There was a ruling in federal court in Washington today in which the judge ruled that an indictment by the special prosecutor against Paul Manafort could go to trial despite an attempt by Manafort's lawyers to have the judge say that the special prosecutor lacked the correct jurisdiction to bring the case. That doesn't seem to be a difficult decision to make, but the media immediately expanded it as if it meant something about the other indictments by Mueller. You may recall that last week a federal judge in Virginia lambasted the special prosecutor's team for indicting Manafort for a case from 2005 and 2006. The judge question the prosecutors as to why such an old matter would be within the purview of the special prosecutor's office. Now that a judge in a different proceeding says that a different indictment on a different matter can go to trial, the media is out in force trying to make today's ruling applicable to the case in Virginia. These moron reporters talk about the DC judge's decision as if it overturns what the judge in Virginia had to say. It doesn't do that at all; the reporters are just wrong.
Why can't the media get legal reporters who actually understand how the law works?
Why can't the media get legal reporters who actually understand how the law works?
No comments:
Post a Comment