Manafort trial may excite the left, but it still doesn't touch Trump

The left is watching the Paul Manafort trial with excitement, because leftists hope there's something in it they can pin on President Trump.  That's not happening, so left-leaning pundits, such as the Washington Post's Catherine Rampell, are focusing on the general sleaziness of such people, saying there is a massive number of these crimes that are not prosecuted, and who knows why?  (In default mode, she blames Trump.)  She writes:

One possible lesson of the many brazen, conspicuous scandals related to President Trump and others in his orbit: The U.S. government has been massively underinvesting in enforcement and prosecution of white-collar crime.

Trumpkins argue that the pileup of charges against onetime Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort is a sign that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III has gone rogue.  After all, many of the allegations against Manafort – laundering $30 million in income, submitting false tax returns, lying to banks, failing to register as a foreign agent, obstructing justice – stem from his work in and for Ukraine before 2016.  They're not directly related to his time on the Trump campaign.

Some of Manafort's alleged crimes, as Trump loves to point out, are more than a decade old!

But the right question isn't why Mueller is going after Manafort now.  It is: Why didn't someone go after Manafort before?  After all, there were just So.  Many.  Red.  Flags.

Manafort and his sidekick, Rick Gates, do look like common criminals.  Rampell deplores this and, fairly enough, asks why they weren't prosecuted before Trump hired them.

But the real question is why Special Counsel Robert Mueller is handling this case instead of the mission he was charged with, which was to prove that Trump conspired with the Russians to steal the election from Hillary Clinton.  There is nothing about Trump or his campaign or Russian collusion in this plain-vanilla white-collar crime case that has Manafort in the dock.

Obviously, the only reason why Manafort and Gates are being prosecuted at all is that they knew Trump.

I do have a question.  Why does every story about the Manafort-Gates trial bring up Trump's name?  It's pretty obvious from this show trial with all its sensational revelations coming that their crimes nevertheless had nothing to do with Trump.

Yet the press brings it up, and brings it up, and can't stop bringing it up.  Trump, Trump, Trump.

Maybe every story about disgraced film director Harvey Weinstein, who's facing court as well, should bring up Hillary Clinton's name or Oprah Winfrey's name, since those two were fond of him.

I have to say the takeaway from this Manafort trial is that Trump must be extremely clean himself.  Mueller himself couldn't get better than this.  As this Manafort trial proceeds, it's going off into the weeds of white-collar crime that doesn't even remotely touch President Trump.  At the same time, the DNC, Hillary, and other Democrats had to be out searching long and hard for damnable opposition research on him to sink his campaign and had to have come up empty because they had to pay Fusion GPS and Steele more than $10 million to create a false document on Trump instead of coming up with actual dirt.

On a side note: Will the media come out and apologize to Trump for saying he changed his story this month on the Trump Tower meeting when every journalist knows or should know that Trump actually said over a year ago that the meeting was meant to get dirt on Hillary and that the Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, lied about the purpose of the meeting?

If the media were actually interested in exposing campaign dirt and opposition research received from a foreign source, they would go after Hillary, the DNC, and the Justice Department, who really did collude with the Russians in their bid to win the 2016 vote.  But they have no interest in those actual true stories.

Image credit: Mike Licht via FlickrCC BY-SA 2.0.

The left is watching the Paul Manafort trial with excitement, because leftists hope there's something in it they can pin on President Trump.  That's not happening, so left-leaning pundits, such as the Washington Post's Catherine Rampell, are focusing on the general sleaziness of such people, saying there is a massive number of these crimes that are not prosecuted, and who knows why?  (In default mode, she blames Trump.)  She writes:

One possible lesson of the many brazen, conspicuous scandals related to President Trump and others in his orbit: The U.S. government has been massively underinvesting in enforcement and prosecution of white-collar crime.

Trumpkins argue that the pileup of charges against onetime Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort is a sign that special counsel Robert S. Mueller III has gone rogue.  After all, many of the allegations against Manafort – laundering $30 million in income, submitting false tax returns, lying to banks, failing to register as a foreign agent, obstructing justice – stem from his work in and for Ukraine before 2016.  They're not directly related to his time on the Trump campaign.

Some of Manafort's alleged crimes, as Trump loves to point out, are more than a decade old!

But the right question isn't why Mueller is going after Manafort now.  It is: Why didn't someone go after Manafort before?  After all, there were just So.  Many.  Red.  Flags.

Manafort and his sidekick, Rick Gates, do look like common criminals.  Rampell deplores this and, fairly enough, asks why they weren't prosecuted before Trump hired them.

But the real question is why Special Counsel Robert Mueller is handling this case instead of the mission he was charged with, which was to prove that Trump conspired with the Russians to steal the election from Hillary Clinton.  There is nothing about Trump or his campaign or Russian collusion in this plain-vanilla white-collar crime case that has Manafort in the dock.

Obviously, the only reason why Manafort and Gates are being prosecuted at all is that they knew Trump.

I do have a question.  Why does every story about the Manafort-Gates trial bring up Trump's name?  It's pretty obvious from this show trial with all its sensational revelations coming that their crimes nevertheless had nothing to do with Trump.

Yet the press brings it up, and brings it up, and can't stop bringing it up.  Trump, Trump, Trump.

Maybe every story about disgraced film director Harvey Weinstein, who's facing court as well, should bring up Hillary Clinton's name or Oprah Winfrey's name, since those two were fond of him.

I have to say the takeaway from this Manafort trial is that Trump must be extremely clean himself.  Mueller himself couldn't get better than this.  As this Manafort trial proceeds, it's going off into the weeds of white-collar crime that doesn't even remotely touch President Trump.  At the same time, the DNC, Hillary, and other Democrats had to be out searching long and hard for damnable opposition research on him to sink his campaign and had to have come up empty because they had to pay Fusion GPS and Steele more than $10 million to create a false document on Trump instead of coming up with actual dirt.

On a side note: Will the media come out and apologize to Trump for saying he changed his story this month on the Trump Tower meeting when every journalist knows or should know that Trump actually said over a year ago that the meeting was meant to get dirt on Hillary and that the Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, lied about the purpose of the meeting?

If the media were actually interested in exposing campaign dirt and opposition research received from a foreign source, they would go after Hillary, the DNC, and the Justice Department, who really did collude with the Russians in their bid to win the 2016 vote.  But they have no interest in those actual true stories.

Image credit: Mike Licht via FlickrCC BY-SA 2.0.