• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mueller sees Russian effort to influence 2018 midterms

JacksinPA

JacksinPA

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 3, 2017
Messages
26,290
Reaction score
16,771
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/12/mueller-russia-midterms-influence-641851

Prosecutors are trying to block intelligence agencies and absent defendants from seeing evidence in the investigation of interference in the 2016 election.

Russian intelligence agencies are trying to meddle in the 2018 U.S. midterm elections much as they did two years ago, special counsel Robert Mueller’s office asserted on Tuesday in a court filing.

The claim of active election-focused intelligence operations came as prosecutors moved to block more than a dozen Russians who are charged criminally in the prior effort from gaining access to evidence gathered as that case was assembled.
====================================
Releasing this evidence would compromise the investigation & reveal sources & methods to the Russian intelligence services.
 
JacksinPA said:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/12/mueller-russia-midterms-influence-641851

Prosecutors are trying to block intelligence agencies and absent defendants from seeing evidence in the investigation of interference in the 2016 election.

Russian intelligence agencies are trying to meddle in the 2018 U.S. midterm elections much as they did two years ago, special counsel Robert Mueller’s office asserted on Tuesday in a court filing.

The claim of active election-focused intelligence operations came as prosecutors moved to block more than a dozen Russians who are charged criminally in the prior effort from gaining access to evidence gathered as that case was assembled.
====================================
Releasing this evidence would compromise the investigation & reveal sources & methods to the Russian intelligence services.
Click to expand...

Not sure about the ethics of indicting someone you don't feel you can convict. Scary we the power we give to these prosecutors.
 
JacksinPA said:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/12/mueller-russia-midterms-influence-641851

Prosecutors are trying to block intelligence agencies and absent defendants from seeing evidence in the investigation of interference in the 2016 election.

Russian intelligence agencies are trying to meddle in the 2018 U.S. midterm elections much as they did two years ago, special counsel Robert Mueller’s office asserted on Tuesday in a court filing.

The claim of active election-focused intelligence operations came as prosecutors moved to block more than a dozen Russians who are charged criminally in the prior effort from gaining access to evidence gathered as that case was assembled.
====================================
Releasing this evidence would compromise the investigation & reveal sources & methods to the Russian intelligence services.
Click to expand...

I don't see where any one has been doing any election meddling, nor any convictions.
/
 
washunut said:
Not sure about the ethics of indicting someone you don't feel you can convict. Scary we the power we give to these prosecutors.
Click to expand...

They didn't. The prosecutors are merely requiring that defendants appear for arraignment, bail hearings, etc. prior to being given their right of discovery.
 
Xelor said:
They didn't. The prosecutors are merely requiring that defendants appear for arraignment, bail hearings, etc. prior to being given their right of discovery.
Click to expand...

These people have been indicted.
 
washunut said:
Not sure about the ethics of indicting someone you don't feel you can convict. Scary we the power we give to these prosecutors.
Click to expand...

He was looking for accolades without risk. After all, they were Russians in Russia! The last thing he expected was for them to plead.
 
JacksinPA said:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/12/mueller-russia-midterms-influence-641851

Prosecutors are trying to block intelligence agencies and absent defendants from seeing evidence in the investigation of interference in the 2016 election.

Russian intelligence agencies are trying to meddle in the 2018 U.S. midterm elections much as they did two years ago, special counsel Robert Mueller’s office asserted on Tuesday in a court filing.

The claim of active election-focused intelligence operations came as prosecutors moved to block more than a dozen Russians who are charged criminally in the prior effort from gaining access to evidence gathered as that case was assembled.
====================================
Releasing this evidence would compromise the investigation & reveal sources & methods to the Russian intelligence services.
Click to expand...

Seeing as there is not proof of either previous meddling that swayed any election.
Not to mention the fact they are not going to release the evidence they have.

Many of us here are getting the whole "we where hacked syndrome" all over again. That the democrats ran around spewing after their loss. This is frankly, starting to get old.
 
washunut said:
Not sure about the ethics of indicting someone you don't feel you can convict. Scary we the power we give to these prosecutors.
Click to expand...

They are show indictments. I questioned from the start how we could ever prosecute Russians for 'hacking', because the intelligence agencies can't release the evidence -- either because the sources are sensitive or the methods are legally questionable.
 
Xelor said:
They didn't. The prosecutors are merely requiring that defendants appear for arraignment, bail hearings, etc. prior to being given their right of discovery.
Click to expand...

No, they never expected the people to present themselves. And, this isn't the normal process. Note that the companies did present themselves (through their attorneys) and prosecutors are struggling with what to do.
 
dcsports said:
No, they never expected the people to present themselves. And, this isn't the normal process. Note that the companies did present themselves (through their attorneys) and prosecutors are struggling with what to do.
Click to expand...
Number 1:
I know of only one that's done so out of the two (though technically three) firms that were indicted, Concord Management and Consulting, LLC, Internet Research Agency, LLC, and Concord Catering. The "Concords" are related entities and they provided funding to IRA.​

Number 2:

  • [*=1]On April 11, 2018, counsel for Internet Research Agency (IRA) entered appearances on behalf of one of the defendants, the "Concords," yet the attorney did not acknowledge whether s/he had been authorized to receive service of the summons on behalf of Concord. At issue is that at that point, Concord hadn't been served and summoned to appear, though the charges against the "Concords" had been filed.

    Furthermore, counsel submitted RFIs to the government for a bill of particulars, wherein they demanded 51 categories of information and discovery, including of all statements, recordings, or electronic surveillance of Concord officers and employees, and, as “a predicate” to motions practice, information about more than 70 years of American foreign policy—“each and every instance” from “1945 to present” where the U.S.government “engaged in operations to interfere with elections and political processes in any foreign country,”

    Mueller's team responded to IRA's requests.
    [*=1]The counsel for IRA also requested access to the proceedings of the grand jury that indicted them. On June 1, 2018, the government entered its argument opposing that special concession.

That does not look like prosecutors are "struggling with what to do."
​
 
JacksinPA said:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/12/mueller-russia-midterms-influence-641851

Prosecutors are trying to block intelligence agencies and absent defendants from seeing evidence in the investigation of interference in the 2016 election.

Russian intelligence agencies are trying to meddle in the 2018 U.S. midterm elections much as they did two years ago, special counsel Robert Mueller’s office asserted on Tuesday in a court filing.

The claim of active election-focused intelligence operations came as prosecutors moved to block more than a dozen Russians who are charged criminally in the prior effort from gaining access to evidence gathered as that case was assembled.
====================================
Releasing this evidence would compromise the investigation & reveal sources & methods to the Russian intelligence services.
Click to expand...

I voted Republican........................because of the Russians. :lamo
 
JacksinPA said:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/12/mueller-russia-midterms-influence-641851

Prosecutors are trying to block intelligence agencies and absent defendants from seeing evidence in the investigation of interference in the 2016 election.

Russian intelligence agencies are trying to meddle in the 2018 U.S. midterm elections much as they did two years ago, special counsel Robert Mueller’s office asserted on Tuesday in a court filing.

The claim of active election-focused intelligence operations came as prosecutors moved to block more than a dozen Russians who are charged criminally in the prior effort from gaining access to evidence gathered as that case was assembled.
====================================
Releasing this evidence would compromise the investigation & reveal sources & methods to the Russian intelligence services.
Click to expand...

The investigation just became a bigger joke.
 
Xelor said:
They didn't. The prosecutors are merely requiring that defendants appear for arraignment, bail hearings, etc. prior to being given their right of discovery.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it don't work like that. They indicted the defendents. That means the prosecutors are ready to go to trial.

All this fiddle ****ing around is a good sign that they don't have a case.
 
Xelor said:
Number 1:
I know of only one that's done so out of the two (though technically three) firms that were indicted, Concord Management and Consulting, LLC, Internet Research Agency, LLC, and Concord Catering. The "Concords" are related entities and they provided funding to IRA.​

Number 2:

  • [*=1]On April 11, 2018, counsel for Internet Research Agency (IRA) entered appearances on behalf of one of the defendants, the "Concords," yet the attorney did not acknowledge whether s/he had been authorized to receive service of the summons on behalf of Concord. At issue is that at that point, Concord hadn't been served and summoned to appear, though the charges against the "Concords" had been filed.

    Furthermore, counsel submitted RFIs to the government for a bill of particulars, wherein they demanded 51 categories of information and discovery, including of all statements, recordings, or electronic surveillance of Concord officers and employees, and, as “a predicate” to motions practice, information about more than 70 years of American foreign policy—“each and every instance” from “1945 to present” where the U.S.government “engaged in operations to interfere with elections and political processes in any foreign country,”

    Mueller's team responded to IRA's requests.
    [*=1]The counsel for IRA also requested access to the proceedings of the grand jury that indicted them. On June 1, 2018, the government entered its argument opposing that special concession.

That does not look like prosecutors are "struggling with what to do."
​
Click to expand...

i believe the "defense" is entitled to ALL discovery, which right now, the prosecution is trying to withhold

i know Mueller doesnt want to undress himself in court, but when you indict, this is the result

And he had to know this was a possibility
 
Xelor said:
Number 1:
I know of only one that's done so out of the two (though technically three) firms that were indicted, Concord Management and Consulting, LLC, Internet Research Agency, LLC, and Concord Catering. The "Concords" are related entities and they provided funding to IRA.​

Number 2:

  • [*=1]On April 11, 2018, counsel for Internet Research Agency (IRA) entered appearances on behalf of one of the defendants, the "Concords," yet the attorney did not acknowledge whether s/he had been authorized to receive service of the summons on behalf of Concord. At issue is that at that point, Concord hadn't been served and summoned to appear, though the charges against the "Concords" had been filed.

    Furthermore, counsel submitted RFIs to the government for a bill of particulars, wherein they demanded 51 categories of information and discovery, including of all statements, recordings, or electronic surveillance of Concord officers and employees, and, as “a predicate” to motions practice, information about more than 70 years of American foreign policy—“each and every instance” from “1945 to present” where the U.S.government “engaged in operations to interfere with elections and political processes in any foreign country,”

    Mueller's team responded to IRA's requests.
    [*=1]The counsel for IRA also requested access to the proceedings of the grand jury that indicted them. On June 1, 2018, the government entered its argument opposing that special concession.

That does not look like prosecutors are "struggling with what to do."
​
Click to expand...

OK. Yes, that sounds like prosecutors are struggling with how to deal with the situation. They initially tried to not allow the company, asked for delays, and is now concerned that information could be passed on to other defendants.
 
American said:
I voted Republican........................because of the Russians. :lamo
Click to expand...

I was going to vote Hillary and then I saw this ad on Facebook of Hillary literally fighting Jesus... from that point my choice was clear.
 
jmotivator said:
I was going to vote Hillary and then I saw this ad on Facebook of Hillary literally fighting Jesus... from that point my choice was clear.
Click to expand...

Yeah, no one fights Jesus.
 
gdgyva said:
i believe the "defense" is entitled to ALL discovery, which right now, the prosecution is trying to withhold

i know Mueller doesnt want to undress himself in court, but when you indict, this is the result

And he had to know this was a possibility
Click to expand...

......................................................
 
washunut said:
Not sure about the ethics of indicting someone you don't feel you can convict. Scary we the power we give to these prosecutors.
Click to expand...

That's what happens when they have to prosecute crimes without victims.
 
dcsports said:
They are show indictments. I questioned from the start how we could ever prosecute Russians for 'hacking', because the intelligence agencies can't release the evidence -- either because the sources are sensitive or the methods are legally questionable.
Click to expand...

If there is an indictment, co-conspiratora can be indicted under it.

So trump Jr., for instance, can be indicted for conspiring to defraud the united states by interfering in its elections for the meeting at trump tower to get the damaging info from Hillary from the Russian government

The emails back and forth are the first two legal of a conspiracy charge.

Going to the meeting to get that info was the overt act that establishes the third leg.
 
What if...? said:
If there is an indictment, co-conspiratora can be indicted under it.

So trump Jr., for instance, can be indicted for conspiring to defraud the united states by interfering in its elections for the meeting at trump tower to get the damaging info from Hillary from the Russian government

The emails back and forth are the first two legal of a conspiracy charge.

Going to the meeting to get that info was the overt act that establishes the third leg.
Click to expand...

That is just so silly and so wrong, I don't know where to begin.
 
What if...? said:
If there is an indictment, co-conspiratora can be indicted under it.

So trump Jr., for instance, can be indicted for conspiring to defraud the united states by interfering in its elections for the meeting at trump tower to get the damaging info from Hillary from the Russian government

The emails back and forth are the first two legal of a conspiracy charge.

Going to the meeting to get that info was the overt act that establishes the third leg.
Click to expand...

That wasn't a crime.
 
What if...? said:
If there is an indictment, co-conspiratora can be indicted under it.

So trump Jr., for instance, can be indicted for conspiring to defraud the united states by interfering in its elections for the meeting at trump tower to get the damaging info from Hillary from the Russian government

The emails back and forth are the first two legal of a conspiracy charge.

Going to the meeting to get that info was the overt act that establishes the third leg.
Click to expand...

In assuming such, one has to assume the "thing of value" was or is illegal. We don't know that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom