Grokmaster
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2017
- Messages
- 9,613
- Reaction score
- 2,735
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Judges are self-fellating douche bags that get so much stuff wrong it makes the "justice" system a joke...
Judges are self-fellating douche bags that get so much stuff wrong it makes the "justice" system a joke...
And on the Witch Hunt in Court front:
More possible pettifoggery from the Grand Buffoon's Witch Hunt...which may well be in serious trouble prosecuting the Russian group...
DC Judge Tees Up Proof Questions in Mueller's Russian Troll Farm Case
A federal judge in Washington raised questions Monday about how prosecutors working with Special Counsel Robert Mueller III will be able to prove a key element of their case over Russian interference in the 2016 election: the alleged intent of 13 Russian nationals and three Moscow-linked firms to evade U.S. authorities tasked with rooting out foreign participation in the American political process.
U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich, confirmed in November 2017 to Washington’s federal district court, said it was “hard to see” how the alleged Russian influence campaign was intended to interfere with the operations of the U.S. government rather than simply “confusing voters.”
During a 90-minute hearing, Friedrich questioned prosecutor Jonathan Kravis about how the government would be able to show the Russian defendants were aware of the Justice Department and FEC’s functions and then deliberately sought to skirt them.
“You still have to show knowledge of the agencies and what they do. How do you do that?” Friedrich asked.
Kravis, a prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, argued that the government needed only to show that Concord Management and the other defendants were generally aware that the U.S. government “regulates and monitors” foreign participation in American politics. That awareness, Kravis said, could be inferred from the Russians’ alleged creation of fake social media accounts that appeared to be run by U.S. citizens and “computer infrastructure” intended to mask the Russian origin of the influence operation.
Concord Management pleaded not guilty in May. Reed Smith partner Eric Dubelier, who has described the election interference charge as “make believe,” pressed his argument Monday that the indictment against Concord Management and the other Russian defendants “doesn’t charge a crime.”
“There is no statute of interfering with an election. There just isn’t,” he said.
Later, he said the special counsel’s office alleged a “made-up crime to fit the facts they have.” Under the theory of government’s case, he said, “everybody, even Americans” who pretend to be someone else on the internet could be prosecuted.
“This argument is beyond belief,” Dubelier said
.
At multiple times during Monday’s hearing, Dubelier drew a distinction between the special counsel’s office and the U.S. Department of Justice, which he referred to repeatedly as the “real Justice Department.” He said the case underscored the issues of creating an office such as the special counsel’s that is “inconsistent with the consistent behavior of the Department of Justice for the past 30 years.
https://www.law.com/nationallawjour...sian-troll-farm-case/?slreturn=20181012194213
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just hope we don't windup GETTING SUED for and BEING FORCED to PAY $ MILLIONS in DAMAGES for The Grand Buffoon's PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT...AGAIN.
Well they are just glorified lawyers aren't they
Yeah, I can't believe anyone pays any attention to what they say, at all, ever.
/sarcasm
So a judge, who has no access to the information Mueller has, is making an uneducated opinion about evidence he hasn't seen. Got it.
It does not matter what "information Mueller has," a judge can only rule on information presented in his court.
You are arguing about facts not in evidence. You are also assuming Mueller has such facts which would support the case at bar.
However, it does not appear to be so at this time, hence the judge's valid questioning.
I've never thought that they had a case here. I'm glad the judge is reasonably sharp. The Russian electioneering is a bogus wild goose chase. The sooner the gov't acknowledges that, the sooner realistic relations with Russian can get back.
/
Judges are self-fellating douche bags that get so much stuff wrong it makes the "justice" system a joke...
So a judge, who has no access to the information Mueller has, is making an uneducated opinion about evidence he hasn't seen. Got it.
I'm assuming nothing and only saying that Mueller has access to the evidence and he hasn't written his findings yet. To state otherwise is just an uneducated opinion but given your stance on "Trump is innocent of anything" because you are enamored with him is proof enough. You demand others to wait for evidence, but declare Trump innocent without having any access to evidence. Why is that?
It does not matter what "information Mueller has," a Judge can only rule on information presented in his court.
You are arguing about facts not in evidence. You are also assuming Mueller has such facts which would support the case at bar.
However, it does not appear to be so at this time, hence the Judge's valid line of questioning.
I'm assuming nothing and only saying that Mueller has access to the evidence and he hasn't written his findings yet. To state otherwise is just an uneducated opinion but given your stance on "Trump is innocent of anything" because you are enamored with him is proof enough. You demand others to wait for evidence, but declare Trump innocent without having any access to evidence. Why is that?
And on the Witch Hunt in Court front:
More possible pettifoggery from the Grand Buffoon's Witch Hunt...which may well be in serious trouble prosecuting the Russian group...
DC Judge Tees Up Proof Questions in Mueller's Russian Troll Farm Case
A federal judge in Washington raised questions Monday about how prosecutors working with Special Counsel Robert Mueller III will be able to prove a key element of their case over Russian interference in the 2016 election: the alleged intent of 13 Russian nationals and three Moscow-linked firms to evade U.S. authorities tasked with rooting out foreign participation in the American political process.
U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich, confirmed in November 2017 to Washington’s federal district court, said it was “hard to see” how the alleged Russian influence campaign was intended to interfere with the operations of the U.S. government rather than simply “confusing voters.”
During a 90-minute hearing, Friedrich questioned prosecutor Jonathan Kravis about how the government would be able to show the Russian defendants were aware of the Justice Department and FEC’s functions and then deliberately sought to skirt them.
“You still have to show knowledge of the agencies and what they do. How do you do that?” Friedrich asked.
Kravis, a prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, argued that the government needed only to show that Concord Management and the other defendants were generally aware that the U.S. government “regulates and monitors” foreign participation in American politics. That awareness, Kravis said, could be inferred from the Russians’ alleged creation of fake social media accounts that appeared to be run by U.S. citizens and “computer infrastructure” intended to mask the Russian origin of the influence operation.
Concord Management pleaded not guilty in May. Reed Smith partner Eric Dubelier, who has described the election interference charge as “make believe,” pressed his argument Monday that the indictment against Concord Management and the other Russian defendants “doesn’t charge a crime.”
“There is no statute of interfering with an election. There just isn’t,” he said.
Later, he said the special counsel’s office alleged a “made-up crime to fit the facts they have.” Under the theory of government’s case, he said, “everybody, even Americans” who pretend to be someone else on the internet could be prosecuted.
“This argument is beyond belief,” Dubelier said
.
At multiple times during Monday’s hearing, Dubelier drew a distinction between the special counsel’s office and the U.S. Department of Justice, which he referred to repeatedly as the “real Justice Department.” He said the case underscored the issues of creating an office such as the special counsel’s that is “inconsistent with the consistent behavior of the Department of Justice for the past 30 years.
https://www.law.com/nationallawjour...sian-troll-farm-case/?slreturn=20181012194213
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just hope we don't windup GETTING SUED for and BEING FORCED to PAY $ MILLIONS in DAMAGES for The Grand Buffoon's PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT...AGAIN.
Emotion, ideology, wishes, and wants, over the law, provable facts, presumption of innocence, and demonstrable evidence. The new standard of the US legal system that we learned painfully from the Kavanaugh hearings and which is displayed daily on CNN et al.
At first I thought this must be a stupid post, but then I saw that the text was absolutely gigantic and frequently varied, so I decided it must be smart and persuasive after all.
Emotion, ideology, wishes, and wants, over the law, provable facts, presumption of innocence, and demonstrable evidence. The new standard of the US legal system that we learned painfully from the Kavanaugh hearings and which is displayed daily on CNN et al.
And it is glaringly obvious that the Witch Hunt made the Concord indictments as "window dressing" to justify its existence, never intending to have to actually prosecute them...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?