Trump charged

[FISHY1118]

You both spelt Giuliani wrong

[String]

You both spelt Giuliani wrong

Yes. Lol

[Svensson]

The Durham Report just came out.

'bout time. 4 years in the making? It's gotta have loads of interesting stuff in it.

Russian collusion was all a big fat hoax by the Clinton campaign, aided & abetted by the DOJ, FBI etc.

Well, that's not what the report says. In fact, the report is not worth the paper it is written on. Durham was a political appointment tasked with coming up with what you just said. Namely, that RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA was a hoax. He did not find that at all. And in the absence of such evidence, all he could offer is his (political) opinion that the information available to the intelligence services in August of 2016 would NOT warrant a full investigation. So in the absence of any proof, he delivered what he was hired for. An opinion to appease Trump. Let's not forget the facts here:

1. The FBI investigation was predicated by the fact that an Australain diplomat let if slip that the Russians had dirt on the clinton campaign and were about to release it (turned out to be correct).
2. Trump suddenly surrounds himself with russo-phile political activists like Manafort (working for a pro-Russian ukrainian president, Yanukovic) and Carter Page (who was a recruitment target for Russian intelligence and as early as 2014 target of an FBI FISA warrant).
3. Trump then starts publicly smoozing up to Vladimir Putin.
4. The RNC platform then drops support for Ukraine.

All the above is reason alone for the FBI to start looking into what is going on there. Hell, they wouldn't be doing thier job if they didnlt look into what was going on there.

And what WAS going on there? Muller catalogued 17 Trump campaign employees having more than 100 contacts with Russian intelligence, government and diplomats in the space of just a few months. And worse still, they all lied about what was discused with Russian intelligence and as a result, many of them went to prison. Manafort colluded with the KGB on polling data for the election so russians could write an essay on the US elections in the sunday edition of Pravda. NOT. Manafort shared the data so that the russian troll farms could help Trump in the elections.

So there was a lot going on and is no need for Durham or Hannity's spin on the report to insult our intelligence. The report has failed to show what it was set out to do. This is as clear as anything.

And people still refuse to accept the possibility that a local NY court can be corrupt or biased?

I am not discounting the possibility that a local NY court can be corrupt and biased but in order for you to make a claim of such gravity, you require evidence of which I have seen precisely zero. Besides, which court case are you exactly referring to? Trump's court appearances are beginning to stack up....

Cheers.

[c.d.]

I am not discounting the possibility that a local NY court can be corrupt and biased but in order for you to make a claim of such gravity, you require evidence of which I have seen precisely zero.

ANY court can be biased for that matter and it would be extremely naive to think otherwise. But as Svensson points out, you have to provide evidence. Jason, can you point to anything in the proceedings that were improper to make your point? Just saying the possibility for bias exists isn't going to do it.

c.d.

[jason_c]

Svensson, any evidence Manafort shared polling data with Russian intelligence?

[jason_c]

I am not discounting the possibility that a local NY court can be corrupt and biased but in order for you to make a claim of such gravity, you require evidence of which I have seen precisely zero.

ANY court can be biased for that matter and it would be extremely naive to think otherwise. But as Svensson points out, you have to provide evidence. Jason, can you point to anything in the proceedings that were improper to make your point? Just saying the possibility for bias exists isn't going to do it.

c.d.

I don't think I need to show evidence of bias or corruption. Unless I otherwise misspoke my position has been that the likelihood or corruption or bias(you can add injustice to this too) is fairly high. I'm not an investigative reporter, I don't have access to internal court communications, I don't have a smoking gun. However, when the most controversial politician in modern American history is on trial in one of the most partisan Borroughs in the US I believe I smell a rat. I don't know how this civil trial will conclude but Trump has a fair chance of winning on appeal. I will make a tentative prediction; Trump will ultimately prevail in the Bragg/Stormy Daniels case. I think he loses the initial trial but it will eventually be thrown out by a higher court. The corruption will be shown in the Bragg case to be overwhelming.

[Svensson]

Manafort admitted to sharing this data with contantin Kilimnik: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-b2140727.html

Kilimnik is understood to be affiliated with Russian intelligence. The US treasury department sanctioned him for his Russian intelligence connections in April 2021: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/nat...trump-n1264371

He is also cited as a "Russian intelligence officer" by the 2020 US Senate report on Russian interference in the 2016 elections:

"Manafort hired and worked increasingly closely with a Russian national, Konstantin Kilimnik. Kilimnik is a Russian intelligence officer. Kilimnik became an integral part of Manafort's operations in Ukraine and Russia, serving as Manafort's primary liaison to Deripaska and eventually managing Manafort's office in Kyiv. Kilimnik and Manafort formed a close and lasting relationship that endured to the 2016 U.S. elections. and beyond."

https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/report_volume5.pdf

[c.d.]

I don't think I need to show evidence of bias or corruption. Unless I otherwise misspoke my position has been that the likelihood or corruption or bias(you can add injustice to this too) is fairly high.

To quote the late, great Christopher Hitchens:

"what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence"

c.d.

[jason_c]

Manafort admitted to sharing this data with contantin Kilimnik: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-b2140727.html

Kilimnik is understood to be affiliated with Russian intelligence. The US treasury department sanctioned him for his Russian intelligence connections in April 2021: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/nat...trump-n1264371

He is also cited as a "Russian intelligence officer" by the 2020 US Senate report on Russian interference in the 2016 elections:

"Manafort hired and worked increasingly closely with a Russian national, Konstantin Kilimnik. Kilimnik is a Russian intelligence officer. Kilimnik became an integral part of Manafort's operations in Ukraine and Russia, serving as Manafort's primary liaison to Deripaska and eventually managing Manafort's office in Kyiv. Kilimnik and Manafort formed a close and lasting relationship that endured to the 2016 U.S. elections. and beyond."

https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/report_volume5.pdf

'Affiliate' (just like 'associate' another favoured word of the Russian collusion crowd)being a rather vague and possibly misleading label. You cite the treasury dept, yet no US Intel or Security agency has labelled Kilimnik as a Russian agent or asset. Kilimnik also has extensive State Dept ties, does this make him an agent of the State Dept too? Now, I'm wise enough to know the world of spooks is rather murky. However, the labelling of Kilimnik as definitively being an agent or asset of Russian intelligence is not supported by evidence released publicly, and this stuff has been investigated upto it's eyeballs.

I view the Senate report as virtually worthless.

Edit; I just read that judge Kaplan instructed the jury to find Trump culpable in the 'rape case' if they thought it greater than a 50% chance Trump raped Carroll. Not the sort of odds I'd want as a defendant in any trial.

[Ally]

I don't know how this civil trial will conclude but Trump has a fair chance of winning on appeal.

Really? And on precisely what LEGAL grounds do you think Trump will reverse a jury verdict on appeal?

[Svensson]

'Affiliate' (just like 'associate' another favoured word of the Russian collusion crowd)being a rather vague and possibly misleading label. You cite the treasury dept, yet no US Intel or Security agency has labelled Kilimnik as a Russian agent or asset. Kilimnik also has extensive State Dept ties, does this make him an agent of the State Dept too? Now, I'm wise enough to know the world of spooks is rather murky. However, the labelling of Kilimnik as definitively being an agent or asset of Russian intelligence is not supported by evidence released publicly, and this stuff has been investigated upto it's eyeballs.

I view the Senate report as virtually worthless.

Edit; I just read that judge Kaplan instructed the jury to find Trump culpable in the 'rape case' if they thought it greater than a 50% chance Trump raped Carroll. Not the sort of odds I'd want as a defendant in any trial.

You are correct in saying that this stuff has been investigated up to its eyeballs. And the general consensus amongt the intelligence community is that he IS a Russian intelligence asset. So if I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that this is not the case because it is "not supported by evidence released publicly". ?

[jason_c]

Really? And on precisely what LEGAL grounds do you think Trump will reverse a jury verdict on appeal?

I'm not an American, nor a lawyer licensed to practice law in New York state. However, one possible way, I think, would be to go after the judge as being biased, infringing his rights in some way. I mean jury trials must have been appealed or overturned before this one, surely? I still can't quite figure out why defending yourself publicly against an accusation of rape when you haven't been convicted or arrested for rape is somehow wrong or worthy of a $5million settlement. I suppose this is what happens when the judge gives a closing statement to the jury indicating that if the jury thought there was >50% likelihood that Carroll was raped that it meant Trump was culpable. Thankfully none of us here are former POTUS on trial in Manhattan.

Edit; I remember when the Stormy Daniels civil case was all done and dusted...until it wasn't.

[c.d.]

I suppose this is what happens when the judge gives a closing statement to the jury indicating that if the jury thought there was >50% likelihood that Carroll was raped that it meant Trump was culpable.

That is because this was a civil trial and the standard is "a preponderance of the evidence." In other words, what is more likely so? The standard in a criminal trial is much higher and that is "beyond a reasonable doubt."

c.d.

[Ally]

I'm not an American, nor a lawyer licensed to practice law in New York state. However, one possible way, I think, would be to go after the judge as being biased, infringing his rights in some way. I mean jury trials must have been appealed or overturned before this one, surely? I still can't quite figure out why defending yourself publicly against an accusation of rape when you haven't been convicted or arrested for rape is somehow wrong or worthy of a $5million settlement. I suppose this is what happens when the judge gives a closing statement to the jury indicating that if the jury thought there was >50% likelihood that Carroll was raped that it meant Trump was culpable. Thankfully none of us here are former POTUS on trial in Manhattan.

Edit; I remember when the Stormy Daniels civil case was all done and dusted...until it wasn't.

LOL.. in order to go after the "judge for being "biased" you have to have EVIDENCE that the judge was biased. Of which ... there is none. None of his rulings placed an undue burden on the defendant.

The judge, gave the instruction that is legally required by law. See, we allow people to seek CIVIL justice, when for whatever reason, criminal justice failed. Or even when it succeeds. Civil different than criminal. Same action, different court system. As in ... there being no physical evidence and it being a his word against her word situation the jury gets to decide who they believe. Which is a different standard to PUTTING Someone in jail for the same offense. You can believe someone committed a crime, but not have the sufficient evidence to lead to a conviction. But if that CRIME caused you ACTUAL HARM, you can sue them for the pain and suffering.

How is that a hard concept to comprehend by any adult living in free society? Civil cases exist in the UK too. It is literally NO DIFFERENT. How are you living in a society where you don't comprehend how the system works?

Someone can cause you harm and you are allowed to seek legal damages, regardless of whether they go to jail or not for that harm.

Lawd. The Right Wing defenders are really light in the thinking department, aint they?

[rjpalmer]

I still can't quite figure out why defending yourself publicly against an accusation of rape when you haven't been convicted or arrested for rape is somehow wrong or worthy of a $5million settlement.

He wasn't being sued for rape. He was being sued for defamation--He claimed SHE had lied about being raped. She convinced a jury--which we know included at least one hard-core MAGA supporter--that she hadn't lied about the incident, thus he defamed HER. She was, in effect, defending herself...not the other way around. Trump failed to convince the jury that he was telling the truth about it not happening, based on other women giving compelling testimony, and Carroll haven given compelling testimony.

Why do you think billionaires are above the law?