery.

    1. Excerpted from the article linked above:

      This week, the department reversed course on the exclusion, after The New York Times inquired about whether Century Aluminum had, in fact, filed an objection, given its pattern of objecting to nearly every other Rusal application. Department officials determined that Century had meant to file an objection to Rusal’s request, but had erred in submitting the paperwork. The department effectively fixed Century’s error, then ruled that the objection was valid — and that Rusal’s exclusion was void.

      In light of Century’s “clear intent to file the required objection form, not completed due to its clerical error,” the department said in a statement, officials have now “considered the objection on its merits and determined it supports a denial.”

    2. The reason L4D was worried about Rusal’s exemption from Trump’s aluminum tariff:

      Barbra Barbour says: August 15, 2018 at 9:07 AM

      There’s no mystery here, unless you haven’t been paying attention.
      Manafort isn’t talking despite being in solitary 23 hours a day. His defense was lacking. Why is that? Because he’s safer on the inside than he is on the streets.
      Manafort owes millions to Oleg Deripaska. Amidst the gigantic trade war last week Trump is giving Rusal, a Russian aluminum magnate, a sanctions waiver. The controlling shareholder of Rusal is none other than Oleg Deripaska. Trump gives Deripaska access to the US market where he will make well in excess of what Manafort owes him, and maybe set some cash aside for Manaforts family. In return Manafort will never talk and his family will be taken care of while he gets to keep breathing.
      This is not rocket science.

    3. Yeah, it has been reported by many business oriented sites since March of this year.

      Kudos to Barbra Barbour for bringing it to the forefront.

  2. In most federal courtrooms this type of conduct results in sanctions. I strongly suspect that defense counsel thought they could “get away with it” due to the Judge’s prior comments favoring the defense.

    It will be interesting to see what happens regarding the verdicts and any possible sanctions of defense counsel. This Judge, near the end of his career, is as close as you can get as a Judge to being a full-fledged member of the KMA Club.

  3. REPUBLICAN LEGISLATURES..

    ATTACKING STATE COURTS AT RECORD RATE

    Lawmakers in 16 states have considered more than 50 different bills to minimize the role of state courts or make it harder for judges to do their jobs, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice, which described this as an “assault” on the judicial branch: “In the Trump era, courts frequently appear to be the last line of defense against partisan overreach. But in many states, courts’ vital role in our democracy is under threat.”

    To some degree, tension between state courts and state government is normal. But what is going on now is not, says Doug Keith with the Brennan Center. The center’s research found that in the past 25 years, just two state judges have been impeached. Compare that with 2018, where on one day in one year, lawmakers impeached four justices. That was just in one state.

    In North Carolina, the Republican-controlled legislature managed to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot in November to give lawmakers a lot more control over appointing judges. Right now the state’s Democratic governor gets to do that.
    In Arkansas, lawmakers voted to put a measure on the ballot this November that would let them seize control over writing much of the top court’s rules.

    In Missouri, Oklahoma and South Carolina, lawmakers proposed legislation to gut the role of independent commissions that nominate judges for the governor to appoint to the courts. Some Iowa and Missouri lawmakers proposed a constitutional amendment to outright eliminate its independent commission that selects judges.

    One of the most blatantly political efforts to rein in a court came this year in Pennsylvania, where a dozen Republican lawmakers filed a resolution to impeach Democratic justices who threw out Republicans’ congressional map. That effort has stalled, but it was only one of a few examples in recent history of lawmakers trying to impeach justices for specific rulings.

    Edited from: “West Virginia’s Efforts To Impeach State’s Supreme Court Lastest In Worrisome Trend”.

    Today’s WASHINGTON POST

    1. Peter Hill – it appears those judges in WV really needed to be impeached for monetary reasons. Other than that, there is always a conflict between the three branches. Sometimes it is just best to get out the popcorn and watch the fun. 😉

    2. “according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice”

      Nonpartisan?

      The Brennan Center though portrayed as nonpartisan is a far-left think tank associated with George Soros. Brennan was the pioneer of “legislating from the bench” and promotes the idea of a living Constitution. The center has been involved in scandal.

  4. So … we are left with a lack of information. A great many questions an inability unless one is one of the jurists or attorneys to address any of themj, second guessing the outcomes of what we are not sure. guided only by a list of unanswered questions by the objectivists and a list of unfulfilled wishes by the subjectivists. How about throw wild guess not even a SWAG into the mix and suggestion the defenses statement was misquoted OR the instructions misunderstood, or even that it will cause a mis trial at some level All of which seems more and more likely.

  5. The case did not go as well as planned for the defense. They had nothing to lose (other than their ethics) by violating the prior agreement. Worst case, they would get a mistrial and sanctions. Best case, which they got, a (haha) curative instruction. But if somehow Manafort escapes conviction, they have laid the groundwork for the prosecution’s post trial motions.

  6. Defense Lawyer: Judge, my best defense is that the government selectively prosecuted my client for an improper purpose.

    Prosecutor: If that’s the case, I move to exclude the evidence of selective prosecution and stating the improper purpose.

    Judge: Okay then. We’ll limit the defense from presenting evidence or argument that the government selectively prosecuted the defendant for an improper purpose.

    This passes for even-handed justice.

    1. i think in selective prosecution and political cases there are often orders to limit the scope of what the jury may consider. otherwise it becomes like the jury nullifcation thing. the system has to protect itself

      but at the bottom, jury nullification is just as much as anything, right at the core of the liberty that the seventh amendment defends

      1. R. Lien:
        “it didn’t turn out that way…”
        ************************
        Never thought it would. Had it been a fair trial on the merits and the motives of all involved it would have “turned out that way.” That was the obvious point that sailed stories above you. Maybe you oughta have drink. It would make much less surly.

        1. Sure you didn’t, Mespo. However, they read that way, especially this one:

          “Defense calls Rod Rosenstein

          Defense Counsel: Good morning Mr. Rosenstein. As you and the Bureau know, much of this case involves information known to the Bureau for ten or more years. In fact, much of this case was investigated at that time and the decision was made NOT to prosecute the matter. Since that time, Mr. Manafort briefly became campaign manager for the President, a special prosecutor has been appointed to investigate the President for collusion with Russia based on a ginned up dossier paid for by the FBI, some of the Special Prosecutor’s investigators have been removed for prejudice against the President plus the Special Prosecutor decided to conduct a rare and intimidating pre-dawn raid on Mr.Manafort’s home after he decided not to cooperate like his partner Mr. Gates did. Given all of that shouldn’t we believe, as Judge Ellis here does, that this prosecution for tax,bank and wire fraud isn’t just a pretext for getting dirt on the President by using Mr. Manafort as your pawn?”

          https://jonathanturley.org/2018/08/14/four-yutes-and-counting-controversy-grows-over-the-statements-of-the-judge-in-the-manafort-trial/#comment-1770446

          I’m surprised you bought the Napolitano muck. You need to get out more.

          I love the ‘surly’ aside. It is particular to a core group here that any counter-perspective is quickly denigrated; and yet most yell for ‘mom’ in the bullying techniques they mastered as a child when eventually confronted — claiming lapse of memory, a mis-read of their words, etc..

          PCS is a passive=aggressive visionary in this regard — you are catching up to him though.

          1. R. Lien – I would like to think there is nothing passive about me. 😉

            1. PS Schulte,.,,.
              – I worry constantly that I’m too passive, too restrained, 😉😒in my criticism of a few of these morons who’ve been posting their nonsense here.

              1. Tom, picking up our discussion about Carter and The Shah. It occurred to me that the Shah’s dynasty only went back to his father, a former army general. The father, in fact, had been cordial with Hitler. So it was hard to back a monarch from a rump dynasty.

                The U.S. had actually meddled by installing the younger shah in ’53. A grievance I’m sure you’re aware of. Had Jimmy Carter sided with The Shah, in 1979, it would have looked like naked imperialism.

                To win the Cold War, America had to seem sincere about democracy.

                Reagan faced a similar choice when Marcos of the Philippines lost his country’s support. The U.S. would have looked imperialistic to intervene on Marcos’ behalf.

                Obama faced a similar choice with Mubarak of Egypt. He couldn’t openly side with Mubarak and have any credibility throughout the Arab-Muslim world. Mubarak was 83 and had ruled 30 years. No Egyptian under 40 had known a different leader.

                One must ask, “How long should strongmen rule? What ‘are’ their expectations?

                When leaders extend their rule through suppressive measures, they bargain with the devil. It’s not unlike the mafia. Once you go that route you have to stick with it. But don’t expect an American rescue when a million people march on your palace.

                1. Not only did Obama “not side with Mubarek”, the Obama administration was saying “Mubarek must go”
                  I won’t go into your other claims, but you have a damn selective memory when it suits your purposes.

                  1. Tom, what do you expect from Peter Shill? He is the Bullwinkle of politics…Fractured Fairytales.

                    After the Mubarak failure Obama then gave great support to Morsi a member of the Muslim Brotherhood that wishes to destroy the western world, but when el-Sisi came along suddenly Obama was cool to Egypt’s leader. One has to wonder why he preferred leaders that hated America, bowed to them, illegally gave them money and supported them in many other ways. That is the love Peter Shill shows for America.

                2. “It occurred to me that the Shah’s dynasty only went back to his father, a former army general. The father, in fact, had been cordial with Hitler”

                  Due to the various balances of powers at the time Iran developed a close relationship with Germany long before Hitler ever came to the scene. Iran felt the pressures from Russia/ the Soviet Union and Britain.

                  What Peter means by the words “cordial to Hitler” is impossible to say because Peter is neither honest nor consistent. Though Iran at the time was stuck between great powers the government didn’t support antisemitism and its embassies rescued Jews giving them Iranian citizenship.

                  The Iranians reduced trade with the Germans and during the earlier portion of the war, the throne was passed from father to son.

              2. I thought you were worried that I was a Russian troll.

                Didn’t you state that a few days ago, T. Gnash?

                Yeah, you did.

                You are clueless; but at least you are surrounded by like minds; at least find comfort in that while you can.

                1. I don’t know your nationality, R. Lein.
                  If I called you a lousy commie or something similar, it was probably a reaction to your sloppy use of the word “fascist” or something similar.
                  If you’re going attribute a comment to someone, show the quote itself, you jackass.
                  You’rs pulling a chicken**** L4D stunt by asking “duh, didn’t you say…”

              3. Tom Nash – when I hold back, I think of myself as being kind, not passive. 😉

                1. “Didn’t you state that a few days ago, T. Gnash?

                  Yeah, you did.”
                  ******************
                  Paul:
                  Maybe we could get Dr. Benson to chime in but isn’t asking and then breathlessly answering your own question a sign of paranoia? Or at least bad manners?

          2. R Lien:

            Oh valiant anonymous R Lien, there was no misremembering here or even an equivocation. I simply postulated in literary form what the real issues are and it stung you — hard apparently. I don’t know who Napolitano is nor what his muck is either. The point is that you read into my post what your fetid brain wanted to read. That’s all.

            Your delusionary venom allows me to now picture you as Captain Queeg staring intently at my post all the while muttering “it was the strawberries…yes, the strawberries,” and how you “proved beyond the shadow of a doubt with geometric logic” that everything I said was error. Except, of course, that’s not what I said at all. And why Paul S would be brought into your rant makes me wonder if you, like Queeg, enjoy “steaming in circles” and complaining of bullying even as you blame other’s incompetence for your own pronounced short-comings.

            https://youtu.be/ZlV3oQ3pLA0

            1. Mespo,

              You mistake ridicule for venom. Such a long post by you, for such a simple oversight.

                1. George and T. Gnash approve!

                  I am so humbled and must retreat to heal my wounds from the clown car honking at me.

                  1. R. lein,..
                    You are not smart enough to realize that you’ve been had.
                    And your not slick enough to try pulling L-FOOL-D- type stunts.
                    Maybe with her as your mentor, you too can occasionally get away with some of the crap she occasionally gets away with.

    2. Mespo727272 said, “Defense Lawyer: Judge, my best defense is that the government selectively prosecuted my client for an improper purpose.”

      I am not a lawyer. But since that has never stopped me before, here I go again. A defense based upon a claim of selective prosecution ought to be an affirmative defense.

      Defense lawyer: Your Honor, the defense will stipulate that the defendant committed the alleged crimes, if, but only if, the government will allow the defense to argue in your Honor’s court that the defendant would not have committed the alleged crimes had the government only troubled itself to prosecute the defendant the first time, or the second time, or even the third time, that the defendant committed the alleged crimes. Any government that prosecutes any citizen for any alleged crime only after the eleventh, or the twelfth, or even the umpteenth times that that citizen committed those crimes is a government that has been in the process of facilitating, aiding and abetting the very criminal conduct that that government indicts and prosecutes.

      Judge: The clerk will enter a plea of guilty as charged.

      1. Jury: How come we don’t get to consider all the facts of the prosecution?
        Judge: Because you’re too emotional and this isn’t a democracy despite what you read.

        1. What facts of the prosecution? The fact that the prosecution didn’t charge the defendant the first time the defendant committed the crime? The second time the defendant committed the crime? The third time the defendant committed the crime? How many times did the defendant have to commit the crime before the prosecution charged the defendant with the crime? Either selective prosecution is an affirmative defense or selective prosecution is not an affirmative defense. Was Manafort deprived of due process of law when he wasn’t charged with the crimes or when he was charged with the crimes?

          1. No the defense was precluded from arguing that the charges were brought only when a political aim was furthered due to the defendant’s refusal to cooperate in investigating the President. In essence, this was a political crime of noncooperation not a criminal act of tax evasion since they had declined prosecution before one these same facts. The jury should have heard all the facts surrounding the motives of the prosecutor. They sure heard about the motives of the defendant.

            1. Then selective prosecution is not an affirmative defense. Manafort can plead not guilty to the charges and still put the prosecution on trial for failing to charge him with the alleged crimes at the time that the alleged crimes were allegedly committed.

  7. Manafort has nothing. He is guilty of tax evasion, failure to report foreign bank accounts w/over 10k, etc. etc. etc. This is grasping at straws. Unfortunately, in this polarized nation the fanatics of both poles accept travesties as necessary means to sacred ends. Trump has laid down an unrelenting tweet storm about his being victimized that fanatics on the right will believe this. So, the liars/lawyers throw it out there to see if it will stick. Who knows, there might be a juror or two, or three that are that rotten that this sort of merde will attract them. Years and years of Trump the consummate con man, billionaire, shafter, liar, cheat, etc, etc, bellowing has convinced some that he is a victim. Anything is possible in these here United States.

    1. Coimrade IBK has nothing but a twisted sense of hatred towards not only our country but our entire system. Even though as it appears he was erroneously allowed back in in violation of the laws of that time, even though those laws were being fought, even though peoplle ike IBK suddeny quit protesting and let those laws stand to this very day. The same can be applied today even though it it doesn’t suit his twisted and perverted sense of something or another. End oif comment on IBKism.

      1. Is disagreeing with Trump (and viewing him as a danger) evidence of “hatred towards our country and our entire system” ?

    2. Canada is a better place for you Isaac son of Bacon. Consider relocating to the Great White North, eh?

      1. I’m going out on a limb for the second day in a row by guessing that the suffix in the name Basonkavich is -vich and that the root name is Basonka. If I’m wrong about that, boy, am I going to hear about it from Mr. Basonk + av + ich. Or not.

    3. Isaac, what does any of this have to do with the alleged “collusion” between Trump and Russia?
      THAT( alleged “collusion”) was ostensibly the reason for authorizing a Special Counsel investigation, and we get these sideshows that have nothing to do withv”collusion”.

    4. ha you dont know FACTA. it’s not just accounts over 10K.
      I don’t even understand how FACTA comes into this but the whole thing is FBUR alright

  8. Could some of the lawyers on this site explain to me why Manafort would not be allowed to reference the special prosecution, since it is central to the issue?

    It is my understanding that Mueller has a mandate to investigate Russian activities in our election process, and to see if there was any coordination with the Trump campaign. He has abstained to investigate the proven coordination between Hillary Clinton and the Russians, or how the Uranium One deal might have affected our politics.

    Mueller investigated everyone attached in any way to Trump, and then tried to find something, anything, on them in an attempt to make them turn. In Manafort’s case, they found Gates may have been involved in tax evasion in 2005, and had embezzled from Manafort. They threatened him with 300 years, unless he gave them some dirt on Manafort, in which case he would only get probation. That is a hell of an incentive to make stuff up. Gates claimed that Manafort was involved in the embezzling. Now Mueller is threatening Manafort with 300 years unless he gives them something, anything on Trump.

    That is not supposed to be how our justice system works. This is more like what you would find in a banana republic.

    The law is supposed to apply equally to everyone, but it doesn’t does it? It has treated everyone connected with Trump very differently than it treated Hillary Clinton. Politics are extremely important in our justice system.

    That is not right and it’s not fair. The jury has a right to know this has taken place. The jury should know what Mueller has been doing, especially his selective prosecution in an effort to nail Trump for something, anything. None of us could hold up to that scrutiny. I must have jaywalked or gone one mile over the speed limit at some point in my life.

    1. ” I must have jaywalked or gone one mile over the speed limit at some point in my life.”

      Ahh, the weeping of conflation.

      1. Alleged tax evasion in 2005 has zero to do with Russian meddling, which is what Mueller is tasked with. The FBI is not supposed to be the strong arm of the Democratic Party. They are not supposed to be politically motivated, investigating anyone with any connection to the Administration, and then threaten them unless they reveal any crime committed by Trump, whether it has anything to do with the Russians or not.

        Are you really unable to understand this? Is this how you want the game to be played? After all, fair is fair. Shall the government use the IRS, DOJ, FBI, and NSA to target Liberals, as these agencies have been used against conservatives? Shall we put people in place to “make sure” that a Liberal does not become President, a “Plan B”? Because that is not how I want my country to devolve.

        And if it’s not OK for conservatives to do, it’s not OK for Liberals to do.

        1. “The FBI is not supposed to be the strong arm of the Democratic Party.”
          What about Fox News being the propaganda arm of the Trump administration?

          1. Jay S – only part of the Fox network supports Trump, however all of the NYT, WaPo, HuffPo, Buzzfeed, etc. are all arms of the DNC. Oh, I forgot Politico.

          2. Talk about an idiotic comparison….I won’t bother explaining to J ay S the diffence between the most power federal law enforcement agency and a news network.
            Is there a stupidity contest today, where JayS., Natcookoo, Anonymous, R.Lein are all trying to top their previous levels of stupidity?

        2. ” I must have jaywalked or gone one mile over the speed limit at some point in my life.” — Karen S.

          As usual, in your exuberant verboseness, you miss the point.

          You’re a one-penny opera of angst and bile, whose personal experiences exactly match current arguments, yet still pretends to have compassion.

      2. And until and unless an investigator into Russian activity in the election investigates Hillary Clinton, this will continue to be a political misuse of power.

        She has done everything they have accused Trump of doing. He was her victim, and yet he is the object of the investigation.

        The arm of the Democratic Party still runs deep.

        1. it’s not the Democrat party that has the power. It’s Hillary and who backed her. Remember she was the defense and intel ie war pigs’ favored candidate. That is all you need to understand.

          Dont blame the Democrats for that– look at how they shafted Bernie. Donna Brazile told truly.

          And they tried to screw Trump too but the people responded overwhelmingly to the message.

          For a Republicant who never met a war he didnt like, except, maybe the one that got him locked up as a POW, look to McCain. Who has also bedeviled Trump.

          The pro war “Permanent State” has an especial hate for people who truck with their permanent adversary Russia. and we know Yanukovich was a pro Russian Ukrainian president that the Deep state didn’t like. WHich is why they helped oust him. And here was Manafort, working for the guy.

          It’s fairly clear that if you mess with the bull you get the horns. The difficult thing for us as Americans is that this very same Deep State and “miltiary industrial complex” does in fact do a lot of good for us as citizens. The question is just how to reign it in.

          1. Mt. Kurtz may I remind iyou that 95% of the wars and similar actions since 1909 have been started by a Progressivie President? and over that amount in dead US Soldiersi as a result? There is no doubt which side is the War Monger Party and when you add the RINO wing of the left to and realign the totals THEN apply iyour question properly…..

            Now continue.

        2. Karen, Manafort’s defense team can’t go onto court and ask, “What about Hillary?” It doesn’t work that way in court.

        3. In real life discussions of the Russian election campaign interference, Hillary has committed none of the acts which some suspect the day glo bozo of committing. If you have evidence that controverts this fact, you might want to reference it. I will precede your ramblings with the fact that no one from the Clinton campaign made direct contact with the Russian government and / or requested or accepted help from the Russian government in order to win the election. Rather, a law firm was retained her campaign to gather information. One of the investigators hired by that law firm consulted sources known to him from his prior career as a well-respected intelligence official with the British government. The information that investigator uncovered was so alarming to him that he contacted the FBI regarding same and completely debriefed with the FBI regarding his sources and methods. For a frame of reference, even the wackjob Republican Senators have publicly announced that the only rational, legal and ethical thing to do when the Russian government contacts an election campaign with “help” is to call the FBI. Russian government agents made direct contact with persons in the day glo bozo election campaign, offering “help” in defeating Clinton. It’s very clear that none of the players in the day glo bozo camp ever considered calling the FBI. So sorry for your loss and misunderstanding of the difference between “facts,” “evidence,” and wild-eyed shrieking by television shills.

          this is to karen

          1. Right-wing media asks, “What about Hillary?” on a daily basis. So consumers of right-wing media honestly believe that prosecuting Hillary would be a slam-dunk. Therefore it baffles them quite endlessly that Hillary hasn’t been prosecuted.

            1. That is the kind of canned, stupid response I expect from Hillary apologists who don’t understand the concept of equal treatment under the law.
              Great job, Peter Shill

            1. Thanks. We merely try to muddle through with the rudimentary tools so graciously bestowed by providence.

      3. That wasn’t conflation, and you shouldn’t use multi syllable words you don’t understand.

        1. Karen S compared the charges against Manafort to jaywalking and going one mile an hour over the speed limit.

          Is Wally Moran sure–really sure–that he understands the meaning of the word conflation???

      4. one day the punctillious persecutors may turn their jaundiced eyes on your conduct too and then see if you dotted every i and crossed every t.

        the financial crimes arena is complicated as the devil. maybe it’s a point of legitimate critique to say that what is clearly lawful and unlawful should be spelled out in a proper criminal statute but a lot of our “financial crimes” have no such precision whatsoever

    2. Karen

      One doesn’t need to be a lawyer to understand why these references were not admissible. One only needs to be able to understand the English language. The judge strictly prohibited any outside the issue references in order to keep the focus on the alleged crimes being tried. This restriction works for Manafort as the prosecution is not permitted to drag any misdoings relevant to the Russia/Trump/whatever issues across into the procedure. The prosecution was severely restricted from establishing motive by illustrating that Manafort had become addicted to a lifestyle that was slowly being taken away by the loss of clients, and subsequently found himself lying, cheating, etc.

      What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, I believe is the legal expression. An order by the judge applies to both sides. Next question.

      1. i think there is something to what isaac said, i mean, the government as a whole, judiciary included, must pretend that it’s motives are always pure, even though we all know that’s crap. So they were ordered not to state the obvious.

        1. IBK has it appears twice turned his back on a welcoming nation and if wha ti read is factual is settinig up a third jump. Run rabbit Run.

    3. Under the law, the government retains “broad discretion” as to whom to prosecute. “So long as the prosecutor has probable cause to believe that the accused committed an offense defined by statute, the decision whether or not to prosecute, and what charge to file or bring before a grand jury, generally rests entirely in his discretion.
      That discretion is not absolute, however. In particular, the decision to prosecute may not be “deliberately based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification,” including the exercise of protected statutory and constitutional rights.
      Selective prosecution claims are evaluated according to ordinary equal protection standards. Manafort did not, and cannot, claim he is being prosecuted for a suspect classification under an equal protection standard, therefore there’s no selective prosecution claim that would be non-frivolous. Manafort has excellent lawyers. Had they believed that a selective prosecution defense had any realistic viability under the law on appeal, they would not have withdrawn their pretrial motion raising that defense and entered an agreed order.
      The violation of the trial court’s order is a last gasp gamble; the best they could have hoped for was a mistrial, which didn’t happen. I think they’re also playing to an audience of one who wields the pardon pen. The drawback is that there are more charges still pending against Manafort; he’s gonna have to sit it out in jail to face the next slew of charges no matter what this jury comes back with, unless and until the day glo bozo decides to pardon him. Such an occurrence wouldn’t happen until after the November elections in a strategically-rational administration; but who knows with this one?

      Pro tip: hannity is not a lawyer, nor does he play one on TV.

      to karen

      1. That “broad discretion” was and is abundantly evident in the differnce between the Hillary email investigation/ whitewash, and the tactics and objectives of the Special Counsel Cowboys.
        Now before some moron says “Hillary isn’t President” or that I’m “pivoting” to “…but,,but what about Hillary”, read Sen. Grassley’s statement on this subject to FBI DIR. Wray and IG Horowitz when they appeared before Congress a while back.
        Try actually thinking about what he said, instead of automatically slinging the same tired slogans out three hundreds of times..

  9. Why do so many of Turley’s headlines sound like wishful thinking? Is this blog being curated by L4D now?

    1. JT’s ‘headlines’ not to your expectations, FFS? You’ve never stated this concern before.

      It speaks to L4D’s ability to point out, and link to, circumstances most have forgotten for you to write this FFS.

      1. R. Lein, when you can ignore her lying and her objectives as a hyper-partisan propagandist who constantly spins and distorts…yes, I can see why that crap easily sells to you, and impresses you.

        1. When you can accept that L4D brings nuances to the table — backed up by multiple news sources — then we might talk further; until then:

          “… hyper-partisan propagandist …” — T. Gnash

          Funny; that’s how I see you. The difference between you and L4D is that you bellow, while L4D does not. L4D also has a sense of humor, which is important in all aspects of life — you do not. Oh you think you do while you ‘wink, wink, nudge, nudge’ your way around — but it is not convincing.

          “… who constantly spins and distorts …” — T. Gnash

          L4D speculates, as does everyone — however her speculations are based on a firm understanding of events and principle elements — times, dates, people — that you do not posses.

          L4D is not a troll, IMO, you are. For three days you talked of nothing but trolls and L4D. Complaining about trolls for three days without offering any substantive comment is trolling IMO.

          So sorry you have the short end of the stick, but you should at least realize this and work your opinions forward from the back of the pack.

          1. If you are going to join the L4D Propagand gan club, you should follow the comments on these thread R, Lein.
            Either you have not been doing that, or you are a simple-minded sponge ripe for eating up lies and propaganda from a hyper-partian fool like L4D.
            If you were not a low-life troll, I could go on about how you suck up to a fool like L4D and act like a mindless puppy in lapping up ths crap that she posts here.
            But there is no point in trying to communicate with a low-life troll and liar like you, who is soooh impressedv with another liar.
            You two mame a very good pair, and I’m sure that you’ll make each other very happy here lying through your seemingly collective mouth.
            Must be nice to use a pseudoname and use a haven like this to lie your asses off, so enjoy.

            1. I value L4D’s comments because they align, with some variance, with what I have read and deduced.

              You do nothing but accuse everyone of being a troll.

              1. No, I somtimes take the time and trouble to call out liars and propagandists.
                And also the simple-minded who accept that because of their “alignment” with the liar/ propagandist’s views.

          2. L4Diaper change is afflicted with multiple personalities. It sounds like you might be one of them. If not you are likely afflicted with the same disorders and need to go back inside your paper bag.

            1. Sounds to me like R Lein is L4D’s mom, and is protecting her as all good moms should.

              1. Late4Yoga / anonymous / R. Lien are the same person. Presumably posting from different venues (home, public library, Starbucks).

                1. “Late4Yoga / anonymous / R. Lien are the same person. Presumably posting from different venues (home, public library, Starbucks).”

                  I didn’t know that pornography was permitted in the public library.

                  1. it is. and you don’t need to go to a different venue or even a VPN to make sockpuppets here, just pull up an incognito window with no cookies,.

                2. TS to Dance,…
                  – I don’t know if they are the same or not….but that would explain the R.Lein being a member of our AM Propagadist’s Fan Club.😉

                3. DSS – supposedly R. Lien is male and anonymous female. Still, who knows.

    2. As a favor for Zorro Zorro Nevada (Slim)

      Truckin’ like the doodah man
      Once told me “Gotta play your hand
      Sometimes the cards ain’t worth a dime
      If you don’t lay them down”

      Sometimes the lights all shining on me
      Other times I can barely see
      Lately it occurs to me
      What a long strange trip it’s been

      1. L4Yoga enables both David Benson and Marky Mark Mark – don’t give up your day job. 🙂

      2. those hippies dont know how to play cards, that’s just a song about a bunch of doped up losers touring.

        now here is a song about gambling from a real band, hail LEMMY

    3. FFS, Tom,
      I don’t know about curated, but trolled would certainly fit. And not just by the sockpuppet L4D, This is her M.O. In the past she was Annie/Inga/Inga Nani. Her Sybil-like methods have always worked the same; her primary sockpuppet is always the one to come off as the more rational and civil. The others to different degrees are just distractions using whatever trolling methods they want. They have nothing to lose. Their reputation (and sockpuppet) is disposable. They will protect L4D. Once L4D’s sockpuppet charade is finished, she will work a new one in and the cycle will start all over.

      So when you consider responding to any of them, remember you are arguing with one person trolling you with different sockpuppets. None of them deserve the time of day.

      1. Olly,…
        – I’ve commented over the past few weeks about the increase in troll traffic here.
        In the past, I would watch a troll for a few dozen, or a few hundred, comments, get fed up with their crap, and tactfully point out to the person that they were low-life trash.
        Recently, I’ve often been involved with simultaneous exchanges with 3-4 trolls, or troll groupies.
        So there definitely has been a change.

        1. Tom,
          If you stop to think about it, do you think Turley is running a legal blog? I don’t think so. It functions more like a petri dish for Turley to play with. He posts articles and then lets it run its course. We might get 10% of any discussion that is reasonable legal theory and the rest are attempts to be insultingly clever.

          So where does that leave us? For me, the choice is to be part of Turley’s experiments or try to focus and learn about the law. The former means I’ll need to wrestle with pigs and while that might be fun from time to time, it really is proving to be a waste of time. The latter means I have to study, learn, and try to contribute logical and reasonable comments. I won’t always succeed, but that’s part of learning. The latter also means I’ll need to no longer feed the trolls.

          1. Olly,..
            – Without a staff of full-time babysitters, it’s pretty hard to monitor and control trolls and their games.
            That’s why a lot of publications have just shut down their comments sections.
            It’s possible that one or two of the anonymous troll fools who’ve showed up here recently are refugees from another site that shut down their comments section, so they brought their hobby over here.

            1. Tom Nash – H. A. Goodman who runs Super Chats on his YouTube channel has added 4 moderators to kick off trolls since they have a running chat and they ruin the chat. It really is a coordinated attack.

            2. I agree Tom. Perhaps we should follow the instructions Turley lays out in his Civility Rules.

              It is a sad reality of the Internet and the worst element of our species. Don’t feed the trolls. Ignore them. They are trolls and live under cyber bridges for a reason.

                1. IMO, Karen S. would be the only person on this blog that hasn’t violated the Civility Rule. It’s not difficult to see her patience is running thin.

                  Anyway, I’m going to do my part and not feed the trolls.

                  1. come on karen, get down in the muck with the rest of us! life is more fun when you play dirty

  10. Hyperventilation.

    Information from the soon to be debunked (I’m sure) webmd site:

    “But things can change your breathing pattern and make you feel short of breath, anxious, or ready to faint. When this happens, it’s called hyperventilation, or overbreathing…”

    “Many conditions and situations can bring on hyperventilation, including:

    Anxiety disorder
    Panic attack…”

    “Treatment …

    Limit your airflow. Keep your mouth closed…”

    1. Look, stupid, I stated some facts about your heroine L4D, and you respond with some meaningless crap about “hyperventilation”.
      Way to stay on topic….you’ve got the pond scum troll routine down pat.
      That’s why this site needs more and more anonymous trash , just to liven things up a bit.
      Good work, and best of luck to you as an anonymous troller on this site.
      We need more pond scum like you surfacing here, just to keep things interesting.
      Happy Trolling, Scum😃, enjoy your trolling forum here.

      1. My comment wasn’t posted in response to any other comment, T. Gnash.

        Follow the indentations of the nesting of comments, and you will discover that my comment was in response to no one.

        But you’re so convinced I was responding to you that you went off on ‘pond scum troll routine’, ‘anonymous trash’, ‘anonymous troller’; ending with: ‘We need more pond scum like you surfacing here, just to keep things interesting. Happy Trolling, Scum.’

        So, let’s look at your opening sentence, based on a comment I addressed to no one, either by name nor indentation:

        “Look, stupid, I stated some facts about your heroine L4D, and you respond with some meaningless crap about “hyperventilation”.

        Hopefully, you can figure it out from here.

        You obviously are clueless about how the blog indentation works, how time stamps work, and are just trolling comments for a chance to bellow your great divide. You made the same complaint three-four days ago on another thread, multiple times, about time stamps and indentations.

        One should study details before they bellow — of course, you obviously disagree.

        You really are an idiot. Good luck.

        1. This commemt in not directed to anyone either.
          A nice trick is to post something that appears right below someone else’s comment, don’t memtion who it’s addressed to, then pretend like it’s just for the edification of everyone.
          So, without mentioning any names, of address ing this to anyone, it appears that the trolls have come out from under their bridges, and that this is their playtime period here.
          That actually works out fairly well if the lying scum here just have their own separate playpen and certain periods where they slither around this site.
          Now note that I’m not making a comment to, or about, any particular group of trolls who appear to be active and very recent commentators here.

          1. It’s not a trick, it was posting at the top, like many others.

            So sorry you don’t understand indentation.

            You’re truly lost.

            1. Sorry you don’t understand the concept of distinguishing between a supposedly general comment about respiration, and a comment directed at someone.
              I’ll post something about cardiology, as a general comment, when see another post that gushes from the heart as the ❤ heart pines for L Fool D.

              1. You’ve been claiming comments are directed at you since your first day here.

                Like a newborn, you refuse to adapt to the reality of indentations and timestamps, claiming that comments at the first level are directed to you.

                Damn, even PCS tried to help you out a couple of days ago with the timestamps — which you claimed were not showing.

                You’ve done nothing but b***h about comments not directed at you being directed at you since the day you arrived.

                Keep making a fool of yourself, T. Gnash — everyone can see it.

          2. Do me a favor, T. Gnash.

            Put your mouse pointer on the first letter of my post — then scroll up with the keyboard leaving the mouse pointer alone — do you see anything to the left of your mouse pointer anywhere?

            No, you don’t.

            Don’t bother me with your perceived indignation anymore; it’s obvious you don’t read much, and I have little time nor patience people who claim otherwise.

            1. Do me a favor, R. lein
              Read L4D’s posts and decide if her lies are justified or not.
              As long as we’re “asking favors” , I thought I”d ask that favor from a member of her fan club here.

              1. I don’t see lies from L4D. I see correlations to my own readings and opinions.

                Much like you confuse indentations and timestamps, you refuse to accept that others might have different opinions of events — events, i might add that you rarely discuss, as you are so busy claiming your birthright of busting trolls.

                Buzz off, T. Gnash — you are truly a waste of time.

        2. R, Lien – I respond to what ends in my mailbox. I have no idea where it is nested unless that is part of the email header. When I respond, I am expecting that at least part of the person’s post that I am responding to will be included in the email to them. That way they know what I am responding to.

          I am not sure how you operate since I have always assumed we operate in our own ways. I know you have a problem with the nesting, but using my system you need not worry. 😉

      2. Another favor. This time for Krazy Kat Rambler:

        Most of the cats that you meet on the street speak of true love
        Most of the time they’re sitting and crying at home
        One of these days they know they gotta get going
        Out of the door and into the street all alone

        Truckin’ got my chips cashed in
        Keep truckin’ like the doodah man
        Together, more or less in line
        Just keep truckin’ on

        1. That’s very profound, LFoolD….you just stay on top of the issues like that and pat yourself on the back for how clever you are.
          You’re not always slick enough to get away with lying, but with practice, maybe you’ll get there.
          You are certainly ambitious and slimy enough to try to l find a way of lying without any possible blowback, but I don’t think that clever.
          I don’t want to overload your website here with comments, or interrupt the late night troll festivities for people like you R. liar, you guys have fun.

          1. “I don’t think you’re that clever”…left out the word “you’re” in the comment I just made to L FOOL D.

            1. Have you given any serious thought, yet, to the possibility of spanking a hippopotamus?

        2. here’s a real song about trucking not a song by a bunch of doped up hippies about touring

      3. Tom, you have to give Lien a break. She is a hyperventilator both respiratory wise and vocally. That is why she lives in a paper bag with a bunch of Valium strewn around. This blog is Lien’s pathway into a bit of the world.

  11. I am not sure this is that big a deal, it seems a solid part of the defense.

    1. You get an order from the court and your follow it! But, of course, if this is true, I’m not surprised. Court orders are only for little people; not for powerful Republicans.

      1. Justice Holmes – you ring that bell, it cannot be unrung. And if Ellis gives the jury an instruction on it, it will be rung again. 😉

        1. Perhaps after the verdict comes in there will be a monetary sanction against counsel and an order to self report to his state bars.

          1. judges dont order you to self report. lol. wtf. if they think you violated ethics and are pissed they report you theyselves.

              1. trust Holly me i have forgotten more about ethics than most lawyers learn…. er…
                (wait, I dont think that came out right….lol)

                anyhow read what I wrote again smart-aleck.
                I said JUDGES dont order you to self report.
                I did NOT say a lawyer does not have a duty to self report themselves
                I am fully aware that there is a duty of self reporting in most or all states
                The reality is judges will not wait for you to self report if they are pissed,
                they will report you themselves. I have seen it many many times.

      2. Replace ‘powerful Republicans’ with ‘ powerful ‘socialist iiprogressives’ you end iup in much the same spot and we settled that argument in Nov 2016.

        1. mespo – I did hear that two 757s full of documents left Little Rock for DC in the last couple of days. Could get interesting. 😉

          1. Yeah, just like HRC received $400M from Browder — until Vlad walked that one back. You’ve been silent on that one PCS.

            And the Georgia votes where a county had 2.5 times the votes of registered voters. Anonymous pointed to the ineptness of Georgia officials — and then two days later McClatchy (which your original post was based on) reported that:

            “A separate error cited in the suit, which was found on a similar web page, initially indicated that 670 people voted in this year’s Republican primary race in Habersham County’s Mud Creek precinct. That number, even without counting the 69 Democrats who voted, was nearly 2 1/2 times greater than the 276 people whom the county reported had registered to vote. Calling the latter figure “a typo,” the county election supervisor last week ordered the number of registered voters corrected to 3,704.”

            https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article216452405.html#cardLink=row1_card1

            You continually throw **** and never follow-up.

            Especially on the Georgia claim — your initial hysteria and the subsequent correction was released by the same source — McClatchy.

            Go find the remains at Roswell, you live close enough.

            1. R. Lien – you need to talk to Benson about that, he worked in the Roswell area.

        1. Justice Holmes posted a short and succinct comment.

          Where is the “cranial analysis”, Mespo?

          You’re just commenting here due to loss of face upstream.

          My, my; how the respected have fallen.

          1. With apologies to Justice Holmes–whose head is obviously well-rounded.

    2. Anything else would be changing the rules in midstream Paul. I agree.

    3. It would seem R. Lein has an invaid conclusion. The NYT uses it all the time. “Yes someone gave me this stating it was both stolen and classified but I used it anyway.”

  12. According to reports, the defense team made reference to how the underlying loans by Manafort were not matters of concern until the “Special Counsel” entered the field and then “stack up the counts.” That sounds awfully like special prosecution.

    This brings me back to the same question I’ve been trying to get an answer on: what triggered the Feds to indict and prosecute Manafort? If these alleged crimes had been investigated and no indictments came of them, what new evidence came into existence that changed everything?

    Bottom line: Did Manafort become a target of opportunity once he popped up on the radar screen that was focused squarely on Trump?

    1. Olly, why did Paul Manafort have to leave the Trump campaign? That was months before Trump had even taken office.

        1. Thanks, Enigma. Your article contains the following:

          “Federal prosecutors have been looking into Manafort’s work for years as part of an effort to recover Ukrainian assets stolen after the 2014 ouster of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, who fled to Russia. No charges have been filed as part of the investigation.

          Manafort, a longtime Republican political operative, led the presidential campaign from March until August last year when Trump asked him to resign. The resignation came after a tumultuous week in which The New York Times revealed that Manafort’s name appeared in the Ukraine ledger — although the newspaper said at the time that officials were unsure whether Manafort actually received the money — and after the AP separately reported that he had orchestrated a covert Washington lobbying operation until 2014 on behalf of Ukraine’s pro-Russian Party of Regions”.

          1. let me tell you the WHY MANAFORT WAS HIRED in the first place.

            because cruz was stealing delegates

            just so happens manafort is an expert in rep party rules and locking up delegates. he took care of the problem.

            the Ukraine whatever is baggage that was not known to Trump and it’s being unfairly used to target him

            1. That is nice as a diversion but in no way addresses or answers the question.

            2. Mr. Kurtz,
              Manafort’s experience in GOP politics goes back to the 1976 Convention.
              He was considered for a key position in one of McCain’s campaigns DECADES later; I think McCain opted for someone else, but I don’t know if it was because of something sleazy in Manafort’s past that was known, or for some other reason.
              In any case, he wasn’t just “hatched” in the Ukraine in the early 2000s. He was a paid, a well-paid advisor to an ELECTED President that he U.S. and the EU came to dislike.
              That info about his actual bio will never, EVER show up in Peter Shill’s posts.

            1. oh they have? you say so. i doubt it or he would be loaded up with charges for that too

                1. he disclosed payments but this does not establish that the source of payments was from improperly obtained funds.

                  1. I would argue the points about whether Manafort is guilty of crimes or not but the most expedient thing at this point is to wait for him to be convicted and sentenced. Perhaps you could have testified on his behalf since he couldn’t find anyone else?

                    1. yeah still waiting 12 hours jury deliberation and the prosecutors will have a LOOOONG weekend wondering “what’s taking them so long?” it will drive the CNN bozos crazy

                      I am betting on one count conviction aquittall all the rest

                    2. Mr Kurtz – I’d bet it had more to do with the judge refusing to let the prosecutors publish the documents during the trial so the jurors could match the documents to the 18 counts. When the jury asked for an index, the judge left them hanging. The jury has to figure out what law applies to what count. Still, I’d bet on at least 16 convictions, after which Trump will tweet out his victory.

                    3. Enigma it sure will be fun once the verdict is in~! I find this most amusing. Let’s visit again next week, cheers!

                    4. I am of the belief that most of the events coming in the near future will be disappointing to many/most that inhabit this place. It is hard to make accurate predictions when fact deprived? Of course, they say the same about me and only one of us can be correct. We will see!

          2. Peter Hill and Enigma are recycling well known, old news items.
            I guess they are trying to make a point of some kind, but they haven’t said what it is.

            1. Whack-A-Mole moles don’t get to complain about old news been recycled.

              Take your lumps from the foam-rubber mallet and get thee below.

              1. L4D,…
                -I wasn’t aware that you even had that rule on your website here.
                You didn’t mention it, or enforce it, when I noted that you twice posted identical links from an older article that contained information that was known earlier.
                Now that I am aware of that rule, I’ll give it all of the consideration that it deserves.😝

  13. Every time you read one of these columns, you realize that what rankles the professor on a daily basis is that somewhere someone either defied a member of the legal profession or failed to treat a member of the legal profession with obsequious deference.

    1. From Merriam Webster [No Explanation]

      evidentiary harpoon n: evidence consisting esp. of a police officer’s statement that is improper and is knowingly offered by the prosecution to prejudice the defendant in the eyes of the jury. [from the comparison of such evidence to a harpoon, which can be retracted after it has injured its target]

      Somebody else will have to figure out what Kurtz is getting at. Unless Kurtz can do it. [Pshaw!]

      1. duh the defendants were not supposed to say anything about selective prosecution but maybe they did.

        now to cancel that out, the judge would have to order the jury to disregard the issue, which will only simply serve to drive the point home even harder.

        there you go smartaleck

    1. Why do former officials have security clearances? Tell the fat bast*rd to go enjoy his pension and quit pestering the nomies.

      1. To allow current officials to take advantage of the knowledge and experience of their predecessors. (I’m not speaking to whether any particular person should keep his clearance, just the theoretical base for allowing them to do so). That doesn’t mean that they have some general ongoing access to classified information, just that they are eligible to receive such information if an authorized official or entity determines it is necessary.

      2. Thanks to Anonylinks for play to her strength; posting links and quoting other people.
        Once the Gus Hall voter Brennan accused Trump of “treason”,that was probably the final straw.
        Brennan is a jackass.

        1. Can’t you even click on the ‘Reply’ text right underneath the comment you want to slam?

          Is this some difficult concept for you, T. Gnash?

          No wonder you think all the comments are directed at you.

          1. Clicking on the “reply” underneath the comment does not guarantee that the reply will be properly placed.
            Also, there will occasionally be no “reply” word present to click on, depending on the device been used; i.e., it is more likely to be present on a desktop than a smart phone.
            That, amoung other reasons, is why I try to include the name of the person that the comment or reply is directed to.
            In this particular case, that would be Nitpicker R. Lein.

        2. Tom Nash – I am still not sure how someone who voted Communist in the 1960s was allowed to become head of the CIA. Was no one else qualified?

          1. Brennan is fluent in Arabic. Rumor has it that the CIA was in desperate need of fluent Arabic speakers both before and after September Eleventh. Perhaps there were other qualifications as well.

          2. PC Schulte,..,.
            I think it was 1976 when Brennan voted for Gus Hall; I’m not sure Brennan ever got over Hall’s defeat.
            That guy is a real piece of work.

            1. PC Schulte,..,.
              I think it was 1976 when Brennan voted for Gus Hall; I’m not sure Brennan ever got over Hall’s defeat.
              That guy is a real piece of work.
              We’ll see how well Brennan now plays “the victim card”.

              1. We’ll see how well Brennan now plays “the victim card”.

                James “the Clap on, Clap off” Clapper is arguing taking away the security clearance is a violation of his 1st amendment rights. How in the hell did these guys ever get a clearance, let alone the positions they held.

                1. Rubbish. If you wanted to cast a protest vote, you had John Anderson and Ed Clark on the ballot in every state and Barry Commoner on the ballot in most states.

                2. hollywood – I would not believe Brennan if he said the sky was blue. A youthful protest vote would be the Green Party or the Libertarians.

            2. Tom Nash – thanks for the correction on the date. He is probably a member of the underground CPUSA. He certainly has not gotten over the victory of The Donald. That clearly has set him back psychologically.

              1. PC Schulte,
                -He has a lot of company on the psychological setback.
                People like Natacha are getting loonier by the day.

        1. Circular argument with no foundation of proof. No matter how many times repeated.

      1. The funny thing is that Anonylinks combs the news items and posts either news that has already been widely reported, or she posts a tweet from some unknown flake.

          1. L4Yoga enables both David Benson and Marky Mark Mark – those are the same symptoms for ADHD. That is a catch-all diagnosis if I have ever seen one.

    2. Anonymous, did journalists seek clarification on whose behavior was ‘erratic’?

          1. Yes, everyone here spends hours a day reading the material from the LinkMachines like Fool4Breakfast and a few others.

      1. dont forget what Chuck Schumer said on tv. If you mess with the intel establishment they have a six ways to sunday to screw you over. something like that. but maybe brennan commands less respect than his supporters pretend, and some like this. who knows.

        1. “…dont forget what Chuck Schumer said on tv. If you mess with the intel establishment they have a six ways to sunday to screw you over. something like that. ”

          Yep. I remember it well.

          “…who knows.”

          Michael Hastings might have been able to offer some insights.

          1. We need Anonyqoutes to recycle more quotes from other people, and plaster this site with more links.

              1. L4Yoga enables both David Benson and Marky Mark Mark – well death would stop it, assuming it actually is a disease.

  14. they are probably hoping that the judge will issue and instruction. that will be like ringing the bell twice.

  15. “According to reports, the defense team made reference to how the underlying loans by Manafort were not matters of concern until the “Special Counsel” entered the field and then “stack up the counts.”

    Based on what we know, that statement sounds like important information crucial to the defense.

    “It was clearly a premeditated and risky act by the defense.”

    Hurrah for the defense.

    “We are awaiting a response from Ellis on what the Court intends to do “

    But for the fact that Ellis is the judge, I would have him respond in a truthful way and say, ” the underlying loans by Manafort were not matters of concern until the “Special Counsel” entered the field “

    1. “It was clearly a premeditated and risky act by the defense.”

      Hurrah for the defense.

      Imagine that, the defense goes with the ends justify the means strategy favored by progressives. Surely the Lefty folks on this blog won’t have a problem with it, right?

      1. They will do as always and believe anything The Party tells them is the truth until the truth is changed by The Party.

Comments are closed.