Is This the End of "No Collusion"

[SaysWho]

Well done. You will not get a rational answer to this post.

[BabyBlue]

@peek-a-boo

Your are welcome to quote the specific statement where Manafort was proven to have made the claimed contact.

So, if Manafort didn’t say it to you personally, then it never happened?

[ComfortablyNumb]

@Sewell

The “I’m blind!” defense?

Break glass in case of emergency.

Astonishing. Lol

[ComfortablyNumb]

@DOLOOP

@ComfortablyNumb

@peek-a-boo

Then why does the NYT article clearly state “alleged”?

I don’t know. I didn’t write the article. Nor did I read it. I read the actual court filing. I don’t rely on others to think for me. It was admitted. It’s fact. Period.

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.

Very good observation. I’m not a fan of it though. But I get why they do it also.

[mobiusptc]

@BabyBlue

@peek-a-boo

@H_Arendt

You are right, Trump has not yet even been indicted.

So that’s the new fallback defensive line for Trump supporters. I was trying to learn what it would be.

I realize you’ve probably never concluded someone was guilty of crimes when they had neither been indicted nor convicted so my thinking through to conclusions must be very distressing to you

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 admire your bravery.

willinfull ignorance when provided with overwhelming evidence otherwise is not bravery.

[ComfortablyNumb]

@mobiusptc

@peek-a-boo

@H_Arendt

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.

Show me where the original document categorically proves the contact was made.

here

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)).

and here

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

6
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.

and here

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.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5677512/Manafort-20190108-Dc.pdf

But that didn’t use the exact words, “I, Paul Manafort, admit to passing internal polling data to known Russian intelligence officer Konstantin Kilimnik.” So it never happened. Lol

[CaughtInTheMiddle]

Hey, John Gotti had people defending him until his death. Vernon Howell (David Koresh) still has living Branch Davidians who think he was Christ.

It happens.

[Grassroots]

The Peek defense

[lulubee]

@mobiusptc

@peek-a-boo

@H_Arendt

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.

Show me where the original document categorically proves the contact was made.

here

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)).

and here

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

6
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.

and here

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.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5677512/Manafort-20190108-Dc.pdf

[CaughtInTheMiddle]

Would this be a good time for me to go back and read the posts I bookmarked?

[DOLOOP]

@ComfortablyNumb

@DOLOOP

@ComfortablyNumb

@peek-a-boo

Then why does the NYT article clearly state “alleged”?

I don’t know. I didn’t write the article. Nor did I read it. I read the actual court filing. I don’t rely on others to think for me. It was admitted. It’s fact. Period.

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.

Very good observation. I’m not a fan of it though. But I get why they do it also.

It saves them a lot of lawyer’s fees.

Indeed, the AP is even more upfront about it. Their style guide (and it’s available publicly) is literally titled, Associated Press Stylebook And Libel Manual. The whole back of the thing addresses the law regarding slander and, especially, libel.

[Munimula1]

@H_Arendt

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/us/politics/manafort-trump-campaign-data-kilimnik.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

In a court filing today, Paul Manafort’s lawyers accidentally failed to black out information indicating that while he was Candidate Trump’s Campaign Manager, Manafort shared campaign polling information with a person with ties to Russian intelligence.

If it looks like a collusion and smells like a collusion, it probably is a collusion

Time to retire all those “No Collusion!” posts and fall back to a new defensive position.

Feels like the Army of Northern Virginia in the fall of 1864. Outnumbered, outgunned and consistently outflanked in a war of attrition. Oh, for the good old days when Trump’s position was “no one in my campaign talked to any Russians,” but that line sounds so 2017 these days.

Yes, it is. And I will go one step further: This is why Trump is addressing the nation tonight- hoping to deflect from this bombshell. He knew it was coming today.

[H_Arendt]

Why would Trump need a deflection? The Manafort story isn’t even posted on the Fox News Home Page. Their lead is a piece ragging on Jim Acosta.

[Guntsu]

The hilarious part was that this reveal was inadvertent…

Just the tip…I will say this at least Peek has guts…I dont see any other Trumper in here…

[Phaedrus]

@ComfortablyNumb

@peek-a-boo

Alleged sharing.

Wrong. Admitted sharing. Did you not read the filing? Lol

Hey everybody! We got a reader over here! GET HIM!!

[ComfortablyNumb]

@DOLOOP

Indeed, the AP is even more upfront about it. Their style guide (and it’s available publicly) is literally titled, Associated Press Stylebook And Libel Manual . The whole back of the thing addresses the law regarding slander and, especially, libel.

I knew it! They even have a manual telling them how to be liberal!! Witch Hunt!

[SeaManatee]

This whole stupid argument started with Don jr. attacking the Clinton campaign for accusing Russia of hacking. Nothing but a massive, heaping, decaying pile of lies one after the other since.

[DOLOOP]

@ComfortablyNumb

@DOLOOP

Indeed, the AP is even more upfront about it. Their style guide (and it’s available publicly) is literally titled, Associated Press Stylebook And Libel Manual . The whole back of the thing addresses the law regarding slander and, especially, libel.

I knew it! They even have a manual telling them how to be liberal!! Witch Hunt!

My bad. I shouldn’t have let that part out. Oh, well. You might as well know, too, that at the initiation, you take the oath with your right hand on a copy of Rules for Radicals and your left hand on a photograph of Jane Fonda.

Not the Barbarella Jane Fonda. The Jane Fonda at a North Vietnamese AA gun.

[Phaedrus]

@Guntsu

The hilarious part was that this reveal was inadvertent…

Just the tip…I will say this at least Peek has guts…I dont see any other Trumper in here…

I’m don’t think guts are the primary requirement for being an unwavering Trump supporter.

[TommyLucchese]

@H_Arendt

In a court filing today, Paul Manafort’s lawyers accidentally failed to black out information indicating that while he was Candidate Trump’s Campaign Manager, Manafort shared campaign polling information with a person with ties to Russian intelligence.

If it looks like a collusion and smells like a collusion, it probably is a collusion

Time to retire all those “No Collusion!” posts and fall back to a new defensive position.

Feels like the Army of Northern Virginia in the fall of 1864. Outnumbered, outgunned and consistently outflanked in a war of attrition. Oh, for the good old days when Trump’s position was “no one in my campaign talked to any Russians,” but that line sounds so 2017 these days.

Wooooooooooo