U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled against Paul Manafort on Wednesday after he filed a motion to ‘suppress’ evidenced seized by the FBI as part of Special Counsel Robert Mueller‘s investigation. The leftist media is apparently thrilled by this news, as Reuters published a story praising Jackson for rejecting Manafort’s request, which was simply a request to ‘limit’ evidence that is well outside of Mueller’s scope.
But, to the liberal press, it seems that that is reason enough to paint a sinister impression.
Manafort’s legal team asked that evidence against him be ‘limited’ because the alleged crimes occurred decades ago. So, while he is being railroaded and hung out to dry, people like Hillary Clinton and her Podesta buddies are able to get away with doing the same thing. In fact, they may get immunity.
Manafort is currently sitting in jail after Mueller claimed he violated the terms of his bail by trying to contact witnesses in the investigation. Manafort, who briefly served as President Donald Trump‘s campaign manager, is a top target for Mueller, who is still investigating alleged collusion between Trump’s campaign and Russia during the 2016 presidential election.
Manafort’s legal team argued that Mueller’s evidence should be limited because it was too broad, unconstitutional, and well outside of the special counsel’s job description.
Jackson disagreed (big surprise), and Reuters gloated about it in a not-so-subtle way throughout its hit piece.
Reuters described the judge’s ruling as “the latest in a string of setbacks for Manafort,” speculating that he could spend many years in prison before his trial has even started. It is set to begin in September.
As detailed by Conservative Daily Post, Mueller indicted Manafort on a slew of tax and bank fraud charges from his work in Ukraine, which occurred years before he was involved with the Trump campaign.
Mueller was appointed over a year ago to lead the investigation, and his job duties were supposedly clearly outlined: look into the erroneous Democrat claim that Trump colluded with Russia during the election. Yet, his top target has been Manafort and going after him for crimes he allegedly committed years before the 2016 election.
Why can Mueller dig up alleged charges from decades ago and use them in an investigation that is specifically about the 2016 presidential election?
For example, Mueller’s indictment alleges Manafort committed a slew of tax and banking crimes with Ukrainian lobbyists in the mid-2000s. Trump didn’t announce his candidacy until 2015. Are Americans to believe that Russians knew in the mid-2000s that Trump was going to run for president? Did Russia spend a decade planting and embedding spies into the U.S. to sway the 2016 election?
Many Americans are rightfully questioning why Mueller, who has already blown threw millions in taxpayer dollars, is charging Manafort for crimes that are well beyond the scope of his investigation.
After nearly a year of investigating, Mueller has not produced a shred of evidence against Trump regarding any illegal actions with Russia. And the latest ruling from the judge shows that the special counsel has the power to go after anyone for anything.
Plus, it gives the leftist media something, anything, to try to use to sway public opinion about President Trump — something they know very well how to do.