Posted on 05/18/2018 9:19:31 AM PDT by Meet the New Boss
Tensions escalated Wednesday between the special counsel’s office and the Reed Smith defense lawyers representing a Russian business charged with interfering in the 2016 presidential election, as the two sides disputed whether a recent phone conversation ended with an abrupt hang-up.
snip
Wednesday’s status hearing came two days after Dubelier and his co-counsel, Reed Smith partner Katherine Seikaly, filed a brief asking to review the legal instructions Mueller’s team gave to the grand jury that indicted Concord Management and Consulting.
But the request went further than that. The Reed Smith lawyers ridiculed the alleged crime as “make-believe” and derided the prosecution as having “absolutely nothing to do” with the special counsel’s core mandate of investigating coordination between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign.
In the court filing, the Reed Smith lawyers said the prosecutors’ reason for bringing the case “is obvious, and is political: to justify his own existence the special counsel has to indict a Russian—any Russian.”
snip
On Wednesday, Dubelier said he was agitated by language that grouped Concord Management and Consulting in with the other defendants in the case. He said the 13 Russian individuals were affiliated with another entity, the Internet Research Agency, and noted that Concord Management and Consulting is accused of funding the alleged conspiracy.
(Excerpt) Read more at law.com ...
The USA spends $20 million a year beaming USA propaganda into Russia. Perhaps the Russians should charge all the employees of Radio Free Europe with violating Russian media laws?
Isn’t excerpting a best practice now unless you know the site isn’t bothered by complete posts? That’s how I do it at least.
FR keeps the list online and up to date.
So, "knowing" is as easy as going to the FR home page, then clicking a link to get to the list. (See: General Copyright Statement:)
And, no, excerpts are only for sites on the list. If it ain't on the list, then there's no reason to excerpt the content.
JR wants to keep the discussion here on FR, not out on random blogs.
The final consideration is, do you know these bloggers? Do you know what content they're dropping onto your computer without your permission, such as malware?
Correct! I hope Putin is giggling somewhere as these Russkies and their lawyers are making Mueller and his flunky Jeannie Rhee look like clowns.
The date on that post is 2004. There are less only about 50 comments on the thread since 2011. Even in 2011 a commentator noted:
"Apparently, there are sources not listed that the forum software still requires excerpts from. One that is not listed on the “official list”, but the forum forces excerpting: OneNewsNow.com (part of the American Family Association). While they sometimes have AP-sourced articles, FR seems to want to require ALL to be excerpted.I've had the experience of having an article taken down for not being excerpted even when it's passed the official robo-filter and is not on the list. Apparently a few other people have too.
The thread is pretty interesting to read.
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.