Quote Originally Posted by Basil77
Quote Originally Posted by laxxy
Now, this is an interesting interview. He is a very smart man and it looks like he chose his answers with great care. You see, when people hear about "taking power by force" and other such things, usually what one thinks about is something rather more extreme and less legitimate than Ukrainian/Georgian events -- and he made sure that he made this association, so that when someone speaks about any possible plans of his regarding such a coup he would always have an option refer back to this interview and say "you see, this is what it really means, I've been saying that from the beginning" and so on. You don't really think that speeches of this kind would be considered grounds for prosecution/extradiction, do you? Perhaps not even in Russia.

Do read the part about Russians failing to provide sufficient evidence, which sounds just about right. I think that this was a matter of choice rather than that of non-professionalism -- surely it should have been possible to collect enough solid evidence on his "economic" crimes, but who would want such evidence publicly discussed and contested in front of a British court? Much better just leave him be (for all his talk I doubt he can do much) and blame the court's bias.
Насчёт "легитимности" грузинского и украинского переворотов... Я не буду говорить про украинский случай (хотя там ооооочень много вопросов), ну уж в Грузии то был явный путч! Какая на хрен легитимность, когда законно избранного (никто так и не доказал, что Шеварнадзе чего-то там сфальсифицировал) президента молодчики вышвыривают из его резиденции!
I have not really followed the case much so I am not familiar with the exact evidence. Do note however that Saakashvili does have very wide popular support, and seems to have had it before the events just as well -- which makes it rather suspicious that he was reported to have lost the elections (that he proceeded to win with like 90% after the events). One needs to look at what observers noticed during both elections, for one...
At least that is how it looks like to me.

То, что запад упорно делает вид, что Саак не бандит и диктатор, а "борец за идеалы демократии" просто смешно. А что касается Берёзы с его словесным поносом, то у нас есть статья в уголовном кодексе о "призывах к свержению законной власти" или что-то в этом духе. Он её явно нарушил, за что генпрокуратура и потребовавла его выдачи.
He describes what the prosecutor general were trying to do in those interviews, read them.

А то что Россия не можнт предоставить достаточно доказательств его виновности... Всё им предоставили, и с лихвой. Просто они упорно не хотят считать что бы то ни было доказательствами его вины.
Have you read the proceedings of the court and studied the evidence? If you did, I think you would not be saying many of these things.
Or is it just obvious to you that he is a bandit and so the court should have believed the same?

Мне кажется, что если бы британскому судье принесли видеозапись, где Берёза, к примеру, закладывает мину под Кремль, то судья бы сказал: "Ну какое же это доказательство? Мало ли что человек там положил? Откуда он знал что это мина?" или что-то в этом духе.
Quite possibly, and he would have quite possibly been right.

Evidence like this is regularly thrown out in courts. Last year (iirc) there was a case where police used IR cameras to notice that people were growing pot in their house, they proceeded to raid the house and found all the physical evidence there (!). The case went up to the Supreme Court and was finally thrown out, since the original observation (using IR) was not sanctioned by a court prior to the event and was so judged a violation of privacy, and thus invalidated all other (unquestionable) evidence and proceedings.
Think of OJ Simpson, too