usmbguest5318
Gold Member
Robert Mueller has issued his initial salvo from the "Russia" investigation and we are now hearing responses from Trump, the WH and others sympathetic to or currently/formerly allied, in one way or another, with Trump. Those retorts are really all about managing public opinion; however, public opinion, not matter whether it favors or doesn't favor Trump, Manafort, et al, does not equate to the opinion of the twelve people who will, if the matter goes to trial, decide on the merit of the charges and supporting evidence. Insofar as the trial has not happened, the evidence is not part of the public record, so we don't really know what Mueller has that militated for grand jury to hand down the indictments.
Who does know what the evidence is? Well, the people who are involved in the matter. Manafort, who is an attorney, knew he played "fast and loose" with his taxes. He knew what was in whatever the FBI seized when it raided his home. The authors and recipients of emails know what they wrote and read.
It's quite telling that Manafort's lawyer yesterday in his sidewalk remarks stated that Manafort didn't collude with Russians. What's telling about it?
And that's the thing about indictments and responding to them. One cannot deflect one's way to a not guilty verdict. In a courtroom, unlike when commenting from a sidewalk, in a tweet, from a dais in a briefing room or auditorium, etc., one can't "spin" one's way out of the charges, has to address the charges and evidence head-on.
Who does know what the evidence is? Well, the people who are involved in the matter. Manafort, who is an attorney, knew he played "fast and loose" with his taxes. He knew what was in whatever the FBI seized when it raided his home. The authors and recipients of emails know what they wrote and read.
It's quite telling that Manafort's lawyer yesterday in his sidewalk remarks stated that Manafort didn't collude with Russians. What's telling about it?
- He knows, as do all attorneys, that collusion is neither a crime nor is it something Manafort is accused of having done; thus saying Manafort didn't collude with Russians is pointless. Strawman, red herring, take your pick...The remark doesn't at all address the charge.
- He didn't say that Manafort did not conspire in any of the ways stated in the indictments against him.
And that's the thing about indictments and responding to them. One cannot deflect one's way to a not guilty verdict. In a courtroom, unlike when commenting from a sidewalk, in a tweet, from a dais in a briefing room or auditorium, etc., one can't "spin" one's way out of the charges, has to address the charges and evidence head-on.