>>There are two different cases. One - the Papadopoulos case - is the one that shows a tie to the Trump campaign and the Russians and he's admitted to it. Nothing like that as far as Manafort and Gates (yet). ...and Papadopoulos has been working with the FBI for months - and it's safe to assume that there will be more indictments coming from Muller's team. Can we agree on that much? :)

To paraphrase your own tactics: nice Kelly-Anne attempt to distract. Surely you understand that the latter two are indicted while Papadopoulos currently isn't indicted for anything let alone conspiracy against the US- so when you lecture about indictment and conspiracy against the US, you're talking about Manafort and Gates. Period.

Re glee about Papadopoulos: obvious questions will be a) who Papadopoulos had contact with in the campaign in what capacity with what evidence, and b) whether there's evidence of breaking electoral laws by people in the campaign apart from the word of a felon. I agree that if Papadopoulos has been working with authorities for months, he may well have co-operated with a sting against one or more people from the campaign. If they are on record conspiring to mislead the authorities or participating in electoral law breaches, they're in trouble. Lots of "ifs" in there and Papadopoulos is outed now, so if he had enough to ensnare others, why wouldn't Mueller indict rather than playing his hand already? Surely nobody is stupid enough to fall for a sting now even if they were so foolish during a special investigation. One possible explanation for your version would be that Mueller is already working with others with more to offer than Papadopoulos who now is safely discarded. As an example, if Papadopoulos is referring to Manafort as his senior campaign contact, maybe pressure can be brought on Manafort to dish up dirt to reduce his own liability- though consipracy to defraud the IRS by itself guarantees you an extended stint in orange overalls.

Meanwhile, do you have an explanation for Tony Podesta's sudden resignation from his Podesta group? Do you accept that the Podesta Group is the entity "B" in the indictment as suggested elsewhere? Have you contemplated whether Manafort might have more dirt on Entity "B" than from his short stint leading the Trump Campaign? With Mueller already naming damning evidence in his indictments, I believe Manafort is that most dangerous "man with nothing to lose" who may exercise choice over who he will take down with him.

Here's another thought for you: if Manafort had concealed criminal conspiracy for a decade by staying in the shadows, why did he press into the limelight knowing how opponents would immediately hunt for dirt?

Lots of questions, very few answers. Probably best to suspend judgment rather than racing in with catastrophist predictions?