Manafort caught dead to rights on collusion

@Damedius: you clear don't get it.

It's a fact that manafort talked and traded date with a Russian spy.

It's fact that his lawyers goof and made that public.

And it is a fact that doing that while running an election is illegal because it's conspiracy.

Sorry but is not just an a opinion but a factual one. If one of the most pro trump network and it's pro trump legal expert who is a judge says that it's proof of collusion than it stops being a opinion . It's a fact.

Yup, that sums it up perfectly.

Yeah screw the law. Let's just determine guilt or innocence using your gut.

So if I talked to a Russian that means I colluded with Russia?

Does this mean no American is allowed to have any contact with any Russians?

You guys better get busy then, you have a lot of Americans that have colluded with Russia.

While you are at it, what are you doing about Dianne Feinstein? By your standards this is clear evidence of collusion with China.

https://nypost.com/2018/08/08/dianne-feinstein-was-an-easy-mark-for-chinas-spy/

Turns out that Communist China had a spy in her office. A 20-year employee of Feinstein’s, the agent had been reporting back to China’s Ministry of State Security for well over a decade before he was caught in 2013, according to the FBI.

A Chinese-American who doubled as both an office staffer and Feinstein’s personal driver, the agent reportedly was handled by officials based out of the People’s Republic of China’s consulate in San Francisco, which Feinstein helped set up when she was mayor of that city. He even attended consulate functions for the senator.

Feinstein says she took the staffer off her payroll “immediately” after the FBI informed her five years ago that her office had been infiltrated by Chinese intelligence, and agents had identified the mole in a briefing. In a statement, the Democratic senator insisted he had “no access to sensitive information” and that he was never charged with espionage.

Well that's pretty much how I feel about you, so yes. Why not. Funny how you replied so quickly.

True. Only Russians can respond quickly. They get +10 to response time. It's kind of overpowered.

@Damedius: right. Thanks for proving my point.

This thread got toxic fast.

@Damedius: use reading comprehension and common sense.

The issue is not that hw taked to russian spies. It's that he did so while working on a political campaigns.

I state that was the problem many times.

Why because it can lead to that person effecting and manipulation thw person running for office or even worse getting them to be an agent for that foreign government.

Yes. I should know that it is only bad in this specific case because it deals with someone you hate, Trump.

Thank you for clarifying everything for me.

@Damedius: did you not read what I just wrote?

I clearly state the issue was that Manafort was trump's campaign manager. He is at a place of interest of influence and info.

This woman's driver is not. He is just a driver.

Manafort is sending data on trump's campaign plans and polling data To this spy for coordination.

Mean while Feinstein just have this guy driving her around ignorant to him beong a spy.

It so vastly different you can't even begin to argue they are the same case.

Stop using straw man arguments they make you look dumb.

So you have evidence that this man is a spy? You also have evidence that Manafort knew he was spy?

Are you going to provide evidence at some stage or just keeping beating around the bush?

@Damedius: the justice department already made states the guy is a spy. They are not the only government organization. I told you this and gave you sources 2 pages ago. You're a broken record.

Also Manafort issue before this is he lied and told Muller and the court he never met the guy. He then got found out....more let to a trap because Muller already knew he was lying and manafort ia getting the deal he made taken away.

The Manafort's lawyer also let out the info comfirming he met the guy and gave him election data by mistake which is what this topic is about.

This is not an if and may situations. He dis this intentionally.

You need someone to start proofreading your posts. They are painful to read.

So you don't have any evidence. Until you provide some evidence, cool story bro.

@Damedius: I linked my proof here 3 time in arguments with you.

But hey just for you to have your proof...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/09/konstantin-kilimnik-russia-trump-manafort-mueller

"Konstantin Kilimnik: elusive Russian with ties to Manafort faces fresh Mueller scrutiny

A Russian man who is said to have ties to Moscow’s intelligence services will be receiving renewed scrutiny from special counsel Robert Mueller’s inquiry into Russian 2016 election interference, according to former federal prosecutors.

Mueller is investigating Konstantin Kilimnik with assistance from three Kilimnik associates, including Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, who mentored Kilimnik as a political operative for pro-Kremlin figures in Ukraine.

Kilimnik, an elusive 48-year-old, has already been charged by Mueller with witness tampering. His most recent business partner has been charged with illegally funneling $50,000 from a wealthy Ukrainian into Trump’s inauguration fund."

More in the link.

Your's are painful to read for other reasons..........

Hahaha, oh man. Trump's hired campaign manager was caught trying to funnel polling data to Russian contacts. SUCH A NOTHING BURGER. People defending this guy are pathetic.

You lost the debate and then run to shitty Trump memes.

Meh.

There you go. Was that so hard?

Although a lot of this evidence seems to be circumstantial with nothing concrete in the article. Still much better than the article in the OP.

@Damedius: dude. You clearly did not click the link. None of this is circumstantial. He has connections to Russian billionaires. Part of Manafort's fruad ring and has gone after Muller's witness.

You clearly have trouble with words and definitions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence

Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—such as a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.

On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation. Different pieces of circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more likely once alternative explanations have been ruled out.

Circumstantial evidence allows a trier of fact to infer that a fact exists.^[1] In criminal law, the inference is made by the trier of fact in order to support the truth of an assertion (of guilt or absence of guilt).

^[2] Reasonable doubt is tied into Circumstantial evidence as circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference, and reasonable doubt was put in place so that the circumstantial evidence against someone in a criminal or civil case must be enough to acquit someone fairly. Reasonable doubt is described as the highest standard of proof used in court and means that there must be clear and convincing evidence of what the person has done. Therefore, the circumstantial evidence against someone may not be enough but it can contribute to other decisions made concerning the case.

Testimony can be direct evidence or it can be circumstantial. For example, a witness saying that she saw a defendant stab a victim is providing direct evidence. By contrast, a witness who says that she saw the defendant enter a house, that she heard screaming, and that she saw the defendant leave with a bloody knife gives circumstantial evidence. It is the necessity for inference, and not the obviousness of a conclusion, that determines whether evidence is circumstantial.

Forensic evidence supplied by an expert witness is usually treated as circumstantial evidence. For example, a forensic scientist may provide results of ballistic tests proving that the defendant’s firearm fired the bullets that killed the victim, but not necessarily that the defendant fired the shots.

@Damedius: again every thing stated is not circumstancal.

He was caught doing all of it.

Gates and many banks showed he did fruad with Manafort.

He's worked and met those 2 Russian billionaires.

He him self stated he is pro Russia trying to get the Ukraine to side with Russia.

And Muller's witness are the one who state he narrated him.

Then there is the email from Manafort's lawyer stating they were sending polling data To him.

He is also one of the ownsers of the ruasian companies involve in the election ad drive to effect thw election.

Sorry but what is circumstancal about that?

Did you miss the part where most of this happened prior to Manafort being a part of the Trump team?

They have dates beside almost everything in the article. All the damning stuff was done prior to Manafort working on the Trump campaign.

Everything suggesting that the Trump campaign was working with the Russians is circumstantial.

Don't don't even bother with Damedius, you're wasting your energy. His favorite news outlet is Breitbart - an alt-right website of conspiracy theories/ white supremacy.

@Damedius: again. Manafort's lawyer literally gave direct proof by accident.....which is what the topic is about.

They literally were caught red handed saying they were giving polling data To this guy.