Posted on 05/10/2018 2:55:47 AM PDT by a little elbow grease
Mueller generated headlines with the February indictment, safe in the knowledge the 13 Russians were beyond U.S. jurisdiction. Therefore, there would be no trial — only sensational Russian collusion accusations.
Mueller may now have to try the case, and Concord’s lawyers have put the special counsel on notice. The Russian company’s lawyers intend to invoke “discovery” to obtain U.S. intelligence about what they knew of Russian activities. “I guess Mueller thought it was a freebie, for sure,” former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy told The Daily Caller News Foundation after the court proceeding.
“He thought it could make this association (of Russian collusion) and it would never be challenged in court,” McCarthy, a National Review contributing editor, said after the proceeding.
“He thought it could make this association (of Russian collusion) and it would never be challenged in court,” McCarthy, a National Review contributing editor, said after the proceeding. Concord retained the services of two attorneys at mega law firm Reed Smith, and the company is demanding a speedy trial. The lawyers indicated they were going to exercise Concord’s rights under discovery to examine all of Mueller’s “evidence” of the conspiracy.
In starting Wednesday’s trial, Eric A. Dubelier, a Reed Smith law partner, entered a “not guilty” plea in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. He also repeated his client’s interest for a “speedy trial.”
McCarthy called Mueller’s entire indictment an “unforced error.”
“One thing you never want to do is to indict in a case that you’re not prepared to try,” McCarthy said.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Concord Management and Consulting entered a not guilty plea through counsel. No fireworks apparently. Trial calendared sixty days out which is unusually fast.
“The button actually reads ‘overload.’”
LOL. Thank God Almighty our enemies are as incompetent as they are corrupt.
All the scrutiny of the billions our President transacted across the decades; of the operation of myriad diverse businesses, countless of thousands of contracts, relationships, understandings (and inevitable disputes and misunderstandings), and they can’t so much as unearth a process crime.
Gang that can’t shoot straight. More importantly, we elected a man of action, courage, integrity and vision who somehow kept his business and real estate empire impossibly clean in wildly over-regulated industries and jurisdictions.
VSG, indeed. The President is a straight-shooter and he delivers on his promises. HOW LONG have we clamored for exactly this knowing it was the only hope for America and Western Civilization? The President is blessed, life-saving cool water in a parched desert.
Red Wave in November.
Thank you, ETL, for everything ....... more later ........ after I eat an apple.
Hamlet:
There’s letters seal’d, and my two schoolfellows,
Whom I will trust as I will adders fang’d—
They bear the mandate, they must sweep my way
And marshal me to knavery. Let it work;
For ‘tis the sport to have the enginer
Hoist with his own petard, an’t shall go hard
But I will delve one yard below their mines
And blow them at the moon.
Hamlet Act 3, scene 4, 202–209
In other words, the sealed indictments are bombs set by untrustworthy ‘fanged adders” and the prosecutors will be blown up by their own bombs. What a beautiful description by the Bard of Avon of our present situation.
Wow! Thanks for that. Good reference material.
From CNBC.com, July 7, 2016...
A House panel grilled FBI Director James Comey two days after he recommended against prosecuting former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for an email server scandal. In the hearing, South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy questioned Comey on the definition of intent and how Clinton could possibly evade punishment. ...”
Here’s a full transcript of the exchange:
_____________________________________________
Gowdy: Good morning, Director Comey.
Secretary Clinton said she never sent or received any classified information over her private e-mail, was that true?
Comey: Our investigation found that there was classified information sent.
Gowdy: It was not true?
Comey: That’s what I said.
Gowdy: OK. Well, I’m looking for a shorter answer so you and I are not here quite as long. Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her e-mails sent or received. Was that true?
Comey: That’s not true. There were a small number of portion markings on I think three of the documents.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said “I did not e-mail any classified information to anyone on my e-mail there was no classified material.” That is true?
Comey: There was classified information emailed.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton used one device, was that true?
Comey: She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as Secretary of State.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said all work related emails were returned to the State Department. Was that true?
Comey: No. We found work related email, thousands, that were not returned.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said neither she or anyone else deleted work related emails from her personal account.
Comey: That’s a harder one to answer. We found traces of work related emails in — on devices or in space. Whether they were deleted or when a server was changed out something happened to them, there’s no doubt that the work related emails that were removed electronically from the email system.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive. Did her lawyers read the email content individually?
Comey: No.
Gowdy: Well, in the interest of time and because I have a plane to catch tomorrow afternoon, I’m not going to go through any more of the false statements but I am going to ask you to put on your old hat. Faults exculpatory statements are used for what?
Comey: Well, either for a substantive prosecution or evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution.
Gowdy: Exactly. Intent and consciousness of guilt, right?
Comey: That is right[]
Gowdy: Consciousness of guilt and intent?
In your old job you would prove intent as you referenced by showing the jury evidence of a complex scheme that was designed for the very purpose of concealing the public record and you would be arguing in addition to concealment the destruction that you and i just talked about or certainly the failure to preserve.
You would argue all of that under the heading of content. You would also — intent. You would also be arguing the pervasiveness of the scheme when it started, when it ended and the number of emails whether
They were originally classified or of classified under the heading of intent. You would also, probably, under common scheme or plan, argue the burn bags of daily calendar entries or the missing daily calendar entries as a common scheme or plan to conceal.
Two days ago, Director, you said a reasonable person in her position should have known a private email was no place to send and receive classified information. You’re right. An average person does know not to do that.
This is no average person. This is a former First Lady, a former United States senator, and a former Secretary of State that the president now contends is the most competent, qualified person to be president since Jefferson. He didn’t say that in ‘08 but says it now.
She affirmatively rejected efforts to give her a state.gov account, kept the private emails for almost two years and only turned them over to Congress because we found out she had a private email account.
So you have a rogue email system set up before she took the oath of office, thousands of what we now know to be classified emails, some of which were classified at the time. One of her more frequent email comrades was hacked and you don’t know whether or not she was.
And this scheme took place over a long period of time and resulted in the destruction of public records and yet you say there is insufficient evidence of intent. You say she was extremely careless, but not intentionally so.
You and I both know intent is really difficult to prove. Very rarely do defendants announce ‘On this date I intend to break this criminal code section. Just to put everyone on notice, I am going to break the law on this date.’
It never happens that way. You have to do it with circumstantial evidence or if you’re Congress and you realize how difficult it is prove, specific intent, you will form lathe a statute that allows for gross negligence.
My time is out but this is really important. You mentioned there’s no precedent for criminal prosecution. My fear is there still isn’t. There’s nothing to keep a future Secretary of State or President from this exact same email scheme or their staff.
And my real fear is this, what the chairman touched upon, this double track justice system that is rightly or wrongly perceived in this country. That if you are a private in the Army and email yourself classified information you will be kicked out.
But if you are Hillary Clinton, and you seek a promotion to Commander in Chief, you will not be. So what I hope you can do today is help the average person, the reasonable person you made reference to, the reasonable person understand why she appears to be treated differently than the rest of us would be. With that I would yield back.
(the source of this transcript is closed captioning)
____________________________________
From CNN, July 2016...
This was not his first time investigating the Clintons [Comey]
Nor his second. The email server probe marked the third time Comey has investigated Bill or Hillary Clinton.
His first run-in came in the mid-1990s, when he joined the Senate Whitewater Committee as a deputy special counsel. There he dug into allegations that the Clintons took part in a fraud connected to a Arkansas real estate venture gone bust. No charges were ever brought against either Clinton...”
“In 2002, Comey, then a federal prosecutor, took over an investigation into President Bill Clinton’s 2001 pardon of financier Marc Rich, who had been indicted on a laundry list of charges before fleeing the country . ...”
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/07/politics/who-is-james-comey-fbi-director-things-to-know/index.html
__________________________________
“The Whitewater controversy (also known as the Whitewater scandal, or simply Whitewater) began with investigations into the real estate investments of Bill and Hillary Clinton and their associates, Jim and Susan McDougal, in the Whitewater Development Corporation, a failed business venture in the 1970s and 1980s.”
Whitewater Convictions
Jim Guy Tucker: Governor of Arkansas at the time, removed from office (fraud, 3 counts)
John Haley: attorney for Jim Guy Tucker (tax evasion)
William J. Marks, Sr.: Jim Guy Tucker’s business partner (conspiracy)
Stephen Smith: former Governor Clinton aide (conspiracy to misapply funds). Bill Clinton pardoned.
Webster Hubbell: Clinton political supporter; Rose Law Firm partner (embezzlement, fraud)
Jim McDougal: banker, Clinton political supporter: (18 felonies, varied)
Susan McDougal: Clinton political supporter (multiple fraud). Bill Clinton pardoned.
David Hale: banker, self-proclaimed Clinton political supporter: (conspiracy, fraud)
Neal Ainley: Perry County Bank president (embezzled bank funds for Clinton campaign)
Chris Wade: Whitewater real estate broker (multiple loan fraud). Bill Clinton pardoned.
Larry Kuca: Madison real estate agent (multiple loan fraud)
Robert W. Palmer: Madison appraiser (conspiracy). Bill Clinton pardoned.
John Latham: Madison Bank CEO (bank fraud)
Eugene Fitzhugh: Whitewater defendant (multiple bribery)
Charles Matthews: Whitewater defendant (bribery)
Ultimately the Clintons were never charged, but 15 other persons were convicted of more than 40 crimes, including Bill Clinton’s successor as Governor, who was removed from office.[40]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewater_%28controversy%29#Convictions
or,
https://web.archive.org/web/20090326122112/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewater_%28controversy%29
__________
Beautiful, indeed.
Recall in the final weeks of the Obama administration the sudden gutting of barriers to interagency intel sharing. I remember at the time knowing there was something deeply diabolical about this. It’s now obvious it was done to allow free passage of “intel” gleaned from the illegal surveillance of their political adversary between 16 or 17 different agencies.
Now, when the inevitable geyser of leaks erupted, instead of a handful or fewer readily-identifiable potential leakers, they were legion and spread across numerous agencies. Leakers throughout the government who could anonymously corroborate each other and add credence to the whole Russian collusion narrative.
How many leaks with attribution to unnamed government “sources” did we hear and read about during those tumultuous, infuriating months? More specifically, how many leaks divulged information about, or gained from, the FISC-authorized “counterintelligence” investigation?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/us/politics/nsa-gets-more-latitude-to-share-intercepted-communications.html
____________
Great post ...... bears repeating to all.
I remember it well.
Great posts by all here. I am going to take them in tonight.
It was a confession of wrongdoing.....primarily a CYA move to legitimize the law-breaking that had occurred.
Good morning.
Yes, the first FISC application on Carter Page was an effort to give “legal patina” to what was already underway.
Not as if any of us didn’t know a number of years ago the executive branch was fully corrupted and weaponized against America. President Trump is a miracle!
“Red Storm Rising” come November (hate yielding to the media’s color reversal, the dems appropriately used to be communist red to our blue.
(hat tip Victor Davis Hanson)
After Trump won, the super-confident Deep State had the power to either stop, remove, or delegitimize Trump and his presidency....
Obama’s apparat quite imaginatively pulled out all the stops:
<><>implanting Obama holdover appointees all over the executive branch;
<><>filing lawsuits and judge shopping;
<><>organizing the Resistance;
<><>pursuing impeachment writs;
<><>warping the FISA courts;
<><>weaponizing the DOJ and FBI;
<><>attempting to disrupt the Electoral College;
<><>angling for enactment of the 25th Amendment or the emoluments clause; and,
<><> unleashing Hollywood celebrities, Silicon Valley, and many in Wall Street to suffocate the Trump presidency in its infancy.
All of it indicative of the Third World mentality the Halfrican brought to the presidency. The scurrilous T/W tactic of using the po
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.