Why is Paul Manafort in handcuffs but Hillary Clinton isn’t?
11/05/2017 / By JD Heyes / Comments
Why is Paul Manafort in handcuffs but Hillary Clinton isn’t?

If you ever needed any more evidence that there are clearly two different sets of rules — one for the Deep State privileged and one for the rest of us — this is it.

As you likely know, one-time Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort was among the first to be indicted by the most politically-motivated investigation in the history of the country, with special counsel Robert Mueller charging him with a number of crimes including alleged money laundering and tax evasion.

But these crimes, even if they’re true — and there’s no indication yet that they are because there’s not yet been a trial — they pale in comparison to the charges that should have long ago been lodged against former Democratic presidential nominee and Obama secretary of state Hillary Clinton.

And yet Manafort’s the one in handcuffs.

Peter Flaherty, president of the National Legal and Policy Center, a non-profit organization that promotes ethics in public service, wrote in The Daily Caller last week that Mueller’s charges against Manafort are a sham and proof that he’s too politically compromised to continue in his post.

“More than anything else, the indictments of Paul Manafort and his partner Rick Gates demonstrate the fraudulent nature of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. The probe has little to do with Russian interference in last year’s election,” he wrote. “Instead, it is calculated to protect Mueller and a cabal within the FBI and Justice Department who covered up crimes by Hillary Clinton because they believed it was likely that she would be elected president.”


Flaherty was referencing a report by The Hill recently noting that both the FBI, which was led by Mueller at the time, and the Justice Department buried evidence of Russian malfeasance ahead of a decision by the Obama administration to approve the controversial sale of Uranium One, which transferred 20 percent of all strategic U.S. uranium to Moscow. The transfer of U.S. uranium, which is a principal element in the manufacture of nuclear weapons, was a major blow to national security.

Flaherty alleged further that once Mueller and his friend and successor, James Comey, “covered up” for Clinton, “they had to keep covering.”

The policy center chief said it was no accident that Mueller was “so available” when he was quickly appointed to his post of special counsel in May by Obama appointee Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who himself — as a U.S. attorney at the time — was also aware of the Russian malfeasance.

When Comey was fired by Trump, that threatened to expose all of the underlying corruption surrounding the Uranium One case — all of the evidence that had already been concealed, collectively, by Mueller, Rosenstein and Comey. (Related: House GOP resolution calls on special counsel Mueller to RESIGN.)

“Yes, Rosenstein bit the bullet and drafted the memo that was the legal basis for firing Comey, but it would be followed by appointing Mueller,” Flaherty wrote.

Rewind to July 2016. Comey stood before the media and delivered a very unusual briefing related to the FBI’s criminal investigation of Clinton’s improper use of a private email server for official business and her illegal handling of classified information via that unsecured server. Comey preemptively let Clinton off the hook, drafting a memo months before agents had even finished their investigation knowing he wasn’t going to recommend she be indicted. At the time he indicated that was because he didn’t want the FBI deciding the outcome of the election; in reality, he honestly believed he’d be working for Clinton after November.

Flaherty also noted that Comey’s description of her behavior as “extremely careless” a) still did not excuse her legally as laws covering the handling of classified materials does not take ‘carelessness’ into consideration; and b) he was trying to distract from the activity of both Bill and Hillary Clinton, via direct enrichment of their family foundation.

“Hillary and Bill Clinton operated an aggressive shakedown operation of domestic and foreign interests, many of which are unsavory and criminal. Concealing the true nature of the operation was at least part of the Clintons’ motivation for the private server,” Flaherty wrote.

There’s much more. Read his full column here.

Read more of J.D. Heyes’ work at The National Sentinel.

Sources include:




Submit a correction >>

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

This article may contain statements that reflect the opinion of the author
Get Our Free Email Newsletter
Get independent news alerts on natural cures, food lab tests, cannabis medicine, science, robotics, drones, privacy and more.
Your privacy is protected. Subscription confirmation required.

Get the world's best independent media newsletter delivered straight to your inbox.

By continuing to browse our site you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.