Posted on 06/15/2018 1:54:03 AM PDT by siunevada
One of the Russian companies indicted by Robert Mueller in the troll farm case has responded to the special counsel’s recently-filed motion prevent discovery of evidence with a blistering (and somewhat trolling) court filing.
On Thursday, attorneys for Concord Management and Consulting LLC timely submitted their 13-page memorandum in opposition to Mueller’s requested order.
(Excerpt) Read more at lawandcrime.com ...
Term of the day: fake law.
When on Earth is this Bonehead going to be brought up short and forbidden to waste any more taxpayer dollars?????
We can get the same value for our money by watching a circus sideshow!
Millions of dollars spent on an investigation to nowhere, without evidence that a crime was even committed.
And as Bonehead Mueller knows, influencing an election is a civic right, not a crime.
He has to show any voter was harmed by it.
Term of the day: dithyramb (n.) -- (1) a wild choral hymn of ancient Greece, especially one dedicated to Dionysus; (2) a passionate or inflated speech, poem, or other writing.
From Concord's brief opposing Mueller's attempt to hide his evidence from the defense:
Having made this special request based on a secret submission to the Court and a hysterical dithyramb about the future of American elections, one would think that the Special Counsel would cite to case holdings that support this remarkable request.
I don't know who writes these legal briefs for the Concord defense team, but I'd like to nominate him/her for a Nobel Prize in literature. LOL.
Mueller's team can't get anything right. Apparently they're engaged in ongoing dithyrambs that are nothing more than pettifoggery.
It’s fake law.
All made up just like the Russian collusion theory.
When Mueller can’t find authorities to support it, it doesn’t have a leg to stand on.
Thanks for the update on this...
A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year’s DNC Hack
Russiagate Is More Fiction Than Fact
Bombshell Report on the DNC Hack by Forensic Experts Claims It Was an Inside Job, Not the Russians
A few questions for Special Counsel Mueller.
S/C Investigators getting paid with tax dollars normally pursue a crime to protect the interest of the people.
<><> What crime are you investigating?
<><> Your job description centered on Russian collusion, what statute in the US code would you use to prosecute collusion?
<><> Your investigative team is composed of highly partisan supporters of Hillary Clinton? Did you seek out independent, non-partisan lawyers?
<><> Russia expert, Fanny Ohr, wife of demoted DOJ official Bruce Ohr, who worked for Fusion GPS on the Steele dossier acquired a short-wave radio license about that time? Did the FBI monitor any of Ohr’s electronic communications?
<><> 2016 candidate Hillary Clinton as Secy of State, removed boxes of official documents and destroyed more than 30,000 official emails. Did you know about this?
<><> What was the Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton meeting about, aside from the usual pleasantries?
<><> The FBI sought to identify and discipline the agent who made the Lynch-Clinton meeting public. Is that official FBI policy.
<><> Former CIA boss John Brennan is making angry statements about Pres Donald Trump. Would you have hired him at the FBI? If so, in what capacity?
<><> When reporters asked you if the FBI had dropped the ball by failing to act, you said, “No. I think, given the context of the discussions and the situation that the agents and the analysts were looking at, they took appropriate steps.”
<><> Any second thoughts on that?
<><> Given the time and money you have put in, does the the absence of any crime or collusion trouble you?
<><> Are Democrats disappointed in you?
<><> If so, how have they acted against you?
<><> Did you resent it when Cong Schiff who based has his political career on your finding Russian collision called you a little ****?
<><> Can you account for every penny of the $17 million taxpayers were forced to pay for this phony investigation?
The only ones we have evidence of collusion for is the slime ball traiterous democrats. See my tagline/FR home page for lots on that. There is no rational reason for the Russians preferring a strong on defence Trump-Pence admin over a very weak democrat one.
Well duh, how do you expect them to get a conviction if they don’t hide evidence? /Sarcasm
Therein lies the fundamental problem. What rationale is there for launching an "investigation" and wasting millions of taxpayer money when there was no crime?
Damn straight!
Indeed. There is every reason to surmise that if the Russians had a preference, it would be for Hillary. Given that she had already sold them our uranium for large personal gains, the Russians would, if anything, expect her to be even more amenable to acting on their behalf once she had the power of the presidency behind her.
Bump
LOL, dithyramb. I had to look that one up too.
“Mueller’s appointment is certainly lawful in and of itself”
As Levin has pointed out, none of Mueller’s US attorneys have been appointed or had Senate approval consistent with the appointments clause.
Nonetheless, the article at least does defend the basic right of defendants in this country to discovery.
If Mueller’s criminal racket can get away with this (I doubt it), virtually any Federal prosecutor could make the national security argument and the courts would be transformed into Federal Star chambers run by the police state.
“As an initial analytical point, referring to Mueller as unlawfully-appointed is an out-of-character own-goal here by Concord Management’s attorneys. Mueller’s appointment is certainly lawful in and of itself and that’s not really a serious point of contention.”
Wrong. The special counsel regulations say that the SC cannot have any personal relationship with any potential witness or principal to the investigation. If so he must (not should) recuse himself. Mueller has multiple personal conflicts of interest with just about everyone involved,starting with his protégé Comey, whose daughter he is godfather to.
Mueller’s team specializes in hiding exculpatory evidence. Ask Mueller’s criminal #2 man, Weinstein. Why this guy can still practice law is beyond me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.