Another hilarious screw up by the Mueller team...

[Lutherf]

Your first mistake is in #1: An indictment can't happen without evidence.

Sure, there are procedures that can be difficult (and sometimes nearly impossible) to follow, but no prosecutor will allow an indictment to be made without actual evidence. Now Mueller might withhold that evidence to be provided for discovery for another reason...but there is evidence.

You just don't want to believe there's evidence because you know it's all going to eventually end up pointing where the buck's supposed to stop.

Well, I suppose there is evidence that Russians, posing as Americans, made Facebook and Twitter posts promoting and disparaging various candidates. There is no reason one can't indict based on that but it's a whole different kettle of fish to turn that into a conviction on defrauding the United States, money laundering or aggravated identity theft.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Well, I suppose there is evidence that Russians, posing as Americans, made Facebook and Twitter posts promoting and disparaging various candidates. There is no reason one can't indict based on that but it's a whole different kettle of fish to turn that into a conviction on defrauding the United States, money laundering or aggravated identity theft.

That, sir, is why y'all should wait and see what evidence Mueller DOES present when he's ready to do so, instead of buying into Trump's incessant claims that there's no evidence of anything. That's also why ALL our past presidents (except Nixon) made a practice of refusing to interfere with DOJ investigations. You see, innocent people have no need to interfere with an investigation...and even the guilty ones - if they're smart - know better than to do so. But pretty much only the guilty ones try to hamper investigations and try to tell everyone how corrupt the FBI supposedly is.

If Trump were indeed innocent, then he would have no need of stopping the investigation. Heck, even Hillary didn't try to stop the investigations even after there were at least EIGHT federal investigations against her...ALL of which found zero wrongdoing on her part even though most of the investigations were headed by the Hillary-must-hang GOP House Benghazi Committee! And remember, even Bill Clinton didn't try to hamper the Ken Starr investigation...which started out with a real estate deal in Arkansas and ended up with a certain blue dress.

So if Hillary could take eight investigations without raising hell about it (and turned out to be innocent), and if Bill could take a federal investigation where he was required to testify before the nation that he screwed around on his wife, why can't Trump take even ONE investigation without whining that it's all a witch hunt?


Easy. Because he's guilty as sin. If he's innocent, then he should be ACTING innocent, instead of acting like the guiltiest guy who ever lived.

 

[jnug]

That, sir, is why y'all should wait and see what evidence Mueller DOES present when he's ready to do so, instead of buying into Trump's incessant claims that there's no evidence of anything. That's also why ALL our past presidents (except Nixon) made a practice of refusing to interfere with DOJ investigations. You see, innocent people have no need to interfere with an investigation...and even the guilty ones - if they're smart - know better than to do so. But pretty much only the guilty ones try to hamper investigations and try to tell everyone how corrupt the FBI supposedly is.

If Trump were indeed innocent, then he would have no need of stopping the investigation. Heck, even Hillary didn't try to stop the investigations even after there were at least EIGHT federal investigations against her...ALL of which found zero wrongdoing on her part even though most of the investigations were headed by the Hillary-must-hang GOP House Benghazi Committee! And remember, even Bill Clinton didn't try to hamper the Ken Starr investigation...which started out with a real estate deal in Arkansas and ended up with a certain blue dress.

So if Hillary could take eight investigations without raising hell about it (and turned out to be innocent), and if Bill could take a federal investigation where he was required to testify before the nation that he screwed around on his wife, why can't Trump take even ONE investigation without whining that it's all a witch hunt?


Easy. Because he's guilty as sin. If he's innocent, then he should be ACTING innocent, instead of acting like the guiltiest guy who ever lived.

Well Bill Clinton tried to interfere to some extent. Nothing like this but he did try. But to your point that was because Clinton was GUILTY!!

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Well Bill Clinton tried to interfere to some extent. Nothing like this but he did try. But to your point that was because Clinton was GUILTY!!

Okay - let's take everything you just said as being 100% factual. And Clinton was indeed guilty.

Thing is, how is Trump acting? Innocent? Or guilty as sin?

 

[eohrnberger]

That, sir, is why y'all should wait and see what evidence Mueller DOES present when he's ready to do so, instead of buying into Trump's incessant claims that there's no evidence of anything. That's also why ALL our past presidents (except Nixon) made a practice of refusing to interfere with DOJ investigations. You see, innocent people have no need to interfere with an investigation...and even the guilty ones - if they're smart - know better than to do so. But pretty much only the guilty ones try to hamper investigations and try to tell everyone how corrupt the FBI supposedly is.

If Trump were indeed innocent, then he would have no need of stopping the investigation. Heck, even Hillary didn't try to stop the investigations even after there were at least EIGHT federal investigations against her...ALL of which found zero wrongdoing on her part even though most of the investigations were headed by the Hillary-must-hang GOP House Benghazi Committee! And remember, even Bill Clinton didn't try to hamper the Ken Starr investigation...which started out with a real estate deal in Arkansas and ended up with a certain blue dress.

So if Hillary could take eight investigations without raising hell about it (and turned out to be innocent), and if Bill could take a federal investigation where he was required to testify before the nation that he screwed around on his wife, why can't Trump take even ONE investigation without whining that it's all a witch hunt?


Easy. Because he's guilty as sin. If he's innocent, then he should be ACTING innocent, instead of acting like the guiltiest guy who ever lived.

I didn't know that the bar in the legal system had been lowered to the point that all one had to do was to not be "ACTING innocent" in order to be convicted.

Or is this the now expected legal standard applicable only to non-Democrats, non-Liberals, and non-political elites?

The longer the Mueller investigation goes on without some earth shattering big criminal or corruption charges, the more it seems the investigation found nothing of significance or of substance on Trump and his team, and as have acted criminally, or at least of questionable judgment, in the process.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

I didn't know that the bar in the legal system had been lowered to the point that all one had to do was to not be "ACTING innocent" in order to be convicted.

Or is this the now expected legal standard applicable only to non-Democrats, non-Liberals, and non-political elites?

The longer the Mueller investigation goes on without some earth shattering big criminal or corruption charges, the more it seems the investigation found nothing of significance or of substance on Trump and his team, and as have acted criminally, or at least of questionable judgment, in the process.

1. I never said that Trump IS guilty - I said he's ACTING guilty. On second thought, I probably did some point in the past say Trump's guilty...just like pretty much every conservative on DP who's sworn up and down that Hillary was guilty. That being said, the one who is being investigated - even if he's the president - is NEVER supposed to interfere with the investigation. Why would an innocent person interfere with the investigation? And besides, do y'all REALLY want to set the precedent where the president can just say, "No, I'm shutting down all investigations concerning me and my actions. I declare myself innocent." Do y'all really want that? 'Cause what would happen, then, when a Democrat gets into the White House and decides to be as corrupt - or even more corrupt - than Trump? Especially if we've got the precedent already set by Trump being allowed to interfere (or completely shut down) the investigation into him? Hm?

2. Go do some research into just how long felony investigations take...and especially when those investigations concern a mob boss or a very powerful politician. The investigation into Trump and his administration is actually moving pretty quickly, given the five guilty pleas and 13 indictments Mueller's already got.

 

[itsforthekids]

and President Trump and America just keep on winning!

 

[jnug]

1. I never said that Trump IS guilty - I said he's ACTING guilty. On second thought, I probably did some point in the past say Trump's guilty...just like pretty much every conservative on DP who's sworn up and down that Hillary was guilty. That being said, the one who is being investigated - even if he's the president - is NEVER supposed to interfere with the investigation. Why would an innocent person interfere with the investigation? And besides, do y'all REALLY want to set the precedent where the president can just say, "No, I'm shutting down all investigations concerning me and my actions. I declare myself innocent." Do y'all really want that? 'Cause what would happen, then, when a Democrat gets into the White House and decides to be as corrupt - or even more corrupt - than Trump? Especially if we've got the precedent already set by Trump being allowed to interfere (or completely shut down) the investigation into him? Hm?

2. Go do some research into just how long felony investigations take...and especially when those investigations concern a mob boss or a very powerful politician. The investigation into Trump and his administration is actually moving pretty quickly, given the five guilty pleas and 13 indictments Mueller's already got.

YES....YES...that is exactly what they want. Isn't it obvious? They don't care. They have themselves convinced that Saint Donald without any question the ultimate corrupt man, proven so through a lifetime of business corruption and payoffs to hide same is utterly blameless. Thus all of these investigations are a waste of time, not even worth a thorough review by the Mueller probe. Just the fact that they cheer while Trump waves around the utterly useless Nunes House Intel Committee report tells you as much. Just that they accepted a candidate that slithered through not releasing his income tax forms tells you as much.

Whenever this becomes a matter of history, we will be doing with this the same thing we end up doing with many investigations of this type. We will be saying of course Donald was dirty. How could we possibly have convinced ourselves otherwise?

 

[ashurbanipal]

It's on Mueller for moving forward with the prosecution without properly served subpoenas. Hell, he COULD have handed the defendants their subpoenas at court.

First, it's a summons, not a subpoena--there's an important difference. Second, no he could not, because they did not appear in court. You cannot serve a summons on a person's attorney in federal court without the authorization of the person being summoned--or at least those were the rules a few years ago, and I doubt they've changed.

Hair splitting, you're doing it.

If the actual defendants appear on U.S. soil, and the relevant authorities are aware that they are here, they will be arrested. But I guess it'd be OK if we just arrest their lawyers instead, since making a distinction between the defendants and their attorneys is, as you say, just hair-splitting.

I mean, c'mon...

Of course you wouldn't think so.

Yes, I suppose it does follow of course. I can read and reason correctly about what I read.

Durn them tricksy Russianses.

Are these the same "Russianses" who never in their whole history practiced deception, deep strategy, and have played fairly and in good faith all the time? The ones that don't have a notorious reputation for being underhanded and sly? You mean those Russianses?

Again, seriously? It's pretty obvious that's what they're up to...

 

[eohrnberger]

1. I never said that Trump IS guilty - I said he's ACTING guilty. On second thought, I probably did some point in the past say Trump's guilty...just like pretty much every conservative on DP who's sworn up and down that Hillary was guilty. That being said, the one who is being investigated - even if he's the president - is NEVER supposed to interfere with the investigation. Why would an innocent person interfere with the investigation? And besides, do y'all REALLY want to set the precedent where the president can just say, "No, I'm shutting down all investigations concerning me and my actions. I declare myself innocent." Do y'all really want that? 'Cause what would happen, then, when a Democrat gets into the White House and decides to be as corrupt - or even more corrupt - than Trump? Especially if we've got the precedent already set by Trump being allowed to interfere (or completely shut down) the investigation into him? Hm?

2. Go do some research into just how long felony investigations take...and especially when those investigations concern a mob boss or a very powerful politician. The investigation into Trump and his administration is actually moving pretty quickly, given the five guilty pleas and 13 indictments Mueller's already got.

Yes, I'm well aware of the indictments Mueller's already got. I'm left with the impression that they are all process crimes, or before any engagement of the subject with the Trump campaign.

If I also recall correctly, the scope of the Mueller investigation was supposed to be Russian collusion influencing the election (dishonestly contorted into Trump / Russian collusion to influence the election) and of that, there seems to be precious little of anything, at least revealed so far, other than the mentioned indictments of Russians, who, surprise, surprise, have come back in country and want their day in court about it, and Mueller's not ready or able to proceed. A possible indication of how strong the rest of his 'evidence' is.

I mean how the hell can you indict presumed innocents and not even be able to back it up in court? Isn't that abuse of the Grand Jury process?

The indictments that Mueller has filed are for leverage, and little more, because, apparently, there's no direct evidence to indict anyone, else why do that? Why else file indictments alleging crimes not within the scope of his investigation? Especially when it may very well put his entire investigation at risk.

Federal judge rightly rebukes Mueller for questionable tactics | TheHill
thehill.com/.../386508-federal-judge-rightly-rebukes-mueller-for-questionable-tactics
3 days ago - But, as the judge correctly pointed out, it risks the possibility that the squeezed ... What you got to be careful of is, they may not only sing, they may compose. ... A similar point could be madewith regard to Trump's former national security ... The judge has not yet ruled on the propriety of the special counsel's ...

U.S. Judge Says Mueller Should Not Have 'Unfettered Power' in ...
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2018/05/.../05reuters-usa-trump-russia-manafort.html
5 days ago - Michael Dreeben, a deputy solicitor general working with Mueller, argued the ... Trumpenthusiastically read the judge's comments out loud to his ... "I think Judge Ellis may just be putting to the government through its paces," she said. ... charges on similar legal grounds, but there has not been a ruling.​

I dunno. You dunno. No one knows. But there is credence and reason to believe that Mueller's got either very little or nothing, but seems the electorate are starting to make up their minds on the question of Mueller's investigation being a politically motivated which hunt.

75 percent of Republicans say Mueller investigation is a “witch hunt ...
https://www.vox.com/2018/5/10/.../poll-republicans-trump-fbi-mueller-witch-hunt
6 hours ago - Poll: most Republicans now think Trump is being framed by the FBI ... of Republicans agree with President Donald Trump that it's a “witch hunt.

Russia Investigation Poll: Majority Say It's Politically Motivated ...
https://www.nationalreview.com/.../russia-investigation-poll-majority-politically-motiv...
2 days ago - President Trump has criticized Mueller's investigation of possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia as a “witch hunt” and ...
​

 

[jnug]

I didn't know that the bar in the legal system had been lowered to the point that all one had to do was to not be "ACTING innocent" in order to be convicted.

Or is this the now expected legal standard applicable only to non-Democrats, non-Liberals, and non-political elites?

The longer the Mueller investigation goes on without some earth shattering big criminal or corruption charges, the more it seems the investigation found nothing of significance or of substance on Trump and his team, and as have acted criminally, or at least of questionable judgment, in the process.

Here I am just going to copy my earlier post for you. You obviously did not read it. This has nothing to do with anything other than the accused have not accepted a summons to appear.

If the attorneys won't accept the summons on behalf of their clients and the duly authorized Russian government agency that by treaty is the correct agency for Mueller to have requested the summons to be passed to those accused then what are the client's attorneys showing up to do in court? I suspect that will be a short appearance with Mueller's team asking them what they are there to do? "You have not accepted a summons on behalf of your clients and your clients have not passed a summons on to you. So what are we doing here?"


That is it. This is going to be a very short day in court because the trial attorneys have no reason to be there. If they do show up with a summons in hand the prosecutors will say, "well nice of the Russian agency authorized to present our summons to have finally done as asked, but they did not report back to us that they had in fact presented the summons as they were asked to and these attorneys have not until this moment told us that the summons had been transferred to them by their clients." That ends the day in court.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Yes, I'm well aware of the indictments Mueller's already got. I'm left with the impression that they are all process crimes, or before any engagement of the subject with the Trump campaign.

If I also recall correctly, the scope of the Mueller investigation was supposed to be Russian collusion influencing the election (dishonestly contorted into Trump / Russian collusion to influence the election) and of that, there seems to be precious little of anything, at least revealed so far, other than the mentioned indictments of Russians, who, surprise, surprise, have come back in country and want their day in court about it, and Mueller's not ready or able to proceed. A possible indication of how strong the rest of his 'evidence' is.

I mean how the hell can you indict presumed innocents and not even be able to back it up in court? Isn't that abuse of the Grand Jury process?

The indictments that Mueller has filed are for leverage, and little more, because, apparently, there's no direct evidence to indict anyone, else why do that? Why else file indictments alleging crimes not within the scope of his investigation? Especially when it may very well put his entire investigation at risk.

Federal judge rightly rebukes Mueller for questionable tactics | TheHill
thehill.com/.../386508-federal-judge-rightly-rebukes-mueller-for-questionable-tactics
3 days ago - But, as the judge correctly pointed out, it risks the possibility that the squeezed ... What you got to be careful of is, they may not only sing, they may compose. ... A similar point could be madewith regard to Trump's former national security ... The judge has not yet ruled on the propriety of the special counsel's ...

U.S. Judge Says Mueller Should Not Have 'Unfettered Power' in ...
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2018/05/.../05reuters-usa-trump-russia-manafort.html
5 days ago - Michael Dreeben, a deputy solicitor general working with Mueller, argued the ... Trumpenthusiastically read the judge's comments out loud to his ... "I think Judge Ellis may just be putting to the government through its paces," she said. ... charges on similar legal grounds, but there has not been a ruling.​

I dunno. You dunno. No one knows. But there is credence and reason to believe that Mueller's got either very little or nothing, but seems the electorate are starting to make up their minds on the question of Mueller's investigation being a politically motivated which hunt.

75 percent of Republicans say Mueller investigation is a “witch hunt ...
https://www.vox.com/2018/5/10/.../poll-republicans-trump-fbi-mueller-witch-hunt
6 hours ago - Poll: most Republicans now think Trump is being framed by the FBI ... of Republicans agree with President Donald Trump that it's a “witch hunt.

Russia Investigation Poll: Majority Say It's Politically Motivated ...
https://www.nationalreview.com/.../russia-investigation-poll-majority-politically-motiv...
2 days ago - President Trump has criticized Mueller's investigation of possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia as a “witch hunt” and ...
​

Of course that's what your side wants to believe. A majority of Republicans believed Nixon, too, up until the day he resigned in disgrace.

Look back at what you said: "I didn't know that the bar in the legal system had been lowered to the point that all one had to do was to not be "ACTING innocent" in order to be convicted." You don't want a guy convicted in the court of public opinion, and that's good. Conversely, neither should you want to allow a suspect to be able to convince tens of millions of people that he's innocent to the point where they support his efforts to hinder (or even end) the investigation.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Why does requesting an extension make sense to you?

These guys have been charged.
They hired a lawyer to represent them and respond to the charges

...But at the same time denied that they were properly summoned. If the judge allows a trial to proceed, or possibly even arraignment, that becomes grounds for an appeal. The article did not say why the defendants considered the summons defective, but if they did so on grounds in Russian law, there are international treaties and agreements to be worked out here. I doubt an appellate court would rule that the defendants could not be tried again (assuming the court agrees with the defendants that they were not properly served summons), but it's possible. Ultimately, all of this would come back on the judge, and could get him removed from the bench if it looks to a higher court like he's proceeding recklessly.

If they were citizens it would be cut and dry that they have a right to a speedy trial.

Sure. And if their attorneys claimed the citizen defendants weren't properly summoned for some technical reason or other, that would be a legit reason for a delay. Indeed, in most instances, that would cause a delay of at least a few days while the attorneys clarified the issues surrounding the summons for the court. It's pretty odd for a court to deny a prosecution's request for delay on those grounds--it's normally a delay for which a defense would ask. Judges who are interested in the integrity of the outcome of a trial in their court take these kinds of issues seriously, because appeals have been won on such grounds.

Either way the defendant need to see the evidence in order to respond. That's a really basic thing.

Ordinarily, sure. And ultimately, yes. But there have to be steps taken to deal with classified material as evidence in a court of law. It's not as simple as the defendants filing a discovery request and then the material is turned over to their attorneys.

If Mueller wasn't prepared to present his case then it begs the question of why did he indict?

Minor point, but that's an improper use of "begs the question." But anyway, nothing about Mueller's actions demonstrate that he's not ready to present his case. It looks to me like he's just making sure the proper procedures are followed so the defendants cannot later raise technicalities as part of an appeal--which, again, happens more often than most people realize. That said, it's more usual for a court to just involuntarily dismiss the charges if it determines that service was improper. The prosecution is always free to attempt the summons again, provided there's no limitation statute at play.

From ,my outsider perspective it looks like there is a good probability that it was politically motivated and mueller did not expect the defendants to respond.

Possible, sure. But I think it's more likely he's just being careful. Mueller has a reputation for being a fine prosecutor. You don't get that reputation by indicting someone you're not prepared to try.

 

[eohrnberger]

Of course that's what your side wants to believe. A majority of Republicans believed Nixon, too, up until the day he resigned in disgrace.

Don't think its a matter of sides, at least not in my case. But I'd want to have the case made, though, and in a timely manner.

So far, what from I seen, heard, and read, its looking very weak, and more so politically motivated. So much so, it looks like Mueller is trying to keep it alive with diversion tactics until the midterms, where, at the 11th hour (I'm sure), some bombshell announcement is released, bombshell at least at first blush, with the media showing their total abandon of reality with their TDS and covering nothing but and ignoring everything else, only on closer examination that its a nothingburger.

(Just tell me that you've not seen this movie before)

Look back at what you said: "I didn't know that the bar in the legal system had been lowered to the point that all one had to do was to not be "ACTING innocent" in order to be convicted." You don't want a guy convicted in the court of public opinion, and that's good. Conversely, neither should you want to allow a suspect to be able to convince tens of millions of people that he's innocent to the point where they support his efforts to hinder (or even end) the investigation.

"support his efforts to hinder (or even end) the investigation"

What would that be? As far as I recall, only a bunch of blustering and posturing so far. Comey deserved to be fired for his performance while Director FBI. The only mistake was not to fire him on day one.

 

[jnug]

Of course that's what your side wants to believe. A majority of Republicans believed Nixon, too, up until the day he resigned in disgrace.

Look back at what you said: "I didn't know that the bar in the legal system had been lowered to the point that all one had to do was to not be "ACTING innocent" in order to be convicted." You don't want a guy convicted in the court of public opinion, and that's good. Conversely, neither should you want to allow a suspect to be able to convince tens of millions of people that he's innocent to the point where they support his efforts to hinder (or even end) the investigation.

You want more proof that they just don't care. That they are willing to do anything to preserve Saint Donald and simply do not want these investigations to reach an actual conclusion? All of their nonsense that insists that all of these investigations are tainted because there are democrats in the FBI and republicans that are prosecutors that worked for democrats and on and on and on.

I have ample opportunity to argue that with all the judgeships that Trump has filled," the process is rigged". But I won't do that because the process is more important to me than the result. The administration is already a train wreck of lies and corruption. The Legislature has already turned into a bunch of toadies shirking their responsibility and their duty and their oath. If I allow myself to believe what the Trumpoids believe about the judicial system, that it is also a mess as they claim because of who is a dem and who is an elephant, what am I doing? I simply cannot give myself the liberty to just throw in the towel and claim the whole thing from administration through legislature, through judicial system is simply toast. I can't do it and until they stop doing it, i will attack them at every opportunity. It is un-American, unpatriotic and disgusting.

However, I will say that this trump practice of nominating potential justices that have never sat on the bench for a trial at any level of juris prudence and are entirely unqualified to sit on a federal bench is outrageous and if Senators do not do their jobs regarding those nominees they should be sent packing at the earliest opportunity to vote them out. But if the nominee is qualified as a judge, I don't have the liberty to just whine about him because his leaning are republican.

 

[trouble13]

...But at the same time denied that they were properly summoned. If the judge allows a trial to proceed, or possibly even arraignment, that becomes grounds for an appeal. The article did not say why the defendants considered the summons defective, but if they did so on grounds in Russian law, there are international treaties and agreements to be worked out here. I doubt an appellate court would rule that the defendants could not be tried again (assuming the court agrees with the defendants that they were not properly served summons), but it's possible. Ultimately, all of this would come back on the judge, and could get him removed from the bench if it looks to a higher court like he's proceeding recklessly.



Sure. And if their attorneys claimed the citizen defendants weren't properly summoned for some technical reason or other, that would be a legit reason for a delay. Indeed, in most instances, that would cause a delay of at least a few days while the attorneys clarified the issues surrounding the summons for the court. It's pretty odd for a court to deny a prosecution's request for delay on those grounds--it's normally a delay for which a defense would ask. Judges who are interested in the integrity of the outcome of a trial in their court take these kinds of issues seriously, because appeals have been won on such grounds.



Ordinarily, sure. And ultimately, yes. But there have to be steps taken to deal with classified material as evidence in a court of law. It's not as simple as the defendants filing a discovery request and then the material is turned over to their attorneys.



Minor point, but that's an improper use of "begs the question." But anyway, nothing about Mueller's actions demonstrate that he's not ready to present his case. It looks to me like he's just making sure the proper procedures are followed so the defendants cannot later raise technicalities as part of an appeal--which, again, happens more often than most people realize. That said, it's more usual for a court to just involuntarily dismiss the charges if it determines that service was improper. The prosecution is always free to attempt the summons again, provided there's no limitation statute at play.



Possible, sure. But I think it's more likely he's just being careful. Mueller has a reputation for being a fine prosecutor. You don't get that reputation by indicting someone you're not prepared to try.

Im not really seeing how a defendant who shows up in court can later appeal the verdict because they were summoned correctly. Regardless of if he was summoned correctly or not, he is there answering the charges. It's bizarre for the prosecution to asking for a delay based on that reasoning.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

 

[jnug]

it is an outgrowth of having had to send the summons to the Russian agency chartered by treaty to be the place to send it for the execution of said summons. They never responded back that they executed the summons and the lawyers for them have not acknowledged though asked that they are responding to the summons.

The lawyers should have just responded that they are responding to the summons. Its a simple enough question. Would we want a set of federal prosecutors turning over docs in discovery to a bunch of lawyers for foreign entities just because? Tell us what you are doing in court and we can go forward. The prosecutors already asked once and they would not answer.

I am guessing the judge will ask when they get to court and then both sides will ask a few questions and it will still end up a short day in court.

 

[Atomic Kid]

Why do you find hurdles for the American, Republican, Special Counsel lead by former FBI director Mueller into Russian interference into our elections, to be "Hilarious", comrade?

The Daily Caller? You do understand you're behaving like a propoganda-controlled pawn, who is ridiculing Russia's attempts to influence/create more pawns right?

Trump screws up 95% of the time. What's Mueller up to, 5%? I'll take that as confirmation he's doing a great job.

Might as well rename it the Daily Storm Trooper.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Im not really seeing how a defendant who shows up in court can later appeal the verdict because they were summoned correctly.

These defendants did not appear in court, and have claimed the summons was defective because served to the Russian government (with which they are affiliated, apparently). The article does not say on what grounds they say the summons is defective, but since they are currently in Russia, presumably the grounds are in Russian law. The court will then have to navigate international treaties or agreements to understand the issues.

It would be highly unusual for a defendant (any defendant) to appear in court and claim that they were served improperly. Few courts would find that a meritorious complaint. Usually, the defendant will appear through their attorney (that is, only the attorney will appear) and make that claim. An example might be that the defendant learns of the impending indictment through hearsay, or perhaps on television or radio or something, and hires an attorney to go and find out what's happening.

The point of a summons is, basically, for the accused to be able to hear the charges against him or her, and to enter a formal plea. The thought is that without that step taking place first, a trial would be unfair.

Regardless of if he was summoned correctly or not, he is there answering the charges. It's bizarre for the prosecution to asking for a delay based on that reasoning.

Well, again, these defendants did not appear in court. I agree it's unusual for the prosecution to ask for such a delay--in an ordinary case, the defendant will already be in custody, or will be in a place where summons is easy to serve, and there won't be the issue of international treaties or agreements to (possibly) deal with. That's not the case here, however. It's unlikely that Mueller's team knows exactly where these defendants are to be able to serve them a summons. It may not be clear what our agreements are with Russia with respect to the procedures for serving a summons. And of course the defendants themselves have claimed they were not properly served. Given these three points, it seems weird that the judge wouldn't want to get this point settled. Maybe there's some case law on point of which I am unaware.

Of course, it's possible that, indeed, it is as the Daily Caller article reads it. But I think it's much more likely that Mueller just wants to make sure all the ducks are in a row. For one thing, that's his reputation, and for another, prosecutors are generally aware of procedural issues and want to avoid them coming up on appeal.

I suggest, before taking a position, we just wait and see how things develop.

 

[trouble13]

These defendants did not appear in court, and have claimed the summons was defective because served to the Russian government (with which they are affiliated, apparently). The article does not say on what grounds they say the summons is defective, but since they are currently in Russia, presumably the grounds are in Russian law. The court will then have to navigate international treaties or agreements to understand the issues.

It would be highly unusual for a defendant (any defendant) to appear in court and claim that they were served improperly. Few courts would find that a meritorious complaint. Usually, the defendant will appear through their attorney (that is, only the attorney will appear) and make that claim. An example might be that the defendant learns of the impending indictment through hearsay, or perhaps on television or radio or something, and hires an attorney to go and find out what's happening.

The point of a summons is, basically, for the accused to be able to hear the charges against him or her, and to enter a formal plea. The thought is that without that step taking place first, a trial would be unfair.



Well, again, these defendants did not appear in court. I agree it's unusual for the prosecution to ask for such a delay--in an ordinary case, the defendant will already be in custody, or will be in a place where summons is easy to serve, and there won't be the issue of international treaties or agreements to (possibly) deal with. That's not the case here, however. It's unlikely that Mueller's team knows exactly where these defendants are to be able to serve them a summons. It may not be clear what our agreements are with Russia with respect to the procedures for serving a summons. And of course the defendants themselves have claimed they were not properly served. Given these three points, it seems weird that the judge wouldn't want to get this point settled. Maybe there's some case law on point of which I am unaware.

Of course, it's possible that, indeed, it is as the Daily Caller article reads it. But I think it's much more likely that Mueller just wants to make sure all the ducks are in a row. For one thing, that's his reputation, and for another, prosecutors are generally aware of procedural issues and want to avoid them coming up on appeal.

I suggest, before taking a position, we just wait and see how things develop.

To clear up any confusion I may of caused. When I said he appeared in court I meant that he did it through representation not that he physically showed up. It's not uncommon for someone to hire a lawyer to make appearances and enter pleas on their behalf. Unless the judge issues a warrant there really is no reason for the guy to physically be there.

He has obtained legal representation and is prepared go move forward. Mueller should be ready to present his case and turn over discovery to the defense so they can prepare theirs. That's normally how this kind of thing works.

The purpose of a summons is to inform the person they are being charged. This person has acknowledged that they know they are charged by sending in a legal representive. It kinda makes serving the summons a moot point. He can't appeal the case based on he didn't know he was charged if he goes into court and responds go the charges.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

 

[jnug]

So both sides will show up for their court date and Mueller's boys will be ready and that will be that. I think the entire issue was trying to build some mountain out of the molehill of the prosecution asking for a continuance. They asked. They didn't get it. Done!

Christ, lawyers ask for all sorts of things before the bench. Judges say all sorts of things from the bench and nobody really knows exactly the purposes of the other. We seem to have bought into the media desire to tweak us every chance they get.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Don't think its a matter of sides, at least not in my case. But I'd want to have the case made, though, and in a timely manner.

So far, what from I seen, heard, and read, its looking very weak, and more so politically motivated. So much so, it looks like Mueller is trying to keep it alive with diversion tactics until the midterms, where, at the 11th hour (I'm sure), some bombshell announcement is released, bombshell at least at first blush, with the media showing their total abandon of reality with their TDS and covering nothing but and ignoring everything else, only on closer examination that its a nothingburger.

(Just tell me that you've not seen this movie before)



"support his efforts to hinder (or even end) the investigation"

What would that be? As far as I recall, only a bunch of blustering and posturing so far. Comey deserved to be fired for his performance while Director FBI. The only mistake was not to fire him on day one.

In your world, it's "only a bunch of blustering and posturing so far".

In my world, it's five guilty pleas and thirteen indictments...so far.

 

[ashurbanipal]

To clear up any confusion I may of caused. When I said he appeared in court I meant that he did it through representation not that he physically showed up. It's not uncommon for someone to hire a lawyer to make appearances and enter pleas on their behalf. Unless the judge issues a warrant there really is no reason for the guy to physically be there.

Sure.

He has obtained legal representation and is prepared go move forward. Mueller should be ready to present his case and turn over discovery to the defense so they can prepare theirs. That's normally how this kind of thing works.

Er...kinda. In this case, there are some wrinkles. See below.

The purpose of a summons is to inform the person they are being charged. This person has acknowledged that they know they are charged by sending in a legal representive.

No. In this case, per the Politico article on which the Daily Caller article is based, the defendants are claiming the summons was defective. Despite that claim, they have sent attorneys to court and filed for discovery. A careful prosecutor would make sure they don't have a case with respect to their claim of defective summons before proceeding, because if that's just left hanging, it's grounds for appeal. Mueller's request that both sides brief the issue would allow him to understand why the defense thinks the summons was defective. The judge has, again, rather oddly, denied that request. Perhaps it's a question he intends to ask the defense directly.

It kinda makes serving the summons a moot point. He can't appeal the case based on he didn't know he was charged if he goes into court and responds go the charges.

Think again. It happens. It's not usual, but it happens.

 

[tres borrachos]

Yes, I'm well aware of the indictments Mueller's already got. I'm left with the impression that they are all process crimes, or before any engagement of the subject with the Trump campaign.

If I also recall correctly, the scope of the Mueller investigation was supposed to be Russian collusion influencing the election (dishonestly contorted into Trump / Russian collusion to influence the election) and of that, there seems to be precious little of anything, at least revealed so far, other than the mentioned indictments of Russians, who, surprise, surprise, have come back in country and want their day in court about it, and Mueller's not ready or able to proceed. A possible indication of how strong the rest of his 'evidence' is.

I mean how the hell can you indict presumed innocents and not even be able to back it up in court? Isn't that abuse of the Grand Jury process?

The indictments that Mueller has filed are for leverage, and little more, because, apparently, there's no direct evidence to indict anyone, else why do that? Why else file indictments alleging crimes not within the scope of his investigation? Especially when it may very well put his entire investigation at risk.

Federal judge rightly rebukes Mueller for questionable tactics | TheHill
thehill.com/.../386508-federal-judge-rightly-rebukes-mueller-for-questionable-tactics
3 days ago - But, as the judge correctly pointed out, it risks the possibility that the squeezed ... What you got to be careful of is, they may not only sing, they may compose. ... A similar point could be madewith regard to Trump's former national security ... The judge has not yet ruled on the propriety of the special counsel's ...

U.S. Judge Says Mueller Should Not Have 'Unfettered Power' in ...
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2018/05/.../05reuters-usa-trump-russia-manafort.html
5 days ago - Michael Dreeben, a deputy solicitor general working with Mueller, argued the ... Trumpenthusiastically read the judge's comments out loud to his ... "I think Judge Ellis may just be putting to the government through its paces," she said. ... charges on similar legal grounds, but there has not been a ruling.​

I dunno. You dunno. No one knows. But there is credence and reason to believe that Mueller's got either very little or nothing, but seems the electorate are starting to make up their minds on the question of Mueller's investigation being a politically motivated which hunt.

75 percent of Republicans say Mueller investigation is a “witch hunt ...
https://www.vox.com/2018/5/10/.../poll-republicans-trump-fbi-mueller-witch-hunt
6 hours ago - Poll: most Republicans now think Trump is being framed by the FBI ... of Republicans agree with President Donald Trump that it's a “witch hunt.

Russia Investigation Poll: Majority Say It's Politically Motivated ...
https://www.nationalreview.com/.../russia-investigation-poll-majority-politically-motiv...
2 days ago - President Trump has criticized Mueller's investigation of possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia as a “witch hunt” and ...
​

Wow, 75% of Republicans say it's a witch hunt. Well, then, that should be good enough to just stop the investigation now. I'll bet if 75% of blacks said the OJ Simpson trial was a witch hunt, you would have been screaming for Judge Ito to stop the madness and dismiss the charges immediately, too.

 

[Mach]

These people are an absolute joke. Are they all just Russian trolls? Can there really be this many pathetic people out there trolling or being that stupid and dishonest?

I ask myself this question almost daily. I think we need to orchestrate some sort of therapy group so we can discuss our theories on why these people do what they do.
I vacillate between thinking they are political trolls, or are just behaving like them, they are honestly brainwashed, they are a bit downtrodden and feel this is some sick form of redemption, etc.
I read some Captain Courtesy a while back that mentioned many simply seek the attention. That's a bizarre/alien concept to me. My brain just doesn't seem to consider that a viable option, it's like a hole in my ability to understand people. "Doing it to get bad attention by being an antagonistic asshole"? I'm guessing some fall into that category too...maybe most. I mean, maybe all those people who did crapppy in school, got into trouble and drugs, or couldn't land that interview, etc., just settle to be trolls for the attention/notoriety?

Whatever it is, it's insane.

Only thing more insane is that our laws/rules for our government including the POTUS and cabinet, and congress, and the money influence on our government, are in such a joke of a condition that when accidents like Trump do occur, they can do way, way more damage than should be reasonable possible. From Pruitt to Flynn to Nunes to judge confirmation obstruction then ramming through, etc., it's a circus.

Dems will have to squander political capital to slowly fix this ****, while they collect millions apparently from donors, take trips to Morocco and Italy on taxpayer dime, and take foreign and national positions on laws based on who is filling their pockets?