Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes, lets delve into the Bill Clinton defense of 'Definition of the word IS' and knit-pick our way out of what you spent pages asserting.you lie, like a rug!Oh, don't back down now - OWN your statement / accusation.I didn't accuse him of any wrong doing, simply pointing out who he worked for and is fighting for, in this case, the Russian Government, not simply some Russian company....
Call it what you want, 'accused', 'insinuated', 'stated', etc.... that being the lawyer for the Russians suddenly means he is PRO-Russian, a traitor to his country.
i never said that he was a traitor, loggerhead!
Hilarious and not a little sad to see you kids defending foreign nationals accused of interference in our election just because of who they are accused of helping.The thing is, libs have abandoned all pretense to care about due process and the rights of defendants to a fair trial.
Bwuhahaha.....you seek to minimize the fact that Mueller's misconductNo dummy, all I want to see is a single ACTUAL tangable consequence for Mueller or investigation. Fuck you and you retarded "documented".
they have a right to a lawyer, but if I were a good lawyer working for a top law firm, and asked by the Law Firm to take on this case to defend the Russian/govt....Yes, lets delve into the Bill Clinton defense of 'Definition of the word IS' and knit-pick our way out of what you spent pages asserting.you lie, like a rug!Oh, don't back down now - OWN your statement / accusation.I didn't accuse him of any wrong doing, simply pointing out who he worked for and is fighting for, in this case, the Russian Government, not simply some Russian company....
Call it what you want, 'accused', 'insinuated', 'stated', etc.... that being the lawyer for the Russians suddenly means he is PRO-Russian, a traitor to his country.
i never said that he was a traitor, loggerhead!
Silly snowflakes...never believing in accountability. Lie, deny, squirm, spin.....
Bwuhahahaha.......
Nope, I just want you to support your assertions and tell us of a single tangible thing that "CAUGHT UP" to Mueller. YOU CAN'T.
Nope, I just want you to support your assertions and tell us of a single tangible thing that "CAUGHT UP" to Mueller. YOU CAN'T.
Actually, as I said and have proven, Mueller's past has caught up with him - it has been documented exposed, reported.....
Your denial is evidence of nothing more than your own mental imbalance.
Sieg Heil Comrade.Nope, I just want you to support your assertions and tell us of a single tangible thing that "CAUGHT UP" to Mueller. YOU CAN'T.
Actually, as I said and have proven, Mueller's past has caught up with him - it has been documented exposed, reported.....
Your denial is evidence of nothing more than your own mental imbalance.
Poor ol' Muller, how will he ever survive getting "documented" by some rw nuts?
Moron for life, it's just what you are.
And you're trying to say when you wrote your Russian lawyer' that was not projection on your part?they have a right to a lawyer, but if I were a good lawyer working for a top law firm, and asked by the Law Firm to take on this case to defend the Russian/govt....Yes, lets delve into the Bill Clinton defense of 'Definition of the word IS' and knit-pick our way out of what you spent pages asserting.you lie, like a rug!Oh, don't back down now - OWN your statement / accusation.I didn't accuse him of any wrong doing, simply pointing out who he worked for and is fighting for, in this case, the Russian Government, not simply some Russian company....
Call it what you want, 'accused', 'insinuated', 'stated', etc.... that being the lawyer for the Russians suddenly means he is PRO-Russian, a traitor to his country.
i never said that he was a traitor, loggerhead!
Silly snowflakes...never believing in accountability. Lie, deny, squirm, spin.....
Bwuhahahaha.......
I would certainly have to recuse myself, because I AM BIASED on the subject, no doubt!!!!
Oh my gosh, Kitty... what kind of HOGWASH, right wing, lying propaganda do you actually believe?Hilarious and not a little sad to see you kids defending foreign nationals accused of interference in our election just because of who they are accused of helping.The thing is, libs have abandoned all pretense to care about due process and the rights of defendants to a fair trial.
Foreign Nationals? Wait I thought you libs were for open borders...and a few months ago you all were wanting TRUMP to go to war over the death of a foreign national fake news journalist.
And now we're supposed to take the word of a lawyer...Eric A. Dubelier, a litigator for the Reed Smith law firm who knows international law and the D.C. playing field, served eight years prosecuting cases as a Justice Department assistant U.S. attorney in Washington. He refers to his former employer as “the real Justice Department,” implying that Mr. Mueller’s team is something less.
His biting remarks have come in months of court filings and oral arguments. Mr. Dubelier has depicted Mr. Mueller as a rogue prosecutor willfully ignoring Justice Department guidelines.
He has accused Mr. Mueller of creating a “make-believe crime” against his Russian client, Concord Management and Consulting, which is accused of funding a troll farm that interfered in the 2016 election.
Mr. Dubelier charges that the Mueller team violated the confidentially of Concord’s counter evidence while hiding documents Concord needs for its defense. The prosecutor wants to “whisper secrets to the judge,” Mr. Dubelier says, as Mr. Mueller is calculating the “short-term political value of a conviction” and not worrying about an appeals court defeat years later.
An example: In a Dec. 20 motion, Mr. Dubelier resurrected a botched case spearheaded by Mr. Mueller’s top prosecutor, Andrew Weissmann.
Mr. Weissmann headed the Justice Department’s Enron task force nearly two decades ago. He won a conviction against the accounting firm Arthur Andersen for shredding the defunct energy firm’s financial documents.
Years later, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed the conviction. The 2005 decision effectively said that Andersen, by then out of business and its 28,000 employees gone, hadn’t committed a crime.
“When it comes to political speech, one is free to pretend to be whomever he or she wants to be and to say whatever he or she wants to say,” he said at an Oct. 15 hearing.
“That’s why in this case this special counsel made up a crime to fit the facts that they have,” Mr. Dubelier said. “And that’s the fundamental danger with the entire special counsel concept: that they operate outside the parameters of the Department of Justice in a way that is absolutely inconsistent with the consistent behavior of the Department of Justice in these cases for the past 30 years.”
“This equates to the burden of preparing for trial without any ability to discuss the evidence with the client who is to be put on trial. This has never happened before in reported case law because the notion is too ludicrous to contemplate.”
“What Mueller has turned over is often irrelevant to mounting a defense, such as promotion emails for airlines and personal naked selfie photographs”
Mueller has pushed back....successfully...by claiming presenting the actual evidence being used to prosecute a defendant would 'cause exceptionally grave damage to national security'.
There's just a few little problems with doing so:
1. Denying a defendant of the evidence being used against him 'blinds' him and his legal defense, placing the defendant and his legal counsel in an unfair / unrealistic disadvantage where they are forced to defend the client without knowing EXACTLY from what and without being able to provide evidence to counter the prosecutor's case because they have no idea what the prosecutor's case consists of.
PROSECUTOR:
'You are GUILTY because we say you are based on specific evidence we have on you, though you will never know what that is. What do you have to present in your defense?'
DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY:
'In defense of WHAT?'
2. Evidence and recent past demands for evidence by Congress resulted in Mueller claiming the same thing - 'the info can not be released to CONGRESS, who have Secret / Top Secret Clearances, because doing so would 'cause exceptionally grave damage to national security'. The problem was that when the information was released it was revealed that some of what Mueller had called information that would 'cause exceptionally grave damage to national security' turned out to be anything BUT that.
Obstruction
Perjury Traps
The 'Insurance Policy' Strzok Spoke Of
Refusing to investigate the Dossier or Steele
Withholding evidence resulting in innocent people going to jail
Extorting / Pressuring witnesses to make false statements / accusations
Creating bogus evidence / crimes resulting in innocent people going to jail
Bypassing Attorney-Client Privilege to get to the Investigation's focus' attorney
Hiding Russian crimes associated with the KGB Bank's effort to acquire Uranium One
Refusing to investigate Obama, who knew of Russian interference in 2014 and did nothing
Refusing to investigate Hillary, who paid the Russians & Steele for the Russian-authored Dossier
Indicting / charging / prosecuting without allowing the defendants to know the evidence against them
Working with foreign spy Steele before an investigation was started / before he became Special Counsel
Unethical
Immoral
Biased
'Illegal Tactics'
Co-Conspirator
Steele is a 'dirty' prosecutor, one tasked with objective and one objective only - NOT to seek the TRUTH and Justice but instead to 'Take Down The President'.
Eric Dubelier emerges as Robert Mueller’s top courtroom adversary
,
who interfered? there's no evidence of any such thing. quoted right here in this OP. none, nadda. so your comment is fked from the time you typed it.Hilarious and not a little sad to see you kids defending foreign nationals accused of interference in our election just because of who they are accused of helping.The thing is, libs have abandoned all pretense to care about due process and the rights of defendants to a fair trial.
Oh my gosh, Kitty... what kind of HOGWASH, right wing, lying propaganda do you actually believe?Hilarious and not a little sad to see you kids defending foreign nationals accused of interference in our election just because of who they are accused of helping.The thing is, libs have abandoned all pretense to care about due process and the rights of defendants to a fair trial.
Foreign Nationals? Wait I thought you libs were for open borders...and a few months ago you all were wanting TRUMP to go to war over the death of a foreign national fake news journalist.
The Democratic Party is NOT for open borders.... sigh....
And NO ONE on the left wanted Trump to go to WAR with the Saudi's over their brutal murder of a legal US Resident....
Trump just not lying for them... and making excuses for the murder and the Saudi Prince's connection to it before the whole world or him siting some military industrial complex sale and the money we would make, as the reason it should be forgiven, would have been a start in the right direction....
Jiminy Cricket!
Eric A. Dubelier, a litigator for the Reed Smith law firm who knows international law and the D.C. playing field, served eight years prosecuting cases as a Justice Department assistant U.S. attorney in Washington. He refers to his former employer as “the real Justice Department,” implying that Mr. Mueller’s team is something less.
His biting remarks have come in months of court filings and oral arguments. Mr. Dubelier has depicted Mr. Mueller as a rogue prosecutor willfully ignoring Justice Department guidelines.
He has accused Mr. Mueller of creating a “make-believe crime” against his Russian client, Concord Management and Consulting, which is accused of funding a troll farm that interfered in the 2016 election.
Mr. Dubelier charges that the Mueller team violated the confidentially of Concord’s counter evidence while hiding documents Concord needs for its defense. The prosecutor wants to “whisper secrets to the judge,” Mr. Dubelier says, as Mr. Mueller is calculating the “short-term political value of a conviction” and not worrying about an appeals court defeat years later.
An example: In a Dec. 20 motion, Mr. Dubelier resurrected a botched case spearheaded by Mr. Mueller’s top prosecutor, Andrew Weissmann.
Mr. Weissmann headed the Justice Department’s Enron task force nearly two decades ago. He won a conviction against the accounting firm Arthur Andersen for shredding the defunct energy firm’s financial documents.
Years later, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed the conviction. The 2005 decision effectively said that Andersen, by then out of business and its 28,000 employees gone, hadn’t committed a crime.
“When it comes to political speech, one is free to pretend to be whomever he or she wants to be and to say whatever he or she wants to say,” he said at an Oct. 15 hearing.
“That’s why in this case this special counsel made up a crime to fit the facts that they have,” Mr. Dubelier said. “And that’s the fundamental danger with the entire special counsel concept: that they operate outside the parameters of the Department of Justice in a way that is absolutely inconsistent with the consistent behavior of the Department of Justice in these cases for the past 30 years.”
“This equates to the burden of preparing for trial without any ability to discuss the evidence with the client who is to be put on trial. This has never happened before in reported case law because the notion is too ludicrous to contemplate.”
“What Mueller has turned over is often irrelevant to mounting a defense, such as promotion emails for airlines and personal naked selfie photographs”
Mueller has pushed back....successfully...by claiming presenting the actual evidence being used to prosecute a defendant would 'cause exceptionally grave damage to national security'.
There's just a few little problems with doing so:
1. Denying a defendant of the evidence being used against him 'blinds' him and his legal defense, placing the defendant and his legal counsel in an unfair / unrealistic disadvantage where they are forced to defend the client without knowing EXACTLY from what and without being able to provide evidence to counter the prosecutor's case because they have no idea what the prosecutor's case consists of.
PROSECUTOR:
'You are GUILTY because we say you are based on specific evidence we have on you, though you will never know what that is. What do you have to present in your defense?'
DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY:
'In defense of WHAT?'
2. Evidence and recent past demands for evidence by Congress resulted in Mueller claiming the same thing - 'the info can not be released to CONGRESS, who have Secret / Top Secret Clearances, because doing so would 'cause exceptionally grave damage to national security'. The problem was that when the information was released it was revealed that some of what Mueller had called information that would 'cause exceptionally grave damage to national security' turned out to be anything BUT that.
Obstruction
Perjury Traps
The 'Insurance Policy' Strzok Spoke Of
Refusing to investigate the Dossier or Steele
Withholding evidence resulting in innocent people going to jail
Extorting / Pressuring witnesses to make false statements / accusations
Creating bogus evidence / crimes resulting in innocent people going to jail
Bypassing Attorney-Client Privilege to get to the Investigation's focus' attorney
Hiding Russian crimes associated with the KGB Bank's effort to acquire Uranium One
Refusing to investigate Obama, who knew of Russian interference in 2014 and did nothing
Refusing to investigate Hillary, who paid the Russians & Steele for the Russian-authored Dossier
Indicting / charging / prosecuting without allowing the defendants to know the evidence against them
Working with foreign spy Steele before an investigation was started / before he became Special Counsel
Unethical
Immoral
Biased
'Illegal Tactics'
Co-Conspirator
Steele is a 'dirty' prosecutor, one tasked with objective and one objective only - NOT to seek the TRUTH and Justice but instead to 'Take Down The President'.
Eric Dubelier emerges as Robert Mueller’s top courtroom adversary
,
That would certainly be helpful.Hey Easy...could you get us a linky...???A USSC Justice, watching Mueller's continued unethical prosecutorial conduct, just injected himself into Mueller's investigation without the case being presented to the USSC. That doesn't happen hardly ever..... Mueller's conduct, as pointed out, is getting noticed.Ohh, leary in general are they?
Eric Dubelier is a lawyer for a RUSSIAN fucking firm accused of interfering in our elections.Eric A. Dubelier, a litigator for the Reed Smith law firm who knows international law and the D.C. playing field, served eight years prosecuting cases as a Justice Department assistant U.S. attorney in Washington. He refers to his former employer as “the real Justice Department,” implying that Mr. Mueller’s team is something less.
His biting remarks have come in months of court filings and oral arguments. Mr. Dubelier has depicted Mr. Mueller as a rogue prosecutor willfully ignoring Justice Department guidelines.
He has accused Mr. Mueller of creating a “make-believe crime” against his Russian client, Concord Management and Consulting, which is accused of funding a troll farm that interfered in the 2016 election.
Mr. Dubelier charges that the Mueller team violated the confidentially of Concord’s counter evidence while hiding documents Concord needs for its defense. The prosecutor wants to “whisper secrets to the judge,” Mr. Dubelier says, as Mr. Mueller is calculating the “short-term political value of a conviction” and not worrying about an appeals court defeat years later.
An example: In a Dec. 20 motion, Mr. Dubelier resurrected a botched case spearheaded by Mr. Mueller’s top prosecutor, Andrew Weissmann.
Mr. Weissmann headed the Justice Department’s Enron task force nearly two decades ago. He won a conviction against the accounting firm Arthur Andersen for shredding the defunct energy firm’s financial documents.
Years later, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed the conviction. The 2005 decision effectively said that Andersen, by then out of business and its 28,000 employees gone, hadn’t committed a crime.
“When it comes to political speech, one is free to pretend to be whomever he or she wants to be and to say whatever he or she wants to say,” he said at an Oct. 15 hearing.
“That’s why in this case this special counsel made up a crime to fit the facts that they have,” Mr. Dubelier said. “And that’s the fundamental danger with the entire special counsel concept: that they operate outside the parameters of the Department of Justice in a way that is absolutely inconsistent with the consistent behavior of the Department of Justice in these cases for the past 30 years.”
“This equates to the burden of preparing for trial without any ability to discuss the evidence with the client who is to be put on trial. This has never happened before in reported case law because the notion is too ludicrous to contemplate.”
“What Mueller has turned over is often irrelevant to mounting a defense, such as promotion emails for airlines and personal naked selfie photographs”
Mueller has pushed back....successfully...by claiming presenting the actual evidence being used to prosecute a defendant would 'cause exceptionally grave damage to national security'.
There's just a few little problems with doing so:
1. Denying a defendant of the evidence being used against him 'blinds' him and his legal defense, placing the defendant and his legal counsel in an unfair / unrealistic disadvantage where they are forced to defend the client without knowing EXACTLY from what and without being able to provide evidence to counter the prosecutor's case because they have no idea what the prosecutor's case consists of.
PROSECUTOR:
'You are GUILTY because we say you are based on specific evidence we have on you, though you will never know what that is. What do you have to present in your defense?'
DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY:
'In defense of WHAT?'
2. Evidence and recent past demands for evidence by Congress resulted in Mueller claiming the same thing - 'the info can not be released to CONGRESS, who have Secret / Top Secret Clearances, because doing so would 'cause exceptionally grave damage to national security'. The problem was that when the information was released it was revealed that some of what Mueller had called information that would 'cause exceptionally grave damage to national security' turned out to be anything BUT that.
Obstruction
Perjury Traps
The 'Insurance Policy' Strzok Spoke Of
Refusing to investigate the Dossier or Steele
Withholding evidence resulting in innocent people going to jail
Extorting / Pressuring witnesses to make false statements / accusations
Creating bogus evidence / crimes resulting in innocent people going to jail
Bypassing Attorney-Client Privilege to get to the Investigation's focus' attorney
Hiding Russian crimes associated with the KGB Bank's effort to acquire Uranium One
Refusing to investigate Obama, who knew of Russian interference in 2014 and did nothing
Refusing to investigate Hillary, who paid the Russians & Steele for the Russian-authored Dossier
Indicting / charging / prosecuting without allowing the defendants to know the evidence against them
Working with foreign spy Steele before an investigation was started / before he became Special Counsel
Unethical
Immoral
Biased
'Illegal Tactics'
Co-Conspirator
Steele is a 'dirty' prosecutor, one tasked with objective and one objective only - NOT to seek the TRUTH and Justice but instead to 'Take Down The President'.
Eric Dubelier emerges as Robert Mueller’s top courtroom adversary
,
so far you!!Eric Dubelier is a lawyer for a RUSSIAN fucking firm accused of interfering in our elections.Eric A. Dubelier, a litigator for the Reed Smith law firm who knows international law and the D.C. playing field, served eight years prosecuting cases as a Justice Department assistant U.S. attorney in Washington. He refers to his former employer as “the real Justice Department,” implying that Mr. Mueller’s team is something less.
His biting remarks have come in months of court filings and oral arguments. Mr. Dubelier has depicted Mr. Mueller as a rogue prosecutor willfully ignoring Justice Department guidelines.
He has accused Mr. Mueller of creating a “make-believe crime” against his Russian client, Concord Management and Consulting, which is accused of funding a troll farm that interfered in the 2016 election.
Mr. Dubelier charges that the Mueller team violated the confidentially of Concord’s counter evidence while hiding documents Concord needs for its defense. The prosecutor wants to “whisper secrets to the judge,” Mr. Dubelier says, as Mr. Mueller is calculating the “short-term political value of a conviction” and not worrying about an appeals court defeat years later.
An example: In a Dec. 20 motion, Mr. Dubelier resurrected a botched case spearheaded by Mr. Mueller’s top prosecutor, Andrew Weissmann.
Mr. Weissmann headed the Justice Department’s Enron task force nearly two decades ago. He won a conviction against the accounting firm Arthur Andersen for shredding the defunct energy firm’s financial documents.
Years later, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed the conviction. The 2005 decision effectively said that Andersen, by then out of business and its 28,000 employees gone, hadn’t committed a crime.
“When it comes to political speech, one is free to pretend to be whomever he or she wants to be and to say whatever he or she wants to say,” he said at an Oct. 15 hearing.
“That’s why in this case this special counsel made up a crime to fit the facts that they have,” Mr. Dubelier said. “And that’s the fundamental danger with the entire special counsel concept: that they operate outside the parameters of the Department of Justice in a way that is absolutely inconsistent with the consistent behavior of the Department of Justice in these cases for the past 30 years.”
“This equates to the burden of preparing for trial without any ability to discuss the evidence with the client who is to be put on trial. This has never happened before in reported case law because the notion is too ludicrous to contemplate.”
“What Mueller has turned over is often irrelevant to mounting a defense, such as promotion emails for airlines and personal naked selfie photographs”
Mueller has pushed back....successfully...by claiming presenting the actual evidence being used to prosecute a defendant would 'cause exceptionally grave damage to national security'.
There's just a few little problems with doing so:
1. Denying a defendant of the evidence being used against him 'blinds' him and his legal defense, placing the defendant and his legal counsel in an unfair / unrealistic disadvantage where they are forced to defend the client without knowing EXACTLY from what and without being able to provide evidence to counter the prosecutor's case because they have no idea what the prosecutor's case consists of.
PROSECUTOR:
'You are GUILTY because we say you are based on specific evidence we have on you, though you will never know what that is. What do you have to present in your defense?'
DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY:
'In defense of WHAT?'
2. Evidence and recent past demands for evidence by Congress resulted in Mueller claiming the same thing - 'the info can not be released to CONGRESS, who have Secret / Top Secret Clearances, because doing so would 'cause exceptionally grave damage to national security'. The problem was that when the information was released it was revealed that some of what Mueller had called information that would 'cause exceptionally grave damage to national security' turned out to be anything BUT that.
Obstruction
Perjury Traps
The 'Insurance Policy' Strzok Spoke Of
Refusing to investigate the Dossier or Steele
Withholding evidence resulting in innocent people going to jail
Extorting / Pressuring witnesses to make false statements / accusations
Creating bogus evidence / crimes resulting in innocent people going to jail
Bypassing Attorney-Client Privilege to get to the Investigation's focus' attorney
Hiding Russian crimes associated with the KGB Bank's effort to acquire Uranium One
Refusing to investigate Obama, who knew of Russian interference in 2014 and did nothing
Refusing to investigate Hillary, who paid the Russians & Steele for the Russian-authored Dossier
Indicting / charging / prosecuting without allowing the defendants to know the evidence against them
Working with foreign spy Steele before an investigation was started / before he became Special Counsel
Unethical
Immoral
Biased
'Illegal Tactics'
Co-Conspirator
Steele is a 'dirty' prosecutor, one tasked with objective and one objective only - NOT to seek the TRUTH and Justice but instead to 'Take Down The President'.
Eric Dubelier emerges as Robert Mueller’s top courtroom adversary
,
Are ya fucking kidding?
How many Russian bots do we have posting on this board??
That's a lot of assuming..Eric A. Dubelier, a litigator for the Reed Smith law firm who knows international law and the D.C. playing field, served eight years prosecuting cases as a Justice Department assistant U.S. attorney in Washington. He refers to his former employer as “the real Justice Department,” implying that Mr. Mueller’s team is something less.
His biting remarks have come in months of court filings and oral arguments. Mr. Dubelier has depicted Mr. Mueller as a rogue prosecutor willfully ignoring Justice Department guidelines.
He has accused Mr. Mueller of creating a “make-believe crime” against his Russian client, Concord Management and Consulting, which is accused of funding a troll farm that interfered in the 2016 election.
Mr. Dubelier charges that the Mueller team violated the confidentially of Concord’s counter evidence while hiding documents Concord needs for its defense. The prosecutor wants to “whisper secrets to the judge,” Mr. Dubelier says, as Mr. Mueller is calculating the “short-term political value of a conviction” and not worrying about an appeals court defeat years later.
An example: In a Dec. 20 motion, Mr. Dubelier resurrected a botched case spearheaded by Mr. Mueller’s top prosecutor, Andrew Weissmann.
Mr. Weissmann headed the Justice Department’s Enron task force nearly two decades ago. He won a conviction against the accounting firm Arthur Andersen for shredding the defunct energy firm’s financial documents.
Years later, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed the conviction. The 2005 decision effectively said that Andersen, by then out of business and its 28,000 employees gone, hadn’t committed a crime.
“When it comes to political speech, one is free to pretend to be whomever he or she wants to be and to say whatever he or she wants to say,” he said at an Oct. 15 hearing.
“That’s why in this case this special counsel made up a crime to fit the facts that they have,” Mr. Dubelier said. “And that’s the fundamental danger with the entire special counsel concept: that they operate outside the parameters of the Department of Justice in a way that is absolutely inconsistent with the consistent behavior of the Department of Justice in these cases for the past 30 years.”
“This equates to the burden of preparing for trial without any ability to discuss the evidence with the client who is to be put on trial. This has never happened before in reported case law because the notion is too ludicrous to contemplate.”
“What Mueller has turned over is often irrelevant to mounting a defense, such as promotion emails for airlines and personal naked selfie photographs”
Mueller has pushed back....successfully...by claiming presenting the actual evidence being used to prosecute a defendant would 'cause exceptionally grave damage to national security'.
There's just a few little problems with doing so:
1. Denying a defendant of the evidence being used against him 'blinds' him and his legal defense, placing the defendant and his legal counsel in an unfair / unrealistic disadvantage where they are forced to defend the client without knowing EXACTLY from what and without being able to provide evidence to counter the prosecutor's case because they have no idea what the prosecutor's case consists of.
PROSECUTOR:
'You are GUILTY because we say you are based on specific evidence we have on you, though you will never know what that is. What do you have to present in your defense?'
DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY:
'In defense of WHAT?'
2. Evidence and recent past demands for evidence by Congress resulted in Mueller claiming the same thing - 'the info can not be released to CONGRESS, who have Secret / Top Secret Clearances, because doing so would 'cause exceptionally grave damage to national security'. The problem was that when the information was released it was revealed that some of what Mueller had called information that would 'cause exceptionally grave damage to national security' turned out to be anything BUT that.
Obstruction
Perjury Traps
The 'Insurance Policy' Strzok Spoke Of
Refusing to investigate the Dossier or Steele
Withholding evidence resulting in innocent people going to jail
Extorting / Pressuring witnesses to make false statements / accusations
Creating bogus evidence / crimes resulting in innocent people going to jail
Bypassing Attorney-Client Privilege to get to the Investigation's focus' attorney
Hiding Russian crimes associated with the KGB Bank's effort to acquire Uranium One
Refusing to investigate Obama, who knew of Russian interference in 2014 and did nothing
Refusing to investigate Hillary, who paid the Russians & Steele for the Russian-authored Dossier
Indicting / charging / prosecuting without allowing the defendants to know the evidence against them
Working with foreign spy Steele before an investigation was started / before he became Special Counsel
Unethical
Immoral
Biased
'Illegal Tactics'
Co-Conspirator
Steele is a 'dirty' prosecutor, one tasked with objective and one objective only - NOT to seek the TRUTH and Justice but instead to 'Take Down The President'.
Eric Dubelier emerges as Robert Mueller’s top courtroom adversary
,
Assuming the client " Russian client, Concord Management and Consulting" is the same entity involved in the discovery flap Roberts jumped the SC into, and that is owned by the Russian govt or some alter ego, this is pretty good.
I was worried a little that some ME country like Qatar was the mystery country. But if Concord is saying they can't disclose what their bots in the US because of Russian law, I'd be very interested to see what Roberts has to say to that argument.
Too long and spittle soaked, didn't read.ACCUSED.Hilarious and not a little sad to see you kids defending foreign nationals accused of interference in our election just because of who they are accused of helping.
Snowflakes continue to push the hypocritical false belief that anyone who does not embrace their ideology / agenda anyone they can use to their advantage are 'GUILTY Until Proven Innocent' and that the 'Burden of Proof Is on the Accused'.
That tactic blew up in their faces with Kavanaugh.
That tactic has so far blown up in their faces with the President...
...while their attempt to do so has exposed very real evidence of their own crimes.
Another favorite Liberal / Snowflake has also been exposed: The constant projection / accusing others of doing exactly what the Democrats have done / have been caught doing / continue to do and of being who THEY are.
Cases in Point:
Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party were caught and exposed for rigging primaries, cheating in debates, engaging in election fraud, violating Election and Campaign Finance Laws, and, in the end, altering the election by giving Hillary Bernie Sanders' earned Party Nomination ... yet continue to claim the Russians interfered in / attempted to alter the 2016 election.
Hillary Clinton was exposed to have illegally coordinated with and paid foreign spies and Russians for Russian-authored propaganda ... yet Democrats / snowflakes insist without substantiating evidence that it was President Trump who did what Hillary did.
Russians successfully ran a counter-intelligence operation using US Social Media and got Democrats / Snowflakes to ORGANIZE and even MARCH for them...successfully paid WILLING snowflakes to spread racial tension and violence across the United States...yet claim that Conservatives defend and have worked for / with Russians.
Snowflakes continue to prove the established fact that they are emotionally- driven / manipulated individuals who irrationally defend themselves and their politicians' actions, rabidly ignoring the evidence while irrationally and without substantiating evidence to hypocritically accuse others.
So every time you and your fellow snowflakes call anyone else 'Comrade', attack / accuse Trump, and make such ridiculous posts as this one, I hear, "yak, yak, yak, hypocritesayswhat...." and laugh.
Meanwhile, Mueller has a documented history of protecting both the Russians and Hillary, supported by testimony under oath and whistleblower evidence, as well as a documented history of both hiding evidence and creating false crimes to send innocent people to jail.
I love the Irony here.
