Unprecedented: Mueller has 'heavy burden' to prove Russian firm's intent to defraud

The Purge

Platinum Member
Aug 16, 2018
17,881
7,860
400
Concord Management and Consulting showed up for trial... unexpectedly, for Mueller. Mueller’s “crack” team likely charged Concord, along with the other Russians, just to plump up their stats. Now Mueller looks like an idiot charging fake crimes.

Let’s face it, there was only one “crime” committed in 2016. Trump beat Clinton, and that to the Left is the “crime”.

He defended the indictment by telling the judge that to prove a conspiracy to defraud the U.S., there doesn’t need to be an underlying law.

Translation: The government can throw you into jail even though you have broken no laws.

Scary. I guess the next step for the Deep State is re-education centers.



Special counsel Robert Mueller is churning in uncharted legal waters as he tries to nail a Russian firm for bankrolling Moscow’s deceptive social media invasion into the 2016 election.

It is not only Concord Management and Consulting LLC’s attorney saying this. Defense attorney Eric Dubelier said in court that Mr. Mueller created a “make-believe crime” and that the “real Justice Department” would never have brought such an indictment.

U.S. District Judge Dabney L. Friedrich also is expressing doubts about Mr. Mueller’s unique prosecutorial adventure, though she is not saying she will dismiss the charges, as Mr. Dubelier has requested.

A review of the transcript of an Oct. 15 hearing shows the judge’s reservations. She said of Mr. Mueller’s team, “They’ve got a heavy burden at trial to prove that knowledge.” She was referring to awareness that Concord knowingly defrauded the Federal Election Commission, the Justice Department and the State Department.

Read more at amp.washingtontimes.com ...
 
He got an indictment, dummy, do you know what that means??


PROVEN!!

Fail, dummy.
Since when is an indictment proof of anything?....Did you ever hear the old quote you could indict a ham sandwich....and you certainly are PORKY enough!
 
He got an indictment, dummy, do you know what that means??


PROVEN!!

Fail, dummy.
Since when is an indictment proof of anything?....Did you ever hear the old quote you could indict a ham sandwich....and you certainly are PORKY enough!

You are correct in noting there is a major difference between a grand jury indictment and a trail jury verdict. Grand jury indictments are generally easy to get because the prosecutor usually presents only the evidence he wants the jurors to hear. He does not have to present exculpatory evidence and he is even allowed to introduce evidence that would be inadmissible in a trail (such as hearsay testimony). Additionally, defendants and their attorneys have no right to appear to present their evidence and challenge the evidence presented by the prosecution.

Note: in the grand jury case of officer Wilson (the one who shot and killed Micheal Brown, the prosecutor opted to present evidence both for and against the defendant. This he had the right to do but not the obligation. I believe he made the right decision. It's all about evidence and ethics. We know that those who said Wilson shot Brown as he was running away are liars. The prosecutor knows it, too. Would anyone prefer he call only known liars to give perjured testimony just to send a case to trail? There is one other important consideration: The prosecutor had to know that there was no way in hell that Wilson would be found guilty in a criminal trial. It was better to let the grand jury end the charade rather than get a phony indictment and set the stage for more violence when the inevitable acquittal came down.

Anyone who believes that a grand jury indictment is evidence of a crime knows nothing about the law or due process. I have a JD (Juris Doctorate) and I know what I am talking about
 

Forum List

Back
Top