Daily Journal:

A message appeared that Luzhkov, speaking somewhere, said as if it had already been a fait accompli that he would win the trial and was almost aware of how he would spend the allocated amount, for some charitable purposes. He says that means he knows. That is, apparently, he is confident that the court will take his side. You can remember what Limonov said regarding the influence on the courts. Let's see. So far, in any case, we have not seen either one or the other claim. Unfortunately, we have very few doubts about the degree of independence of our judicial system, but, nevertheless, even within its framework we will try to justify our position. If the courts do not try to get everything done in one or two sessions, but still listen to arguments and evidence, which we really hope for, then we will at least be able to substantiate our position.

Regarding privileges, the question is what is meant by privileges. The report says not so much about privileges, but rather about the fact that, strangely, it is in Moscow that the successful company of the mayor’s wife always receives good plots of land. Should we consider this a privilege or some kind of accident? Is it an accident that a person who worked as a petty clerk before marrying Luzhkov, and then produced plastic basins for several years, suddenly suddenly becomes a successful construction businesswoman? Should we consider this an accident or a sad pattern? Apparently, everyone can evaluate this for themselves; we consider this to be a pattern. In this particular case, Baturina’s life destiny and the history of her company are quite obvious, including from the facts presented in the report. If they think that this is an accident, let them talk about it in the program “Good night, kids!”

Don't get ahead of yourself just yet. In any case, we will fight for the truth, we will use all legal means to substantiate our position in the district court, and in the city court, if necessary, and in the supervision, and in the European Court, relying on Article 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Freedom of Speech.

We believe that Nemtsov published a completely logical and, perhaps, not exhaustive, but quite succinct report, which, by the way, apparently awaits its continuation. We will also look in the statement of claim to find out exactly which facts and paragraphs they did not like, because it is unlikely that they will be able to invalidate the entire report. What exactly were they offended by and what were they not offended by? So far, from the comments, I still don’t understand whether Baturina was offended that she is now a dollar billionaire thanks to her husband. She doesn't seem to be offended by this. And this, in fact, makes up a significant part of the report.

We will try to draw maximum attention to the problems raised in the report. With a high degree of probability, regardless of the court’s decision, there will be volume two, volume three, and so on. I think that it is high time to create a public commission to investigate the activities of the second mayor of Moscow - regardless of the results of this trial and regardless of the fact that there were, of course, positive moments in Luzhkov’s activities - by the way, Nemtsov also writes about this. The negativity that we see is enough to systematize everything and, including, check it in court.