Paul Manafort (CNN video screenshot)

Paul Manafort (CNN video screenshot)

The legacy media on Tuesday was reporting former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, who pleaded guilty to banking charges, met with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and also broke his plea agreement with special counsel Robert Mueller by lying to investigators.

But talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh said there’s a simple explanation for the unsubstantiated claims.

“All of this is designed to create a political climate where Trump can be pressured, where the Democrats can make a foundation for impeachment. That’s all that’s going on here, because they don’t have any evidence that Trump colluded,” he said.

“They’re ignoring the evidence of real collusion that took place here, as you know, between Hillary Clinton and the rest of the people on that side, Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele. All of that is being ignored.”

Limbaugh continued: “Manafort was with the campaign two or three months, and now all of a sudden Manafort has become the focus? And this, of course, is allowing the media to say, ‘This should make Trump really, really nervous. Now that Manafort lied, Manafort’s lying to the prosecutor.’ I don’t believe Manafort’s lying to the prosecutor. I think the prosecutor is asking Manafort to say a bunch of things that he won’t say. I think Manafort’s resisting the pressure.”

Manafort’s lawyers have insisted the meeting with Assange didn’t happen and have denied that Manafort lied to Mueller’s prosecutors.

Limbaugh pointed out that dishonorable behavior has come from the Department of Justice.

“Look, we know from the Enron trials, we know from the Enron task force that these people were – we know from the Ted Stevens trial that some of the very lawyers on those cases are on Mueller’s team, and they were suborning perjury from their own star witnesses against Ted Stevens. The case was eventually thrown out. These people ought not even be practicing law anymore. They ought not be part of the Justice Department.”

Sen. Ted Stevens Sr. served in the U.S. Senate from 1968 to 2009. He lost his final election race when he was embroiled in a federal corruption trial.

He was found guilty and eight days later lost the election.

However, the indictment was dismissed before sentencing, effectively dropping the entire case and making the conviction vanish, when a Justice Department investigation found evidence of gross prosecutorial misconduct.

The decision came on the heels of claims it was a political prosecution.

Similar accusations of a “Deep State” attack have arisen in the case against former Texas Congressman Steve Stockman.

He faced charges of using money from mega-donors for personal and campaign expenses, and was convicted in April by a Houston jury on 23 counts of financial crimes and sent to prison.

His supporters have argued he went to Washington to “defeat the Deep State,” and the Deep State retaliated.

Stockman, his supporters claim on a website, went to Washington specifically to “do his part to ‘right the ship’ of the U.S. government.” Like President Trump today, he offended “both the establishment of his own party and those on the left.”

 

Limbaugh said Tuesday: “If anybody doubts the political nature of the Mueller investigation, all you have to do is take a look at the news today. For crying out loud, they really want us to believe that Paul Manafort met with Julian Assange three times before WikiLeaks published the Podesta emails?”

He said if that story was true, Obama and his buddies would have known back when they “were spying on the Trump campaign.”

Then there’s the claim from Mueller that Manafort lied.

“I don’t think Manafort’s been lying about anything. What Manafort’s refusing to do is to compose evidence, make it up!” he said.

Limbaugh said: “All of this is a political trap. This is not about the execution of justice. It’s not about law and order. It’s not about trying to get to the bottom of what happened in the 2016 election. It’s about trying to overturn it. And short of being able to do that, it’s about discrediting the winner.”

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.