[SpecialOlympian]

Didn't bother to read your post, blackjack. I don't know why you continue to bother quoting me when your posts are the visual equivalent of Teflon

[Zamuel]

Didn't bother to read your post, blackjack. I don't know why you continue to bother quoting me when your posts are the visual equivalent of Teflon

DO you remember the old, pre-trump Blackjack? He actually achieved useful insight occasionally. Perhaps Trump is contagious, to certain mindsets anyway.

I really like De Niro's Mueller, it's inspiring.

Zam

[SpecialOlympian]

DO you remember the old, pre-trump Blackjack? He actually achieved useful insight occasionally. Perhaps Trump is contagious, to certain mindsets anyway.

I really like De Niro's Mueller, it's inspiring.

Zam

I'm pretty sure it was the gay cake that did it.

There were multiple gay cake cases but my favorite one was when the people who owned the bakery went on the news and called out the gay couple. Which led to a bunch of people harassing them, so they sued the gay cake guy and the bakers had to give them money.

[Zamuel]

I'm pretty sure it was the gay cake that did it.

There were multiple gay cake cases but my favorite one was when the people who owned the bakery went on the news and called out the gay couple. Which led to a bunch of people harassing them, so they sued the gay cake guy and the bakers had to give them money.

I don't think I was around for that. I'm not much for cake myself, more of a pie guy. Actually I always suspected he was a bit light footed … who knew …

Zam

[blackjack21]

Mueller is up to his ass in alligators it seems. Mueller is Trying to Hide Evidence from Defendants in Russian Trolls Case

Special counsel Robert Mueller and his deputy Rush Atkinson filed a 14-page motion Tuesday arguing that the government shouldn’t have to release certain evidence to indicted Russian company Concord Management and Consulting LLC due to ongoing “interference operations” against the United States.

In the motion, Mueller’s team requested a protective order to: (1) keep other co-defendants named in the February 16 indictment from accessing the government’s evidence against them; and (2) to keep additional evidence under the control of government attorneys and away from Concord Management itself.

Once again, it needs to be pointed out that Mueller never expected this stuff to see the light of a court room. You can't charge someone with a crime and then withhold the evidence against them. Defendants have the right to confront their accusers, compel witnesses and examine the evidence against them.

In my opinion, Mueller’s posture could easily viewed as a red-tape-heavy method intended to cripple and undermine Concord Management’s defense. In the United States, criminal defendants are entitled–by virtue of an almost sacred right–to view the evidence used against them. This right undergirds the basic foundation of America’s adversarial legal system.

Mueller is trying to stop the defense from using their right to a speedy trial by claiming that the evidence against the defendants would somehow reveal sources and methods. Sources and methods are revealed in criminal trials, because defendants have the right to confront their accusers and the witnesses against them.

Once again, Mueller never thought this would enter into a court room. It also reveals that Mueller more than likely did withhold exculpatory evidence from Flynn.

Mueller has also filed additional charges against Manafort, trying to get him incarcerated for "witness tampering."

However, a federal judge ruled that Mueller must disclose the identities of the unnamed people he believes were operating as unregistered foreign agents (a law rarely ever prosecuted). So once again, Mueller is showing that he likes to charge people, but withhold evidence.

Mueller must ID unnamed figures in Manafort case

[Albert]

So his basically charging people to make some substance for the media to discredit Trump. I thought he was a principled man as the media portrays him. He seems to even care little for the rule of law.

[Zamuel]

Defendants have the right to confront their accusers, compel witnesses and examine the evidence against them.

Yes, those are their rights. In this case the defense is asking for MORE than that. They are asking not for "Disclosure of Evidence to be presented against the defendant". Instead they are asking for ALL EVIDENCE COLLECTED BY THE PROSECUTION. The court has basically allowed them that. Mueller is asking for an exception that would withhold critical information regarding an on going investigation. This is not evidence to be used against the defendant. But it might help other defendants escape justice. It's a very reasonable request. The court will review the motion and the specific evidence in question. That's the way it's done. you have a problem with that?

Zam

[One Degree]

It is either evidence or it is not. There is no distinction between ‘some’ and ‘all’.

[blackjack21]

Yes, those are their rights. In this case the defense is asking for MORE than that. They are asking not for "Disclosure of Evidence to be presented against the defendant". Instead they are asking for ALL EVIDENCE COLLECTED BY THE PROSECUTION. The court has basically allowed them that. Mueller is asking for an exception that would withhold critical information regarding an on going investigation. This is not evidence to be used against the defendant. But it might help other defendants escape justice. It's a very reasonable request. The court will review the motion and the specific evidence in question. That's the way it's done. you have a problem with that?

I have a problem if the prosecution used counter-intelligence methods to collect information without a warrant, and then used that as a basis for a criminal prosecution while trying to hide from the defendant the fact that they used counter-intelligence evidence that doesn't comply with the fourth amendment. Russian spies have a right to due process too, and a right to question the nature and inception of the investigation against them. When you are spying on someone for counter-intelligence purposes, generally you don't get to use that information against them in a criminal trial unless you got a warrant first. The defense has a right to challenge the entire case, especially since the entire "matter" started as a counter-intelligence investigation.

[Zamuel]

When you are spying on someone for counter-intelligence purposes, generally you don't get to use that information against them in a criminal trial unless you got a warrant first. The defense has a right to challenge the entire case, especially since the entire "matter" started as a counter-intelligence investigation.

Which is something the court will give due consideration to in it's decision on Mueller's motion. So what's the problem? Mueller's team is just doing their job, the decision rests with the court. What are you whining about ? "Your Honor, I'm whining because my clients are guilty and Mr. Mueller is proving it." …

Zam

[blackjack21]

It looks like Rush Limbaugh picked up on my points yesterday. Now, at least 20M more people probably share my opinion.

Mueller’s Outrageous Bastardization of the Justice System

I had also mentioned weeks ago about Rod Rosenstein's threats against members of Congress and their staff. It looks like that story isn't dead either. Rogue Rosenstein Threatens Congressional Investigators

Jeff Sessions has been defensive of Rosenstein. I'm guessing Sessions gets the can if the Republicans hold the Senate and/or gain seats.

[Zamuel]

It is either evidence or it is not. There is no distinction between ‘some’ and ‘all’.

Yes there is, that's why they had to ask the court for ALL OF IT. Disclosure requires the prosecution to share what it will present at trial … That's it. Everything else is generally of no significance. In this case the defense made a special request that they be given - "everything else" too. - Since it is deemed to be of no significance, the court saw no reason not to allow it.

Zam

[blackjack21]

Since it is deemed to be of no significance, the court saw no reason not to allow it.

Mueller's request was just filed yesterday. I've heard nothing from the court on this yet. You're saying the court has already ruled?

Mueller Scrambles To Limit Evidence After Indicted Russians Actually Show Up In Court

Mueller also accused Concord of "knowingly and intentionally" conspiring to interfere with the election by using social media to disparage Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump.

Whew! That's pretty serious stuff! Let me get this straight: they got on to social media, and said nasty things about Hillary Clinton and nice things about Donald Trump, and they're Russian? Gulp! Gasp! Wow! They tried to influence an election in a foreign country by saying nasty things about one candidate and nice things about the other on social media? That's unprecedented! Unheard of! Why? I just can't believe this is happening... Gee willickers! If I had known that, maybe I wouldn't have voted for Trump! These people are unbelievable.

As Powerline notes, Mueller probably didn't see that coming - and the indictment itself was perhaps nothing more than a PR stunt to bolster the Russian interference narrative.

That is becoming painfully obvious. We're charging you with saying nasty things about Hillary Clinton and nice things about Donald Trump, and we're going to withhold the most serious evidence. We want people to convict you for saying nasty things about Hillary Clinton on social media, because you are Russian and not American.

Incredible...

The Judge, Dabney Friedrich - a Trump appointee, didn't buy it - denying Mueller a delay in the high-profile trial.

Hrmmm... a Trump appointee hearing the case. I wonder if Mueller will ask for a change of venue or request recusal next.

Mueller Appears to Have Screwed Up by ‘Accidentally’ Exposing Names in Manafort Case

[Zamuel]

Mueller's request was just filed yesterday. I've heard nothing from the court on this yet. You're saying the court has already ruled?

No, I was referring to the defense request that ALL EVIDENCE COLLECTED be made available to them. NOT just the "Discovery" evidence to be presented at trial.

Hrmmm... a Trump appointee hearing the case. I wonder if Mueller will ask for a change of venue or request recusal next.

Doubtful unless the judge has personal or professional relationship, judges usually deal with such conflicts themselves. Please don't forge that Mueller himself is a Republican and a pretty well connected one.

Zam