Of the 13 mueller russia indiciments one shows up... (world, considered, President)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A judge refuses a request for delay and you read all that into this one action. I don't see that Mueller refused to disclose his grounds for the indictment, do you have anything to back that up. I haven't heard a thing from Wednesdays hearing.
You want the Trump administration to be exonerated so bad that you are now rooting for the Russians, must be some anger to get to that point.
And who is rooting for Russians?
Im rooting for the fact that Muellers team is now being forced to put their money where their mouth is...the fact that it happens to be a Russian entity is incidental.
Well if the law firm representing the Russians said the company didn't exist then it must be true, so tell me why the firms executive didn't show up in court, should be a slam dunk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
Why should they? Would you show up in court in Russia if they charged you with something?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough
"so tell me why the firms executive didn't show up in court"
DUH, most executives do NOT show up in court, they HIRE LAWYERS.
The more you talk, the deeper the hole you are getting in.
sorry goodnight, the others are right on this. the hearing was not a trial where the defendants should show up, it is just a hearing to respond to a subpoena, and only the lawyers are required to show up, and they did.
the reality is that the russian company didnt even have to do a thing, they could have saved their money and just ignored mueller completely, and if at some point an issue was made, then they could have brought in their lawyers, and fought the subpoena, which was not properly served in the first place, and thus is technically void.
as for the case being a slam dunk, that rarely ever happens, especially if a rogue prosecutor is refusing to turn over evidence to the defense as required, including ALL exculpatory evidence. and right now it looks like mueller isnt going to do that, which will result in mueller being in hot water.
Lawyers always state their clients are innocent, since when does that constitute a fact.
Comprehension problems?
You see to get an indictment you are supposed to have proof, which mueller says he has, per the indictment, mueller should want to go to court and prosecute that firm, yet he is not?, Why? should be a slam dunk, I mean he says hes got proof....
You see to get an indictment you are supposed to have proof, which mueller says he has, per the indictment, mueller should want to go to court and prosecute that firm, yet he is not?, Why? should be a slam dunk, I mean he says hes got proof....
You were highlighting the fact that the lawyer representing the Russian firm said the company didn't exist, he can state anything he wants at a hearing but it should not be considered a fact. It sounds desperate to take him at his word.
sorry goodnight, the others are right on this. the hearing was not a trial where the defendants should show up, it is just a hearing to respond to a subpoena, and only the lawyers are required to show up, and they did.
the reality is that the russian company didnt even have to do a thing, they could have saved their money and just ignored mueller completely, and if at some point an issue was made, then they could have brought in their lawyers, and fought the subpoena, which was not properly served in the first place, and thus is technically void.
as for the case being a slam dunk, that rarely ever happens, especially if a rogue prosecutor is refusing to turn over evidence to the defense as required, including ALL exculpatory evidence. and right now it looks like mueller isnt going to do that, which will result in mueller being in hot water.
Well if the company didn't exist it should be a short case. I see this as nothing but a fishing expedition, I don't ever expect the company to show up in court whether its a hearing or it goes to trial. They just want to gain insight on Mueller's investigation and US intelligence.
You were highlighting the fact that the lawyer representing the Russian firm said the company didn't exist, he can state anything he wants at a hearing but it should not be considered a fact. It sounds desperate to take him at his word.
Then mueller should go to court....problem solved.......an indictment then becomes someone who is guilty of a law. Yet, mueller does not want to go to court, why?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
