Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 43
Thanks Tree27Thanks

Thread: Mueller motion vs Concord Management.

  1. #1
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    51,042
    Thanks
    10317

    From
    United States

    Mueller motion vs Concord Management.

    Mueller trying to avoid going to court in a case HE FILED.

    https://www.scribd.com/document/3816...LLC#from_embed

  2. #2
    Rent Free in Lefty Heads excalibur's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    12,008
    Thanks
    3761

    From
    The Milky Way
    Classic meltdown by a prosecutor who filed charges for publicity. Him and Weissman, and the merry band of Clinton backers, like Jeannie Rhee.

  3. #3
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    29,008
    Thanks
    20789

    From
    Florida
    Quote Originally Posted by excalibur View Post
    Classic meltdown by a prosecutor who filed charges for publicity. Him and Weissman, and the merry band of Clinton backers, like Jeannie Rhee.
    Pay wall.

  4. #4
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    51,042
    Thanks
    10317

    From
    United States
    If he loses these Russian show cases, he has nothing but a few perjury traps on nothing related to Trump/Russia collusion.

  5. #5
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    65,811
    Thanks
    37359

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by Goofball View Post
    Mueller trying to avoid going to court in a case HE FILED.

    https://www.scribd.com/document/3816...LLC#from_embed
    You need to explain. Going to court about what? What this says is that defendants shouldn't be able to see the evidence against them unless they actually show up in the US. How does that means "avoid going to court?"

  6. #6
    Senior Member NeoVsMatrix's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    8,790
    Thanks
    7847

    From
    NY
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    You need to explain. Going to court about what? What this says is that defendants shouldn't be able to see the evidence against them unless they actually show up in the US. How does that means "avoid going to court?"
    THAT was funny !
    Thanks from BoiseBo, Dragonfly5 and Friday13

  7. #7
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    51,042
    Thanks
    10317

    From
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    You need to explain. Going to court about what? What this says is that defendants shouldn't be able to see the evidence against them unless they actually show up in the US. How does that means "avoid going to court?"
    Concord showed up in court. Mueller is now trying to weasel out of showing them evidence.

  8. #8
    Senior Member BoiseBo's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2013
    Posts
    10,782
    Thanks
    8732

    From
    Boise, ID
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    You need to explain. Going to court about what? What this says is that defendants shouldn't be able to see the evidence against them unless they actually show up in the US. How does that means "avoid going to court?"
    Keep in mind, this is Goofball. He's like PH's very own version of Devin Nunes. ;-)
    Thanks from Dragonfly5 and Friday13

  9. #9
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    51,042
    Thanks
    10317

    From
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by NeoVsMatrix View Post
    THAT was funny !
    Concord showed up in court.

    Yeah, funny shit.

  10. #10
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    65,811
    Thanks
    37359

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by Goofball View Post
    Concord showed up in court. Mueller is now trying to weasel out of showing them evidence.
    There are a number of Russians charged in the same case. They haven't shown up. It's not possible to prosecute someone in the US en absentia, so this protective order would just prevent defendants from seeing evidence until it's actually possible to prosecute them. Mueller argues that revealing that evidence could put at risk: other defendants, national security, un-indicted co-conspirators, innocents. Seems pretty straight forward to me...and a reasonable thing to ask the court.
    Thanks from NeoVsMatrix, Dragonfly5 and Friday13

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 53
    Last Post: 17th February 2018, 11:14 AM
  2. Replies: 90
    Last Post: 3rd February 2018, 11:16 AM
  3. GOP plan set into motion
    By USA-1 in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: 28th December 2010, 05:08 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed