Stay updated with breaking news from Sham loan. Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.
You dont believe that to be the case . We acknowledge the threat, it is real, it is continuing. And were doing everything we can to have a legitimate election. If you dont catch a hacker, okay, in the act, it is very hard to say who did the hacking. With that being said, ill go along with russia. Could have been china, could have been a lot of different groups. Make no mistake, the scope of this foreign influence threat is broad and deep. Ive seen it described as two administrations. John mclaughlin says were seeing orwellian. You have senior advisers saying over and over again as you heard there. And then you have the president saying something entirely different. What do you make of it and what is the lasting effect of that . One thing that we didnt see in that clip is even john bolton said that the president supports our efforts and top priority. Exactly. But that is not true because the of law, but court of public opinion. And he is really good at that about tapping into his base. ....
David Gura hosts coverage of national and international news, including breaking stories. Conflicting information from weekend to weekend about what the president may or may not do, david. Geoff, thank you very much. Appreciate it as always. Geoff bennett joining us from the white house. I want to turn to my panel. Joyce, let me start with you. Bearing in mind, youre not an expert on election law, but i want to stick with one point that geoff just raised there about the dangers, the legal dangers of taking a meeting with representatives of a foreign country to offer dirt here on an opposing candidate in a u. S. Election. Help us understand the legal consequences of that. Theres a very specific statute that prohibits this kind of conduct. It makes it illegal to accept or to solicit a donation or a contribution related to a u. S. Election from either a foreign citizen or a foreign government. So on its face, that prohibition would seem to apply pretty clearly. If, for instance, while run ....
So not essential from an evidentiary point of view. but the jury may need to hear from gates for a sense of completeness, and so that s the decision that the government will have to make. whether they need to put on gates, so that the jury doesn t walk away with a sense that there might be something missing. eric, what s your sense of how much this decision hangs on how rick gates has been presented to this jury? when you look at the defense s opening statement, a lot of it is centered on the reliability of rick gates. they presumed he would be the keystone witness here for the prosecution. how successful were they able to paint him in bad relief? well, so i think actually there were some government witnesses who did suggest that gates was present for pretty critical moments of the crimes that paul manafort is on trial for. so, for instance, there was an accountant who testified on friday. she said that she had effectively concealed $900,000 in foreign income as a sham ....
Accountants? i would say the biggest revelation yesterday was from a tax keeper, an accountant for paul manafort who said that she helped disguise $900,000 of foreign income as a sham loan and the goal of that of course was to reduce paul manafort s tax burden. and this was fairly damaging testimony for the government and she is a fairly significant witness and this is on the heels of testimony from other financial experts who said that manafort had disguised or concealed from them his use of foreign bank accounts which would be in violation of u.s. law. eric, trying to get a feel here for what is going on in the courtroom, sketches only giving us so much. lisa has a question. i m wondering about the jury s reaction both over the course of testimony ranging from like really interesting to my mind discussions of landscaping to maybe tougher discussions about numbers. and also judge ellis known to everyone to be a fairly active voice in the courtroom. ....