I’m just shocked that Mueller hasn’t even found a hint of Trump’s WMDs yet.
I suppose its possible that Trump got confused and ate all the yellow cake.
On the other hand, the charges against Manafort in this particular proceeding apparently have almost nothing directly to do with his work for the Trump campaign, except for the possibility that Manafort was still running his little criminal enterprise while working for the campaign.
I don’t pretend to know all the nuances here, but it seems like the biggest risk for Trump is not whether or not Manafort ends up convicted in this particular case, but whether or not any significant financial or operational links turn up between the campaign and Manafort’s enterprise while the case is being argued, and a hung jury won’t prevent that from happening.
Why that poor, poor Mr. Manafort; just trying to be friendly to the oligarchs and was powerless to avoid being victimized by the guy who worked for him. Just makes you want to wrap him up in a blankie and keep him warm and safe, doesn’t it?
The biggest risk for Trump is that many people - including some in recent posts to this very thread - are confused by the issues here and assume that the charges against Manafort do relate to Trump-Russian collusion.
The second biggest risk to Trump is that if Manafort is convicted it’s harder for Trump to make the case that Mueller is some rogue prosecutor on a witch hunt.
Basically, this trial is sort of a PR issue for Trump (and for Mueller, should he lose the case), but PR is a very real deal in politics.
Yeah, the idea that Russian influence in the Trump campaign might have anything to do with Trump’s Russian connected campaign manager is crazy talk.
Why is it a mistake to connect manafort and 2016 election russian crimes? To ignore it would be a cover up at this point. (Of an ongoing investigation which is on that topic, to find if these connections exist)
- Jennifer Rubin
If there was collusion it would be logical to assume that Manafort might have been involved in it. But that doesn’t happen to be what this trial is about. (To the point that I believe both sides have agreed that collusion will not be mentioned at all in the trial.)
Trump seems to have forgotten that Sessions recused himself, and couldn’t stop the Mueller investigation even if he wanted to (unless he un-recuses himself, I guess).
When did Mueller’s team expand to “17 Angry Democrats”? (was previously 13) Did he put a Help Wanted (Angry Democrats) sign in the window? And I assume his team is larger than 17 … does it have 17 Angry Democrats plus 14 Chill Democrats and 12 Republicans of Varying Temperaments?
I understand why these people always try this “hapless dipshit” defense when they get caught - but I think it’s almost as bad if true as if they just admitted outright that they’re evil masterminds and they just got unlucky one time. I mean, the defense is that he wanted to collect tens of millions of dollars and be powerful and influential, but all the time he was too naive to choose good personnel and too stupid to check for himself that everything was on the up and up? You know at the height of his power he would have reacted very negatively to the suggestion that he was some sort of ignorant empty suit being led around by the nose by Rick Gates.
Speaking of the good people at SDNY, apparently Mueller has referred a bunch of new cases to the G-men in the big apple.
Imagine having to go through life with a name like Greg Craig. And then you get indicted.
Right now I’m feeling bad for the receptionist who has to say “Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom” several times a day when answering the telephone. Go on - rattle that off a few times and you’ll see what I mean.
Someone agrees not to mention the elephant in the room; therefore the elephant isn’t in the room?
Man, I have to go dig up that Bush White House quote that criticizes liberals as being part of the reality-based community.
It’s commonly referred to as “Skadden Arps”. (It’s also one of the top law firms in the country, FWIW.)
There’s another Skadden connection: Alex van der Zwaan, who was sentenced to a month in the bighouse for lying to federal investigators about his relationship with Rick Gates.
Do you think so? If Manafort is convicted I expect Trump to cite that as proof that Mueller is a rogue prosecutor on a witch hunt.
And if Manafort is acquitted I expect Trump to cite that as proof that Mueller is a rogue prosecutor on a witch hunt. Anyone want to guess what Trump will say about a hung jury?
That they’re not hung as well as him?
What’s important is not what Trump will say but how much it will resonate with the public at large. And when I say “the public at large” I don’t mean die-hard Trump people but the crucial middle-of-the-road people.
I just don’t get this. How in the hell can ANYONE be ‘middle of the road’ when one side of the road leads to trump. WTF?