Mueller Investigation pt 6

Status
Not open for further replies.
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.193580/gov.uscourts.dcd.193580.148.0_2.pdf

The rule prohibits lawyers associated with the prosecution or defense from publishing, between the time of the indictment and the commencement of trial, “[a]ny opinion as to the accused’s guilt or innocence or as to the merits of the case or the evidence in the case.” Id. 57.7(b)(3)(vi). At the same time, the rule provides that these prohibitions “shall not be construed to preclude [lawyers], in the proper discharge of official or professional obligations, . . . from disclosing the nature, substance, or text of the charge, including a brief description of the offense charged,” or “from quoting or referring without comment to public records of the court in the case.” Id. 57.7(b).
Click to expand...

Yeah, so this is basically some very boring tactical back-and-forth stuff for a trial of this magnitude. The idea is to consume the time of the junior staff and paralegals at a firm pointing out minutiae of law to respond to some claim of a breach of some other minutiae of law. The goal is to keep the opposing team from having time to think big picture.

Anyways, I think responding to a Congressional subpoena counts as proper discharge of official or professional obligations. Mueller is perfectly within his rights to discuss anything that's already in his reports, since they are public records.

He already wasn't going to ever say anything that isn't already in there. Same as his press conference. His plan is likely to just be a human highlighter/sticky-note.
 
smartcooky said:
All the time Assange was holed up in the Ecuadorian Embassy, he was under surveillance, and they were reading his mail and eavesdropping on his communications.

The result is stunning.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/15/politics/assange-embassy-exclusive-documents/index.html
Click to expand...
I am shocked! How could we have known that Assange was that involved with Russian attempts to interfere with the 2016 election?

Well, except for the fact that he was once financially supported by Russian propaganda sources. And that Wikileaks regularly ignored leaks they received that were damaging to the Russians. And multiple wikileaks former staff indicated Assange had an anti-American bias.

But apart from that, its completely unexpected that Assange would have actually collaborated with the Russians!
 
CNN said:
That report, which included open-source information, concluded there was "no doubt that there is evidence" that Assange had ties to Russian intelligence agencies. UC Global did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
Click to expand...


There is no doubt that there is evidence. LOL

And it comes at a total surprise to everybody including Assange that he was under close surveillance. Double-LOL

What a nothing-burger.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
Yeah, so this is basically some very boring tactical back-and-forth stuff for a trial of this magnitude. The idea is to consume the time of the junior staff and paralegals at a firm pointing out minutiae of law to respond to some claim of a breach of some other minutiae of law. The goal is to keep the opposing team from having time to think big picture.
Click to expand...


You can find the non-boring big picture in my citation of Lazare above. The link to the article is working again, btw.
 
Last edited:
Childlike Empress said:
They are hearings and are now postponed for a week on Mueller's request.
Click to expand...

I suppose post hoc, ergo propter hoc?

ETA: Also, I love how you summarize it as "on Mueller's request" which is technically true, but grossly misleading by omission...

House Democrats said late Friday that they would postpone until July 24 two hearings with Robert S. Mueller III, which had been scheduled to take place next week, to allow for expanded questioning of the former special counsel.
...

Democrats said they chose to delay at the request of Mr. Mueller, but the new agreement also appeared to be meant to give lawmakers from both parties more time to question the former special counsel in public on his findings.

The sizable Judiciary Committee will now have three hours with Mr. Mueller, up from roughly two, allowing most of the lawmakers on the panel to ask questions.
Click to expand...

The questioning is going to get more expansive and they are allowing Mueller more time to prepare for a wider scope of inquiry. So you can stop working on the diagram that explains how all the little tidbits of information you've come across fit together.
 
Last edited:
Segnosaur said:
I am shocked! How could we have known that Assange was that involved with Russian attempts to interfere with the 2016 election?

Well, except for the fact that he was once financially supported by Russian propaganda sources. And that Wikileaks regularly ignored leaks they received that were damaging to the Russians. And multiple wikileaks former staff indicated Assange had an anti-American bias.

But apart from that, its completely unexpected that Assange would have actually collaborated with the Russians!
Click to expand...


I think you missed the point.

Those of us who were actually paying attention were already pretty sure that Assange/Wikileaks were in cahoots with the Russians. However, the Trumpistas and others with attention spans of retarded mice, would always throw "where's your evidence?" at us. Sure, we could point to the circumstantial evidence; to suspicious timelines, and coincidences, but there was no hard, documentary evidence that they were co-operating. There was more documentary evidence of the Trump campaign colluding with the Russian government (see the Mueller Report) than there was of Wikileaks doing so.

Well now we have that evidence, and its damning. It shows that the timelines we had were absolutely correct - all of the observed behaviours of Assange and Wikileaks from this surveillance of Assange's activities, both personally and online, slot perfectly into the timelines we already had. It is irrefutable, documented evidence that we were right about them. It can now be shown with absolute certainty that Wikileaks was the conduit the Russians used to publish the emails they stole from the DNC, and that Wikileaks and Assange were in Russia's election meddling efforts right up to the necks..
 
Last edited:
Delphic Oracle said:
ETA: Also, I love how you summarize it as "on Mueller's request" which is technically true, but grossly misleading by omission...
Click to expand...


Try to comprehend the texts you read. The source of the claim that Mueller requested the postponing is given as "House democrats". A factual claim. The claim you claim I omitted is an opinion. It just "also appeared" to Democrats if we read the sentence benevolently. If not, it's just the opinion of the author of the text. Value in both cases: zero.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
I am shocked! How could we have known that Assange was that involved with Russian attempts to interfere with the 2016 election?

Well, except for the fact that he was once financially supported by Russian propaganda sources. And that Wikileaks regularly ignored leaks they received that were damaging to the Russians. And multiple wikileaks former staff indicated Assange had an anti-American bias.
Click to expand...
I think you missed the point.

Those of us who were actually paying attention were already pretty sure that Assange/Wikileaks were in cahoots with the Russians.
...
Well now we have that evidence, and its damning....It can now be shown with absolute certainty that Wikileaks was the conduit the Russians used to publish the emails they stole from the DNC, and that Wikileaks and Assange were in Russia's election meddling efforts right up to the necks..
Click to expand...
Never underestimate the ability of Trump supporters and the like to ignore evidence. As I have stated before, you could publish the video of Trump giving oral sex to Putin as he personally accesses the Democratic email servers (and Assange lovingly looks on) and it still wouldn't be enough for some people.

Just witness ChildhoodEmpress... tries attacking the CNN article, and does so by referring to some "journalist" that probably nobody here has heard of, who has her work published in such high quality locations as GlobalResearch.ca, and seems to have written a book on astrology. Yet to her that is somehow this person is somehow someone who's opinion actually matters.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom