Again Mr. Ganesh is completely out of his element! Not a surprise, but here is the very serious misjudgement, or worse yet, just a recitation of the catechism, that leaps from the page:
The threat posed by Mr Manafort is less direct. The charges against him were byproducts of Robert Mueller’s probe into Russian meddling in the 2016 election. The convictions do not concern that meddling — as Mr Trump was entitled to point out — but they speak to the rigour of the special counsel’s work. He should claw back some credibility after months of all too effective sullying by the president.
‘but they speak to the rigour of the special counsel’s work.’ Here is an example of the Mueller rigor:
Headline:Mueller’s Attempt to Hide Evidence Just Got Torn Apart by Attorneys for Alleged Russian Troll Farm
…
While making their case for why Mueller’s blanket protective order should not be granted, Concord Management cites the wide-ranging nature of the request itself. Noting, “The Special Counsel seeks the unprecedented process of prohibiting defense counsel from sharing or discussing any discovery with any co-defendant—including the only person affiliated with Concord named in the Indictment—unless those individuals come to the United States to become hostages in this political game of tit-for-tat.”
Concord’s description here is essentially correct. Mueller’s protective order would be unprecedented in the district. As noted later in the filing, no published court opinion in the D.C. Circuit has ever allowed such a blanket protective order for unclassified discovery materials–the case law just isn’t there.
And aside from the district in question, Dubelier also claims that “[n]o reported court case has ever endorsed a blanket protective order of this magnitude for unclassified discovery.” This is another way of saying that Mueller has apparently requested something so prohibitive that there’s arguably no analogue to it in U.S. law. This is a broad accusation and necessarily an open question. Unfortunately for our purposes, it can’t really be analyzed here because Mueller, naturally, only purports to cite a handful of cases in his initial request–and not the entirety of U.S. law and jurisprudence.
(Italics and bolding mine:ed.)
Does the reader need to be told that Trump hired grifters and crooks? ‘Birds of a feather’!
Then there are these historical analogies:
…
Which leaves us with the most political of all forms of presidential defenestration. The election of 2020. Will legal and ethical stains cost Mr Trump in what Alger Hiss, that target of McCarthyism, called the “court of public opinion”?
…
Counting against him is the sheer number of scandals. True, no postwar president has lost an election because of sleaze (even if Gerald Ford’s pardon of his predecessor, Richard Nixon, did not help him in 1976). But then no postwar president has been quite so mired in the stuff quite so soon. He still has more than two years in which to attract more suspicions of wrongdoing.
The first framed by the ‘cowardice ‘ of Alger Hiss as Anti-McCarthyite, and the second by the bought and paid for Gerald Ford, and his cowardly Pardon of Nixon, as ‘sparing the Nation’ a national ordeal: The American Empire must never appear to be ‘weak’ ! The cult of the Law, and the Constitution recede into the background, in deference of the imperatives of Empire! This the propaganda of the Wm. F. Buckley School of American historiography. Mr. Ganesh is being schooled, but not quite quickly enough, in this idiosyncratic interpretation of the American Political Mythology!
American Writer
https://www.ft.com/content/fd4f55ea-a5ec-11e8-8ecf-a7ae1beff35b
StephenKMackSD's Blog 