lying, okay? there is lying going on here, professor. there was lying going on about what we were told about this meeting. the statement that was done about it. the president s role in it. and then even when that statement was written, it was deceptive about what actually happened in the meeting, and that seems to be clear on the face of this tweet, asha. so even if it isn t illegal, what does this mean to investigators in terms of looking at a pattern of behavior of how this then-candidate, now-president treated these types of issues? it means that they believe that they were doing something wrong, period. that is why people lie. i mean you know that from being a parent and watching your 5-year-old. you know, one thing, let s just assume arguendo as we would say in legalese, that these are crimes and that, you know, they did agree, and there is, say, a conspiracy. there s an affirmative defense in conspiracy where if you renounce the conspiracy, you say
the first amendment. i hear the arguments on either side, but there s something else going on here. lying, okay? there is lying going on here, professor. there was lying going on about what we were told about this meeting. the statement that was done about it. the president s role in it. and then even when that statement was written, it was deceptive about what actually happened in the meeting, and that seems to be clear on the face of this tweet, asha. so even if it isn t illegal, what does this mean to investigators in terms of looking at a pattern of behavior of how this then-candidate, now-president treated these types of issues? it means that they believe that they were doing something wrong, period. that is why people lie. i mean you know that from being a parent and watching your 5-year-old. you know, one thing, let s just assume arguendo as we would say in legalese, that these are crimes and that, you know, they did agree, and there is, say, a conspiracy. there s an affirma
russia for political reasons, but think about the problem that causes for real world people. their events are taken down and don t know if it was tied to russia or not. so it creates more confusion. i think as they go deeper into this issue and they re hiring 20,000 new security and safety specialists by the end of this year, so it s a huge push that s started to influence their revenues. their revenues were down 20% this month because of the spending that they re doing on security. so i think that s only going to that whole mess is just going to get more complicated and tangled as we head into the midterms. and folks are asking, will, as facebook makes these moves, is it really because they ideologically believe this is the right thing to do or are they really trying to stem off future criticism in 18 and 20? how real is this move? because 20,000 is a big number but earnings is not something to sneeze at certainly. certainly, absolutely. it seems as though facebook is getting
but i ve been wrong before certainly. well, there is the judge, also manafort, lots of things to watch for you. definitely. i think the judge was definitely sort of trying to curtail prosecutors who were using sort of more explicit language. he did not want them to refer to oligarchs. he made a comment along the lines that it is not illegal to be rich and over the top spending isn t illegal. so i think the prosecution is sort of shifting away from that sort of language. but to be clear, a lot of the expenses, these really big clothing and landscaping expenses are pretty key to the case because they were paid for using these overseas accounts. and they were entities that his accountants and financial team believed were clients instead of entities actually controlled by manafort himself. and the lawyer testified that she thought it was strange that or rather the accountant testified that it was strange that there were loans coming from people that they thought were clients. ben,
excentric. and he has been a bit of a wild card in this whole proceeding. at one point, you know, causing quite a flurry in the conservative media by raising the anxiety that there may be a problem with mueller s appointment, only then to turn around and write a lengthy opinion saying just the opposite. he has clearly held the prosecution to its paces and limited its ability to sensationalize this by talking about oligarchs and by making too much of the spending. i think in the broad scheme of things, that is a good thing in the sense that this is at the end of the day a tax fraud trial and the question isn t were you doing business with viktor yanukovich. the question is were you not