Special counsel Robert Mueller thought he had the case to impeach Trump gift-wrapped.

All that Mueller and his gang of Democrat prosecutors needed was a judge to issue a ruling that was considered a mere formality.

But then the judge stunned Mueller into silence with this head-turning decision.

Mueller and his partisan attack dogs argued that former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort repeatedly lied to prosecutors about various subjects, including his meetings with Russian business associate Konstanin Kilimnik during the 2016 campaign.

Hillary Clinton cheerleader Andrew Weissmann told Judge Amy Berman Jackson that Manafort and Kilimnik’s August 2, 2016 meeting “went to the heart” of the special counsel’s investigation.

Mueller’s team argued that since Manafort repeatedly lied to them, they were no longer bound by the plea agreement the two sides entered into that would result in sentencing leniency for Manafort.

The judge ruled in Mueller’s favor on a few of the issues he raised.

Judge Berman Jackson held that Manafort did lie about another ongoing investigation, a payment that was funneled through a pro-Trump political group to cover his legal bills, and his contacts with Kilimnik.

However, Mueller did not score an overwhelming victory.

The judge ruled against the Special Counsel’s office on the two most crucial points.

First, Mueller failed to prove that, “on October 16, 2018, the defendant intentionally made false statements concerning Kilimnik’s role in the obstruction of justice conspiracy.”

Judge Berman Jackson also ruled that, “OSC has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that on October 16, 2018, defendant intentionally made a false statement concerning his contacts with the administration.”

These were the two biggest threads in the Mueller probe.

Mueller and his Democrat prosecutors wanted to try and frame the Trump campaign for collusion by saying that Kilimnik and Manafort repeatedly discussed a peace plan for the conflict in Ukraine that would settle the dispute on Russia’s terms.

The fairytale Mueller wants everyone to believe is that in exchange for lifting sanctions and carrying out policies favorable to Russia, Russia agreed to assist the Trump campaign’s efforts to defeat Hillary Clinton.

Once the election was over, Mueller tried to claim Manafort lied when he said he never spoke to any Trump administration officials in the government or asked anyone to pass a message along to them.

Manafort’s lawyers argued, “During an October 16, 2018 interview, Mr. Manafort truthfully stated that he did not communicate with anyone in the Administration at the time they were in the Administration and he never asked anyone to try to communicate a message to anyone in the Administration.15 A careful review of the basis for the OSC’s claims that this was a false statement reveals that proffered evidence fails to establish any direct or indirect contact with the administration by Mr. Manafort. Indeed, Mr. Manafort told the truth.”

The judge ruled that Manafort told the truth in this front.

That undercut a key part of Mueller’s case.

Manafort was not the conduit for some collusion scheme with the Russians because he never carried out his end of the “quid pro quo.”

Mueller won the battle in this case since he no longer has to abide by his agreement to push for a lighter sentence for Manafort.

But Judge Berman Jackson ruling against Mueller on two of the biggest claims he made showed two things.

First, that Mueller is a rogue and abusive prosecutor.

His office only had to meet the much lower “preponderance of the evidence standards” but failed to do so.

More importantly, Mueller failed to prove that Manafort lied when he denied one of the central tenants of the special counsel’s case.

We will keep you up to date on any new developments in this ongoing story.