Except for all the filthy hippies who were right about Iraq before it actually happened and were eerily prescient over how it would all go down.
Its not a fall back position. My position remains. There was no collusion. I’m simply addressing Trump hater’s rush to judgement with every little tidbit of meaningless minutia is trumpeted by the Trump hating media.
I suggest you read the actual document, rather than articles discussing it.
This is how our justice system works - prosecutors make allegations, and defendants either 1) deny the allegations or 2) admit to them.
When the defendant admits that the “allegations” are true, then they are fact, as far as the law is concerned.
I look forward to a similar concession with regard to your support for Donald Trump, the unindicted co-conspirator to a series of felonies designed to steal the election. Who ran a campaign where associates with engaged in a criminal conspiracy with Russian agents to damage his opponent and help him in the election.
I have a feeling we’ll be seeing a lot of stuff about Supreme Court Justices and regulations.
You didn’t read the filing, did you?
The original document makes it clear that the Times was incorrect in calling the matter alleged and when a campaign manager shares information with an agent of a foreign government and that government is actively supporting the campaign, that is not meaningless.
Your are welcome to quote the specific statement where Manafort was proven to have made the claimed contact.
Of course not.
Truth is kryptonite. It must be avoided.
He admitted to it.
He admitted to it.
He admitted to it.
Show me where the original document categorically proves the contact was made.
Read the document.
Seriously, playing dumb doesn’t work anymore.
Lift the document to my eyes.
Tell me which line to read.
Ha! Fooled you!
My eyes are closed.
I can’t see anything.
The “I’m blind!” defense?
Break glass in case of emergency.
It’s a style guide requirement. Until a conviction, everything the state says pretty much is referred to as “alleged” regardless of the actual strength of the allegation.
Most real journalism outfits follow the same style requirement.
Hey, wait. Don’t forget that the Bush Administration sent a delegation to Trump tower to seek his counsel on whether to invade Iraq, as well as stifle his pointed opposition to going in:
I’ve said it loud and clear. I was visited by people from the White House asking me to sort of could I be silenced because I seem to get a disproportionate amount of publicity. I mean I was very strong: ‘You’re going to destabilize the Middle East.’”
“You know, when they went into Iraq, Bush people sent a delegation to see me because I was very vocal about the war in Iraq.
I said going into Iraq—that was in 2003, you can check it out, check out—I’ll give you 25 different stories. In fact, a delegation was sent to my office to see me because I was so vocal about it.
This probably remains my favorite Trump lie of all, although there’s a lot of competition.
if you’re not rubbing you’re not racing.
It is accurate that after the Special Counsel shared evidence regarding Mr. Manafort’s
meetings and communications with Konstantin Kilimnik with him, Mr. Manafort recalled that he
had – or may have had – some additional meetings or communications with Mr. Kilimnik that he
had not initially remembered. The Government concludes from this that Mr. Manafort’s initial
responses to inquiries about his meetings and interactions with Mr. Kilimnik were lies to the OSC
attorneys and investigators. (See, e.g., Doc. 460 at 5 (After being shown documents, Mr. Manafort
“conceded” that he discussed or may have discussed a Ukraine peace plan with Mr. Kilimnik on
more than one occasion); id. at 6 (After being told that Mr. Kilimnik had traveled to Madrid on the
same day that Mr. Manafort was in Madrid, Mr. Manafort “acknowledged” that he and Mr.
Kilimnik met while they were both in Madrid)).
In fact, during a proffer meeting held
with the Special Counsel on September 11, 2018, Mr. Manafort explained to the Government
attorneys and investigators that he would have given the Ukrainian peace plan more thought, had
the issue not been raised during the period he was engaged with work related to the presidential
campaign. Issues and communications related to Ukrainian political events simply were not at the
forefront of Mr. Manafort’s mind during the period at issue and it is not surprising at all that Mr.
Manafort was unable to recall specific details prior to having his recollection refreshed. The same
is true with regard to the Government’s allegation that Mr. Manafort lied about sharing polling
data with Mr. Kilimnik related to the 2016 presidential campaign. (See Doc. 460 at 6). The simple
fact that Mr. Manafort could not recall, or incorrectly recalled, specific events from his past
dealings with Mr. Kilimnik – but often (after being shown or told about relevant documents or
other evidence) corrected himself or clarified his responses – does not support a determination that
he intentionally lied.
The parties agree that Mr. Manafort pleaded guilty to Count Two of the superseding
information, which charged him and Mr. Kilimnik with conspiracy to obstruct justice by
attempting to contact two potential government witnesses.
I admire your bravery.