• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge allows Mueller case against Russian company to proceed

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
39,827
Reaction score
9,848
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
From Associated Press

Judge allows Mueller case against Russian company to proceed

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge on Thursday refused to dismiss a special counsel indictment against a Russian company accused of interfering in the 2016 presidential election.

The decision by U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich, an appointee of President Donald Trump, allows the criminal case against Concord Management to proceed.

The company and two other entities were indicted in February for participating in an effort to sway American public opinion through social media posts ahead of the election.

Thirteen Russians were also charged, accused of meddling in the election through bogus Facebook posts aimed at sowing discord on hot-button social issues.

COMMENT:-

There is, of course, absolutely no chance whatsoever that any of the defendants in this action might flip and reveal that Mr. Trump was actually involved (although never personally present for any meetings), right?

Why the only thing that that would do would be to increase the instability of the American political process and there is absolutely no way that the Russians would want that to happen - right?

PS - If one of the defendants does flip, proving that they are not telling the truth is going to be pretty easy - after all the Russians have absolutely no experience in fabricating evidence - right?

PPS - The above comments are NOT to be taken as even a hint that the charges are correct - just an opinion of what MIGHT happen regardless of the truth or falsity of the charges.
 

Cardinal

Respected on both sides
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
82,200
Reaction score
61,447
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
In other news, Julian Assange was charged yesterday. This is significant, but because the media drove up expectations for an Inner Circle indictment for the past three days everybody collectively yawned.
 

Mach

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
21,321
Reaction score
12,905
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
In other news, Julian Assange was charged yesterday. This is significant, but because the media drove up expectations for an Inner Circle indictment for the past three days everybody collectively yawned.

Yeah, I was looking for a thread on it, that's news for sure. Sadly it was an accidental disclosure, the indictment was supposed to remain sealed, they leaked it themselves on accident in the court filing I believe. This could tip off hands and screw up the investigation perhaps.
In addition to Whitaker being able to keep Trump in the loop in his own Mueller investigation, not a great few days.
 

Samhain

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2011
Messages
4,939
Reaction score
2,131
Location
Northern Ohio
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Yeah, I was looking for a thread on it, that's news for sure. Sadly it was an accidental disclosure, the indictment was supposed to remain sealed, they leaked it themselves on accident in the court filing I believe. This could tip off hands and screw up the investigation perhaps.
In addition to Whitaker being able to keep Trump in the loop in his own Mueller investigation, not a great few days.

Don't think the actual indictment is available; just 2 paragraphs that reference his name being charged and apprehended in other indictments.
 

Cardinal

Respected on both sides
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
82,200
Reaction score
61,447
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Yeah, I was looking for a thread on it, that's news for sure. Sadly it was an accidental disclosure, the indictment was supposed to remain sealed, they leaked it themselves on accident in the court filing I believe. This could tip off hands and screw up the investigation perhaps.
In addition to Whitaker being able to keep Trump in the loop in his own Mueller investigation, not a great few days.

I wonder who was responsible for that screwup. I believe it was just a lowly clerk. If it was by the Mueller team that would be their first bungle in the investigation.

Don't think the actual indictment is available; just 2 paragraphs that reference his name being charged and apprehended in other indictments.

Well, not apprehended, unless he was extradited or arrested in London without me knowing.
 

Samhain

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2011
Messages
4,939
Reaction score
2,131
Location
Northern Ohio
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I wonder who was responsible for that screwup. I believe it was just a lowly clerk. If it was by the Mueller team that would be their first bungle in the investigation.



Well, not apprehended, unless he was extradited or arrested in London without me knowing.

For sure, the second copy/paste error indicated that they were saying something couldn't happen until he was apprehended.

I think they unsealed a few hundred indictments, but still, how fast did you prepare them in that you bungled paragraphs.

"need to remain sealed until Assange is arrested."
 

Cardinal

Respected on both sides
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
82,200
Reaction score
61,447
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
For sure, the second copy/paste error indicated that they were saying something couldn't happen until he was apprehended.

Yup, so now it's an extradition matter, I assume. I don't understand the mechanisms behind such a scenario when the person in question is hiding out in another country's embassy. I assume it's complicated. I also assume the State Department would not be overly eager to offer its services in negotiating for said extradition.
 

Samhain

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2011
Messages
4,939
Reaction score
2,131
Location
Northern Ohio
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Yup, so now it's an extradition matter, I assume. I don't understand the mechanisms behind such a scenario when the person in question is hiding out in another country's embassy. I assume it's complicated. I also assume the State Department would not be overly eager to offer its services in negotiating for said extradition.

I sincerely doubt we would do a clandestine raid on an embassy, and I doubt we would coordinate a raid with said country either. If anything, its going to be something to the effect of Ecuador accidentally pushes him out a door and we are the only people waiting there.
 

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
39,827
Reaction score
9,848
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Yeah, I was looking for a thread on it, that's news for sure. Sadly it was an accidental disclosure, the indictment was supposed to remain sealed, they leaked it themselves on accident in the court filing I believe. This could tip off hands and screw up the investigation perhaps.
In addition to Whitaker being able to keep Trump in the loop in his own Mueller investigation, not a great few days.

You will find it HERE.
 

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
39,827
Reaction score
9,848
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Yup, so now it's an extradition matter, I assume. I don't understand the mechanisms behind such a scenario when the person in question is hiding out in another country's embassy. I assume it's complicated. I also assume the State Department would not be overly eager to offer its services in negotiating for said extradition.

Here's the "Cliff's Notes" version:

  1. Country A wants to try Person B for Act C;
  2. Person B is in Country D;
  3. Country A presents a request to the government of Country D that Country D deliver up Person B to the law enforcement agents of Country A so that Person B can be taken to Country A for trial;
  4. The courts of Country D, sitting as prescribed by the laws of Country D, consider whether to grant the request or not.
  5. In considering whether or not to grant the request, the courts of Country D take into account;
    • whether or not the evidence provided by Country A shows that there is a "triable case" against Person B,
    • whether or not the act alleged is a crime under the laws of BOTH Country A and Country D,
    • whether or not Country D actually has jurisdiction over Person B,
    • whether or not Person B is likely to receive a fair trial in Country A,
    • whether or not the punishments which could be imposed in Country A are (more or less) in line with the punishments which could be imposed in Country D,
      and
    • whether or not there are any other factors which mitigate against granting the request;
  6. Person B is entitled to make (personally and/or through counsel) "full answer and defence" with respect to the request.
  7. The US government cannot "extradite" Mr. Assange from the UK since he is NOT, technically, in the UK, so the UK courts have no jurisdiction to order him extradited;
  8. Mr. Assange is, technically, in Ecuador;
  9. The only courts which can order Mr. Assange extradited (at present) are the courts of Ecuador;
  10. There are (currently) no Ecuadoran courts in the UK;
  11. This means that either
    • an Ecuadoran court would have to be constituted in the UK,
    • Mr. Assange would have to be allowed to travel to Ecuador for the hearing, or
    • American law enforcement personnel (contrary to the laws of the UK) would have to kidnap Mr. Assange when he was outside the Ecuadoran consulate and on his way to his extradition hearing and forcibly take him to the US without sanction of law.
    • I won't include "American law enforcement personnel (contrary to the laws of the UK AND Ecuador) would have to invade the Ecuadoran consulate, kidnap Mr. Assange, and forcibly take him to the US without sanction of law as I (almost) completely (say 99.999%) discount that possibility.

Whether the Ecuadoran courts would grant the US government request to extradite Mr. Assange (who is NOT an American citizen) for prosecution over actions which were NOT contrary to the laws of the country that he was in when the actions took place AND which were NOT contrary to the laws of Ecuador, is something that is interesting to speculate on (in particular exactly how much it is going to cost the US government to purchase such a decision).
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom