U.S. judge questions special counsel's powers in Manafort case

a reply to: introvert

Sure. Of course my opinion would not hold as much weight as his, legally-speaking, but that still does not address the concerns I brought up.

The concerns only exist in your mind. As a Federal Judge, Ellis decides the outcome of a case. The most that could happen to him is that the decision be appealed. An appeal would further have to show that the Special Counsel had jurisdiction before it was ever scheduled for a hearing, as that would be the legal reasoning behind Ellis' refusal to adjudicate it. In addition, it would drag out the Manafort case to the point it would likely be dropped, as the true intent is indeed to squeeze him for information before public sentiment demands an end to the investigation.

Ellis is in no danger of anything that would cause him concern.

Is that unreasonable to suggest? Considering the political climate these days, it should be a given that if someone in a position that should be impartial in their line of duty does give the hint of bias or political shenanigans, someone is going to jump all over that.

I just posted 4 recent examples of political bias from Federal judges. Those were all in opposition to Trump's actions and were soundly embraced. This one, which reeks more of legitimate anger at abuse of the court than a purely political bias, seems to receive the opposite reaction. Are you seriously claiming that is not purely because it is in favor of Trump's actions rather than opposed to them?

Of course I am biased. I have never denied it and it would be hypocritical, or in fact a lie, if you yourself claimed otherwise. Would you deny that?

I do not at all deny my own personal bias. I would like to see this witch hunt end so actual justice can be served across the rest of Washington DC. But my bias does not make me blind to any obvious problems that may arise. I expect a fair hearing and a fair trial if such is warranted. I even stated earlier that I personally think Manafort is guilty of money laundering and should be prosecuted if so.

The point still remains that you have not addressed my specific claims/concerns/opinions, nor has anyone else, and seem to be using multiple logical fallacies in order to push, in all honesty, utter nonsense.

Actually I did so above; perhaps you missed it. Judge Ellis' comments seem to revolve around jurisdiction and subsequent abuse of the court more so than any serious political bias. A prosecutor who brings any case before any court without proof of jurisdiction is abusing the court. Jurisdiction must be established before any case can proceed at all, and redacted documents are never acceptable in such a case. If one wishes a judge to try a suspect, one must unequivocally show jurisdiction first; to not do so would anger any judge and cause any judge to question the ability or motives of any prosecutor.

Mueller has long established his ability to prosecute, ergo, his motives are suspect. He should be thankful the judge gave him two weeks to remedy the issue.

TheRedneck

a reply to: introvert


Quote for posterity:

"No. I do not, but you are using a logical fallacy. My experience or lack thereof does not invalidate my argument in and of itself."

That is a very interesting statement.

Kinda like....Coach I know I have no experience in the debate subject matter, but put me in and we will take home the gold medal based on my own personal opinions.

a reply to: TheRedneck

The concerns only exist in your mind.

Incorrect. The judges specific comments that I quoted earlier has caused some others to claim that the judge has politicized the hearings.

Agree with that assessment or not, it does exist elsewhere.

As a Federal Judge, Ellis decides the outcome of a case. The most that could happen to him is that the decision be appealed. An appeal would further have to show that the Special Counsel had jurisdiction before it was ever scheduled for a hearing, as that would be the legal reasoning behind Ellis' refusal to adjudicate it.

Ok. I never claimed otherwise.

In addition, it would drag out the Manafort case to the point it would likely be dropped, as the true intent is indeed to squeeze him for information before public sentiment demands an end to the investigation.

True intent? I'd like to see the proof of that.

I just posted 4 recent examples of political bias from Federal judges. Those were all in opposition to Trump's actions and were soundly embraced.

Ok.

This one, which reeks more of legitimate anger at abuse of the court than a purely political bias, seems to receive the opposite reaction.

Opposite reaction from whom? Are you still holding the reaction of others over my head, as if I am somehow accountable for their opinions?

Are you seriously claiming that is not purely because it is in favor of Trump's actions rather than opposed to them?

I've made no claim towards that aspect, serious or otherwise.

I would like to see this witch hunt end so actual justice can be served across the rest of Washington DC. But my bias does not make me blind to any obvious problems that may arise. I expect a fair hearing and a fair trial if such is warranted. I even stated earlier that I personally think Manafort is guilty of money laundering and should be prosecuted if so.

Ok. So I fail to see the point in you mentioning bias, unless it served as an irrelevant jab and an exercise in your own hypocrisy.

Actually I did so above; perhaps you missed it. Judge Ellis' comments seem to revolve around jurisdiction and subsequent abuse of the court more so than any serious political bias. A prosecutor who brings any case before any court without proof of jurisdiction is abusing the court. Jurisdiction must be established before any case can proceed at all, and redacted documents are never acceptable in such a case. If one wishes a judge to try a suspect, one must unequivocally show jurisdiction first; to not do so would anger any judge and cause any judge to question the ability or motives of any prosecutor.

I disagree. The judges specific comments about the intent of the prosecution, that they did not care about bank fraud and were only looking to get info that led to Trump's impeachment/prosecution, is cause enough to cause some concern.

The personal opinion of the judge on what he thinks the prosecution wants to do, like getting Manfort to "sing", or the other things I mentioned he said, has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not jurisdiction has been properly established.

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: introvert


Quote for posterity:

"No. I do not, but you are using a logical fallacy. My experience or lack thereof does not invalidate my argument in and of itself."

That is a very interesting statement.

Kinda like....Coach I know I have no experience in the debate subject matter, but put me in and we will take home the gold medal based on my own personal opinions.

No. It's not "kinda like" your example.

It's rather absurd, really, and my point stands.

I was and still remains a logical fallacy.

a reply to: introvert

Incorrect. The judges specific comments that I quoted earlier has caused some others to claim that the judge has politicized the hearings.

And those others you mention have no more ability to affect the case or Judge Ellis' ability to do his job than you (or I) do. It is a moot point as to what others believe. 'Others' believe NDAs must be mutually binding too.

Are you still holding the reaction of others over my head, as if I am somehow accountable for their opinions?

I think your general position on all things Trump related are pretty consistent throughout your posting history.

I disagree. The judges specific comments about the intent of the prosecution, that they did not care about bank fraud and were only looking to get info that led to Trump's impeachment/prosecution, is cause enough to cause some concern.

The fact that an experienced prosecutor such as Mueller is either unable or unwilling to show proper jurisdiction is enough to cause the judge concern.

The personal opinion of the judge on what he thinks the prosecution wants to do, like getting Manfort to "sing", or the other things I mentioned he said, has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not jurisdiction has been properly established.

So you believe that Mueller is just incredibly incompetent then? Perhaps he should be fired for gross incompetence?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Pyle
a reply to: Xcathdra

So Mueller is covered by the original document and section (b) of 28 CFR 600.4 with Rosenstein memo.

Also you do know that new information has come out about Manafort in recent years. Never heard of the ledgers in Ukraine?

The issue is the Manafort / Page portion was not discovered during Mueller's investigation. Secondly, even with the ledgers, it is still outside Muellers jurisdiction since it is not directly related to Trump-Russia collusion.

As for being covered by the scope memo this is why the judge ordered the DOJ to produce the memo without redaction's. This is also why the judge made the comments about the SC being able to do whatever he/she wants. I am going to guess this judge is going to grant Manafort's motions given there is no connection and is therefore outside Mueller's jurisdiction.

You cannot investigate a person in order to find a crime. You investigate the crime in order to determine if A - a crime was committed and B - to rule people out as suspects as you narrow it down to the suspect.

I dont doubt Manafort broke the law. The issue I have is the manner in which Mueller conducted the investigation and the methods he used to get where we are today. Shredding the Constitution is a non starter with me. I would rather see a man walk free rather than obtain a conviction by violating his civil rights. The moment we allow it to happen once there is no turning back.

The other issue was addressed by the judge. The purpose of going after Manafort was to get to Trump. I also firmly believe the purpose of referring Cohen to the SDNY was a move in order to gain access to privileged communications between Trump and Cohen. Mueller is hiding that by claiming Trump has nothing to do with the Cohen prosecution.

The FBI seized documents that were outside the scope of the warrant. Then they told the judge they had a taint team that will review the documents to determine whats privileged and whats not. Luckily the judge granted Cohens motion to have a special master appointed instead of using DOJ personnel. I dont trust the DOJ to objectively go through those documents and to keep what they see about Trump to themselves.

People for some reason think the part allowing Mueller to investigate any other crimes means any and all other crimes. It does not mean that. It means crimes discovered from their investigation into Trump Russia collusion. Those crimes also have to be linked to the original mandate - collusion between Trump and Russia during the 2016 election.

If Mueller locates evidence that tells us who the 2nd gunman on the grassy knoll was that killed President Kennedy it would still be outside his jurisdiction. He would have to refer it.

a reply to: TheRedneck

And those others you mention have no more ability to affect the case or Judge Ellis' ability to do his job than you (or I) do. It is a moot point as to what others believe. 'Others' believe NDAs must be mutually binding too.

I did not say it would affect the case. I was only saying that you were incorrect that the concerns were only in my mind.

I think your general position on all things Trump related are pretty consistent throughout your posting history.

Ok. What does that have to do with the reaction of others, than I am not responsible for, that you are trying to hold over my head?

The fact that an experienced prosecutor such as Mueller is either unable or unwilling to show proper jurisdiction is enough to cause the judge concern.

Ok. What does that have to do with his comments about Trump and impeachment?

So you believe that Mueller is just incredibly incompetent then? Perhaps he should be fired for gross incompetence?

How you came up with that from my post is beyond me. At this point, I wonder if you are arguing with a creation of your own mind and not anything that I have actually said.

All due respect, but it has become reasonable to conclude that you are either unable or incapable of properly reading what I am posting, or you are being intentionally dishonest and lack the fortitude to admit that you are arguing against strawmen you concocted out your backside.

a reply to: introvert

I did not say it would affect the case.

Then we agree. Your point is moot.

What does that have to do with the reaction of others

It has to do with your obvious bias, while trying to claim bias on the part of Judge Ellis.

We call that "hypocrisy" down here.

What does that have to do with his comments about Trump and impeachment?

Exactly what I said it does... twice. Try reading my posts before replying. Feigned ignorance does not become you.

How you came up with that from my post is beyond me.

Two possibilities; you refute one; the other must be true.

What Mueller has tried to do is literally like a computer programmer being unable to turn the computer on. In any court complaint, the very document that establishes the trial, the first part is not charges... it is a statement of jurisdiction. Mueller 'forgot' that he had to have jurisdiction. Is he really that in competent or is he feigning incompetence? There is no other explanation.

That's three times now I have tried to explain it to you. Are you really that naive or are you simply feigning naivety?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Pyle
a reply to: Xcathdra





Shredding the Constitution is a non starter with me. I would rather see a man walk free rather than obtain a conviction by violating his civil rights. The moment we allow it to happen once there is no turning back.

Shredding the Constitution is a non starter with me. I would rather see a man walk free rather than obtain a conviction by violating his civil rights. The moment we allow it to happen once there is no turning back.

Unfortunelty that doesn't seem to be a moral issue with the Side against Trump. They are B.A.M.N. to their core.

Wonder how they would feel if the shoe was on the other foot?

To have a sitting Administration orchestrate spying and surveilling the opposing party's Candidate in a election and then still doing the same to the President to be is mighty serious stuff. To use Opposition smear research as one of the main pillars of the spying is beyond pale.

This Summer is going to be HOT!

a reply to: TheRedneck

Then we agree. Your point is moot.

My point was not that it would affect the case. My point is and was that his comments are of concern and an eye should be kept on it to make sure that his personal political opinions do not affect the case.

That has been the problem with our interaction. Not only are you using very poor logic, you are arguing against points that were never made.

It has to do with your obvious bias, while trying to claim bias on the part of Judge Ellis.

We call that "hypocrisy" down here.

So I am hypocritical because of things other people have said, and I have not? In what backwards world does that make sense?

We call that "dishonest" around here. I can't tell if you are truly being dishonest, or if you are trolling for laughs. Regardless of your intent, it is highly illogical to claim I am hypocritical for something I never said.

Exactly what I said it does... twice. Try reading my posts before replying. Feigned ignorance does not become you.

Your posts do not make sense. On one hand it appears you are saying that Mueller's experience is reason enough for the judge to show concern about the jurisdiction issues, which I can agree with, but on the other you are saying that justifies the judge extrapolating that the reason behind the jurisdiction issue is because the prosecution's intent is to impeach Trump, somehow.

That extrapolation is illogical without more information and the reason behind my concern. The judge is making a very serious claim about the intent of others that have no bearing on the issue at hand.

What Mueller has tried to do is literally like a computer programmer being unable to turn the computer on. In any court complaint, the very document that establishes the trial, the first part is not charges... it is a statement of jurisdiction. Mueller 'forgot' that he had to have jurisdiction. Is he really that in competent or is he feigning incompetence? There is no other explanation.

Ok. For the sake of argument, let's agree. Now how does the judge therefore extrapolate that this means the prosecution's intent is to impeach Trump, or that they really don't care about bank fraud?

That's three times now I have tried to explain it to you. Are you really that naive or are you simply feigning naivety?

Three times now it appears you have created explanations and strawmen that do not even apply to what I said. The judge's opinion about the prosecution's intent in regards to bank fraud and impeachment has absolutely nothing to do with the matter of jurisdiction.

At the most basic level, it appears the judge had a potentially politically-motivated emotional outburst. That does not mean it will affect his decision, but it is worth keeping an eye on.

That's all I have said. The other strawmen and illogical assertions you have made is not my concern. I am not responsible for the opinion or statements of others and for you to hold that over my head is not only dishonest, but also a bit chicken#.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: TheRedneck

Then we agree. Your point is moot.

My point was not that it would affect the case. My point is and was that his comments are of concern and an eye should be kept on it to make sure that his personal political opinions do not affect the case.

That has been the problem with our interaction. Not only are you using very poor logic, you are arguing against points that were never made.

It has to do with your obvious bias, while trying to claim bias on the part of Judge Ellis.

We call that "hypocrisy" down here.

So I am hypocritical because of things other people have said, and I have not? In what backwards world does that make sense?

We call that "dishonest" around here. I can't tell if you are truly being dishonest, or if you are trolling for laughs. Regardless of your intent, it is highly illogical to claim I am hypocritical for something I never said.

Exactly what I said it does... twice. Try reading my posts before replying. Feigned ignorance does not become you.

Your posts do not make sense. On one hand it appears you are saying that Mueller's experience is reason enough for the judge to show concern about the jurisdiction issues, which I can agree with, but on the other you are saying that justifies the judge extrapolating that the reason behind the jurisdiction issue is because the prosecution's intent is to impeach Trump, somehow.

That extrapolation is illogical without more information and the reason behind my concern. The judge is making a very serious claim about the intent of others that have no bearing on the issue at hand.

What Mueller has tried to do is literally like a computer programmer being unable to turn the computer on. In any court complaint, the very document that establishes the trial, the first part is not charges... it is a statement of jurisdiction. Mueller 'forgot' that he had to have jurisdiction. Is he really that in competent or is he feigning incompetence? There is no other explanation.

Ok. For the sake of argument, let's agree. Now how does the judge therefore extrapolate that this means the prosecution's intent is to impeach Trump, or that they really don't care about bank fraud?

That's three times now I have tried to explain it to you. Are you really that naive or are you simply feigning naivety?

Three times now it appears you have created explanations and strawmen that do not even apply to what I said. The judge's opinion about the prosecution's intent in regards to bank fraud and impeachment has absolutely nothing to do with the matter of jurisdiction.

At the most basic level, it appears the judge had a potentially politically-motivated emotional outburst. That does not mean it will affect his decision, but it is worth keeping an eye on.

That's all I have said. The other strawmen and illogical assertions you have made is not my concern. I am not responsible for the opinion or statements of others and for you to hold that over my head is not only dishonest, but also a bit chicken#.

The resident anti trumper here is making super long, wordy posts calling people names and acting like his intelligence is beyond anything that us normies could fathom.
Meanwhile his hypocrisy is glowing through. How dare this judge ask for an unredacted copy of Muellers scope? Doesn't this judge know that the ultra left is way more logical and any argument against them is a straw man?
BOOM! 😘
As usual please don't feel a need to respond to my post.

Not surprised to see some claim bias on behalf of the judge, whilst saying nothing (in fact defending) the ridiculous decisions driven by politics that have been handed down by the 9th circuit for nearly 18 months in order to stop the President.

That's the problem. Once the judicial system is politisized it is destroyed. The left made their own bed and now they will have to lie in it. They have zero right to complain about politically motivated judges, even if that is what it is in this case. Tough.

a reply to: xxspockyxx

The resident anti trumper here is making super long, wordy posts calling people names and acting like his intelligence is beyond anything that us normies could fathom.

I did not say anything about my intelligence. Are you projecting an inferiority complex?

Meanwhile his hypocrisy is glowing through. How dare this judge ask for an unredacted copy of Muellers scope?

I've said a few times that the judge's request is reasonable. His request is not part of the point I was making.

Doesn't this judge know that the ultra left is way more logical and any argument against them is a straw man?

I hope the judge doesn't believe that. Such a belief would be illogical in and of itself.

I know you are just trying to be snarky, but you could at least be a bit more inventive.

BOOM! 😘 As usual please don't feel a need to respond to my post.

If you did not want a response, why did you post?

I've never understood why people use lines like this. It's like you are trying to do a "drive-by" posting and lack the balls to stick around and take responsibility for what you say.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: xxspockyxx

This is all coming from a guy that has said that politically biased text messages between fbi agents involved with this investigation have absolutely nothing to do with their job performance... lol.

One does not necessarily affect the other. I stand by that.

We cannot hold people accountable for their thoughts or personal opinions. We can only hold them accountable for laws or rules they break.

For quite sometime introvert has been the left's resident spin doctor. What's funny is when he is called out on it he claims no affiliation with the anti Trump movement.

I am not part of any movement.

Do you have a point to discuss, or did you just come in to post you frustrations about me personally?

It is not my job to babysit political snowflakes. So please don't waste my time.

I was only referring to how I was wasting your time yesterday by point out that you were a hypocrite who jumps on anything not anti Trump with pages worth of spin and you couldn't be bothered to babysit me. I guess implying that I was a child. Pretty much right in line with your normal name calling. I'm not trying to avoid any debate, but it is obvious to everyone that I have already won that and you just want to use verbal gymnastics to move goal posts. The judge wants to see proof of Muellers scope, he is not politically biased he just doesn't like being lied to in order to further an agenda.
BOOM!😘

a reply to: xxspockyxx

I was only referring to how I was wasting your time yesterday by point out that you were a hypocrite who jumps on anything not anti Trump with pages worth of spin and you couldn't be bothered to babysit me.

I have yet to see anyone show how I am or was hypocritical. I've seen some claim that I am a hypocrite because of things I have not said in relation to other specific cases, but that is highly illogical and I am not responsible for other people's lack in basic logic.

I guess implying that I was a child. Pretty much right in line with your normal name calling.

I did not imply anything. I specifically said "babysit political snowflakes".

I stand by that. I cannot hold people's hands through what should have been taught to them in grade school, nor should I have to forgo basic logic to satisfy the political sensibilities of those that cannot control their emotions.

I'm not trying to avoid any debate, but it is obvious to everyone that I have already won that and you just want to use verbal gymnastics to move goal posts.

Won? Is this a contest? Ok. Congratulations, I guess.

Sadly, even though you are the most awesomest winner of all winners, ever, you still just used a logical fallacy and made a false statement.

I've no moved any goal post, as my original point has remained the same, and you used an appeal to the majority.

Apparently being a winner in the eye of the majority does not mean one has the ability to think logically.

My condolences. I hope the participation trophy you got for the being the bestest winner makes you feel better about yourself.

The judge wants to see proof of Muellers scope, he is not politically biased he just doesn't like being lied to in order to further an agenda.

Ok. Again, that does not address the point I made, as his personal opinion on the intent of the prosecution has nothing to do with asking for them to prove jurisdiction.

BOOM!😘

Boom? Oh, I think I understand better now.

You're just a kid.

Perhaps I should have been a bit nicer in my approach. Maybe you do not understand basic logic because you have not learned it yet.

I'll keep that in mind moving forward and I apologize for coming off as rude.

a reply to: introvert

You should be more concerned that the Special Counsel was an illegal undertaking from the start, but you were not (and are not) because it is going after the President. That is your only motivation. At least be honest about it.

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: introvert

You should be more concerned that the Special Counsel was an illegal undertaking from the start, but you were not (and are not) because it is going after the President. That is your only motivation. At least be honest about it.

Honesty doesn't suit them I guess. A few months ago they were all saying that nobody knows what Mueller has on Trumps entire campaign team but look at all of the charges and indictments. Well now it turns out that even the Russians that were charged are saying prove what you have and Mueller went into stall mode. This is a bad turn of events for the anti Trump movement and most of the usual suspects have apparently realized it and are pretty quiet right now. The few that have come out of the woodwork are now claiming politically biased judges are the reason this won't move forward instead of seeing the bigger picture that this was all built on lies from the start.
BOOM!😘

a reply to: introvert

My point was not that it would affect the case. My point is and was that his comments are of concern and an eye should be kept on it to make sure that his personal political opinions do not affect the case.

I wanted to quote that simply because it needs to be preserved for posterity. "It won't affect the case, but I'm concerned it will affect the case."

So I am hypocritical because of things other people have said

Let's use your own logic here... no, but yes.

On one hand it appears you are saying that Mueller's experience is reason enough for the judge to show concern about the jurisdiction issues, which I can agree with, but on the other you are saying that justifies the judge extrapolating that the reason behind the jurisdiction issue is because the prosecution's intent is to impeach Trump, somehow.

Do you really need me to go through the laundry list of Democratic operatives in and out of Congress that have called for Trump's impeachment since the election (which was a few months before he even took office)?

Well, no. I'm not going to. It's common knowledge, and you still haven't even shown that you understand (or will admit to understand) the most basic premise behind the verbal beat-down.

I never claimed that Mueller's experience caused the judge to question jurisdiction. I said that his experience indicated that he should have well known that was the first thing he had to establish and he did not do so. It doesn't matter if it was Mueller or some guy out of the gutter that wanted to be an attorney... ANYONE who presents a case before ANY judge in ANY respect must first show jurisdiction in order to have standing before the court. Without standing established by jurisdiction, he is wasting the court's time; he has no right to even speak to the judge, much less level charges.

If you cannot or will not accept that simple legal fact, there is no way you can even begin to understand the issue. Thus, if you want to continue this conversation, I need to know that you do understand it. I'm not typing that explanation over again for you.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: xxspockyxx

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: introvert

You should be more concerned that the Special Counsel was an illegal undertaking from the start, but you were not (and are not) because it is going after the President. That is your only motivation. At least be honest about it.

Honesty doesn't suit them I guess. A few months ago they were all saying that nobody knows what Mueller has on Trumps entire campaign team but look at all of the charges and indictments. Well now it turns out that even the Russians that were charged are saying prove what you have and Mueller went into stall mode. This is a bad turn of events for the anti Trump movement and most of the usual suspects have apparently realized it and are pretty quiet right now. The few that have come out of the woodwork are now claiming politically biased judges are the reason this won't move forward instead of seeing the bigger picture that this was all built on lies from the start.
BOOM!😘

Yep .. politically biased judges. You have to laugh at the double standards of the left. They really don;t like being beaten (soundly) at the game they made the rules for.

a reply to: xxspockyxx

It may be far more than a bad turn of events for the anti Trump movement. It may be the beginning of the end of the anti Trump movement.

Mueller now has two options: either produce the scope memo in its entirety to verify he has jurisdiction (assuming it says he does, for the sake of argument), or drop all the indictments he has issued. Ellis' determination of jurisdiction will set a precedent for all future cases brought by Mueller. The fact that the scope memo has been kept secret strongly suggests that it either contains evidence that could be incriminating or does not address jurisdiction in this case; otherwise why would any lawyer practically guarantee their case would be dismissed before it ever started?

I can only guess that Mueller was judge shopping and drew the 'wrong' judge, meaning one that would not immediately ignore court proceedings to assist in the anti Trump agenda.

The entire anti Trump agenda has for several months rested entirely on Mueller's investigation. It was started to uncover Russian collusion, then the claim changed to obstruction of justice, and now we have a years-old, already-dismissed charge of money laundering against Paul Manafort, a hand-off to raid the office, home, and hotel room of Trump's lawyer, charges of "lying to the FBI" on several Trump associates (at least one of whom has presented what appears to be a reasonable defense), and increased media hysteria about Trump's guilt on whatever the charge du jour happens to be.

The pillars holding this establishment-concocted web of deceit and corruption, spun on a reflection of their own actions and built on an expectation of a liberal, anti Trump judicial setting, are crumbling before our eyes. Once it falls, there is nothing else to protect the truly guilty in the FBI hierarchy. Without the FBI to protect them, all the corrupt politicians in DC are vulnerable.

The bad part of this is that Manafort may walk. If he does, the blame for it lands directly on Mueller's shoulders.

TheRedneck