Interesting. Judge says the special counsel failed to establish that Manafort lied about that, but left the Kilimnik’s role in obstruction out there plain as day.
I care passionately about evidence. I remember a conversation with a prosecutor many years ago when I was on a Grand Jury about circumstantial evidence. Some of my fellow jurors were uncomfortable with circumstantial evidence because it lacked the finality of a smoking gun or the confession at the end of a Perry Mason show.
This prosecutor said he loved circumstantial evidence because is was unrefutable. No matter how good an eyewitness, expert or presentation of matieral, it is always possible to find a conflict, a flaw, a doubt. (Just look at all the nonsense that has been pumped out about the FISA warrants being illegitimate for example. Circumstantial evidence is near impossible to refute.
The lack of “direct” evidence is not the same as a lack of evidence. The Trump campaign met with the Russians, provided data to the Russians, made concessions to the Russians and the Russians provided substantial material assistance to the Trump campaign. I look at that and see probable cause. Others look at that and see Hillary’s emails.
I watch Donald Trump in Helsinki say he accepted Vladimir Putin’s report over his own intelligence agencies’ assessment about the 2016 election and I see a man who does not have America’s best interests at heart.
If Trump were not in Putin’s debt, why does he consistently act as if he is in Putin’s debt. Oh I know… its because of Hillary’s emails.
Why all the lying? Why the initial lies about the Trump tower meeting? Then the subsequent lies?
The lies are not direct evidence of a conspiracy, but they are compelling circumstantial evidence that the actors have something to hide.
Indirect evidence can be very, very powerful and more than enough to overcome reasonable doubt in a court of law, the standard used for criminal cases.