"It's not theirs, Its mine"

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[bripat9643]

He still has a security clearance, numskull.

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[bripat9643]

The DOJ aas already admitted the Mar A Lago invasion was a con. No sensitive documents were found.

 

[bripat9643]

The Washington Post Quietly Drops 'Bombshell' About FBI's Trump Mar-A-Lago Raid Days After Midterm Election

It was a Nuclear Hoax. The Biden administration’s unprecedented raid on former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence is shaping up to be one of the most egregious abuses of power that has ever been committed by a sitting president.

It is now nearly indisputable that it was a politically motivated raid over a paperwork dispute tantamount not only to blatant election interference into the 2022 midterms, but also a pre-emptive salvo on Biden’s presumptive presidential rival in the 2024 election.

The FBI’s raid at the behest of the National Archives and Records Administration has not yielded the “nuclear secrets” that the Washington Post reported in August were in Trump’s possession. Instead, days after a highly contested election where Democrats relied in part on the unsubstantiated reports to keep Trump’s name in the news, and thus to turn out its party base, the Washington Post has effectively made a guilty confession: There is “no there, there.”

The Post is now reporting that a “review by agents and prosecutors found no discernible business interest in the Mar-a-Lago documents, people familiar with the matter said.”

“As part of the investigation, federal authorities reviewed the classified documents that were recovered from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home and private club, looking to see if the types of information contained in them pointed to any kind of pattern or similarities, according to these people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation,” the Post reported.

“That review has not found any apparent business advantage to the types of classified information in Trump’s possession, these people said,” the report continued. “FBI interviews with witnesses so far, they said, also do not point to any nefarious effort by Trump to leverage, sell or use the government secrets. Instead,

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[bripat9643]

Weismann is the biggest douchebag in Washington. Prosecuting the innocent is his specialty.

 

[bripat9643]

A special counsel will be appointed to investigate Biden the minute Trump is inaugurate.

 

[Chillicothe]

Prosecuting the innocent is his specialty.

Does he own a record of obtaining convictions?
Of confessions?

 

[bripat9643]

Does he own a record of obtaining convictions?
Of confessions?

He has a record of convicting innocent people, jackass. I fully realize that Dim scumbag like you don't care of people are innocent.

 

[Chillicothe]

He has a record of convicting innocent people, jackass. I fully realize that Dim scumbag like you don't care of people are innocent.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, little poster 'bripat', let's put some metrics on your assertion. Quantifying the man's work could help us all understand the context, the scale, and the comparatives on this phenomena you suggest.

So, you say he convicts "innocent people", OK ......... how many?
And how many of those compared to how many of people who were actually guilty?
Meaning, did 10 innocent people get prosecuted (he doesn't 'convict'....juries & judges do that)....versus every 10 guilty who were prosecuted?
Or would it be 4 innocent versus 400 guilty? Or vice versa?

And how do you know those stats that you would like to underpin your argument? Meaning, what sources can you provide the forum that can give members here some confidence that what you say is credible?

Thanx in advance.

 

[bripat9643]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, little poster 'bripat', let's put some metrics on your assertion. Quantifying the man's work could help us all understand the context, the scale, and the comparatives on this phenomena you suggest.

So, you say he convicts "innocent people", OK ......... how many?
And how many of those compared to how many of people who were actually guilty?
Meaning, did 10 innocent people get prosecuted (he doesn't 'convict'....juries & judges do that)....versus every 10 guilty who were prosecuted?
Or would it be 4 innocent versus 400 guilty? Or vice versa?

And how do you know those stats that you would like to underpin your argument? Meaning, what sources can you provide the forum that can give members here some confidence that what you say is credible?

Thanx in advance.

Explosive New Docs Reveal Weissmann’s Misconduct In Enron Case

The now unsealed records expose efforts by Weissmann, and the Enron Task Force he led, to intimidate witnesses and to interfere in the attorney-client relationship of a cooperating witness. Several affidavits unsealed last week catalogued veiled threats made to witnesses the Enron defendants sought to interview. However, because many of the attorneys would speak only off the record to Enron’s attorneys, the courts refused to consider the affidavits sufficient to prove prosecutorial misconduct.

Two attorneys, however, were willing to testify. In a just-unsealed affidavit, one lawyer stated that an FBI agent working for the Enron Task Force overseen by Weissmann warned his client against talking to the Enron defense team because “those are bad guys.” The second attorney stated that an FBI agent had made veiled threats against his client in a separate Enron trial.

Still more troubling, though, was an email Weissmann sent to William Dolan, one of the two attorneys representing a cooperating witness, Ken Rice, concerning Rice’s second attorney, Dan Cogdell. Weissmann’s email accused Cogdell of having a conflict of interest because Cogdell was seen talking with another defense lawyer. In the email, Weissmann suggested Cogdell’s supposed conflict left Rice two options: “instructs his lawyers who they can speak to and who they cannot;” [or] determine[] that his attorney has not acted in Rice’s best interests and gets rid of him.”

The Enron defendants believed Weissmann’s email sought to silence Rice, but because Rice’s attorney testified that the email did not “affect Rice’s decision on whether to cooperate with the defense,” the court refused to find “the email was an improper threat.” Nonetheless, a federal appellate court noted that “Weissmann would have done well to have brought the issue to the court’s attention instead of emailing Rice’s lawyer.”


While the Enron defendants believed Weissmann’s email sought to silence Rice, Rice’s attorney, Cogdell, saw Weissmann as instead attempting to force him off the case. In a three-page letter Cogdell sent in response to Weissmann’s email—the entirety of which is worth a read, both for the sake of clarity and amusement—Cogdell wrote: “You conclude, with absolutely no basis whatsoever, that I have ‘violated client confidences of Rice.’ Nothing could be further from the truth and any suggestion is not only without merit it is nothing more than a transparent attempt on your part to ‘disqualify’ a lawyer whom you dislike because of the result your task force suffered in the Barge case. I will state what you lack the candor to put in writing—you do not like me. Rest easy, the feeling is mutual.”

(The “Barge case” referred to the first criminal trial brought by the Enron Task Force—and one that ended in an embarrassing defeat for the government when a jury acquitted Cogdell’s client.)

In addition to Weissmann’s inappropriate attempt to push Cogdell off the case, a 17-page report unsealed on Thursday by expert witness Michael Tigar detailed many more vagrancies. Especially troubling to Tigar was the Enron Task Force’s use of “multiple grand juries working over several years” not to “return fresh indictments or start new cases, but to make the threat of indictment real and tangible” to the nearly 90 unindicted co-conspirators.

In its reply to my motion to unseal the documents, the Department of Justice downplays these facts, by stressing that the Fifth Circuit held that the Enron Task Force’s conduct did not violate the defendants’ constitutional rights. In fact, the DOJ spent nearly one-third of the approximate 30-page brief defending Weissmann’s conduct even though that discussion was entirely irrelevant to the question of whether the documents should be unsealed—something the DOJ agreed was appropriate.

In any event, although it is true that Weissmann’s conduct in the Enron case did not reach the level of a constitutional violation, that doesn’t mean it was appropriate. Nor was Weissmann’s disconcerting behavior isolated: Weissmann has demonstrated a “reckless win-until-reverse modus operandi that has destroyed countless lives. Weissmann’s tactics sent four Merrill Lynch executives to prison, until a federal appellate court overturned their convictions and freed the men—but not before upending their lives.”

Weissmann also destroyed the former accounting giant Arthur Andersen by pushing a phony criminal case. The Supreme Court eventually overturned it unanimously, but only years later, after the damage had been done.

Given Weissmann’s past, as demonstrated by the recently unsealed court documents, and the politically charged nature of the special counsel’s investigation, Mueller would have been wise to have selected individuals beyond reproach for his team. And that is clearly not Weissmann.

 

[SeaMajor7]

Looks like little poster, Chillicothe, just got its ass handed to itself.

 

[bripat9643]

Looks like little poster, Chillicothe, just got its ass handed to itself.

Prog claims almost always turn out to be pure horseshit.

 

[Chillicothe]

"Looks like little poster........ just got its ass handed to itself."

"Prog claims almost always turn out to be pure horseshit."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, if the assertion by SeaMajor is that my avatar has failed to persuade in some discussions on this venue.....well, he is right.
However, let's not presume that was the intent of any of my avatar's posts. He's ambitious and energetic, pro-active one might say. However, he recognizes that persuading the QAnon & MAGA fanboys that parade here is simply a bridge too far.

OK, that is just a general statement. More specifically, to our request for context and scale of Li'l bripat's charge that this prosecutor in question, Weissman, "... has a record of convicting innocent people, jackass.".......well, we simply do not have any data provided by Li'l 'bripat to substantiate his claim.

True he demonstrates, in post #1,537, his desire to prove a 'record of' of wrongful convictions, but......but that is not what is contained in Li'l bripat's submitted documentation. He asserts that some affidavits by opposing attorneys....the defendant attorney's in this case......prove wrongful conviction.
Not so.

As contained in Li'l bripat's post this is not a 'conviction' issue. It is opposing attorneys complaining about prosecutorial tactics that they didn't like. No conviction issue whatsoever. Even the defendant, Enron, is not party to this internecine food fight. It is between two opposing teams of attorneys. Further, these opposing attorney affidavits were rejected by the court. ("the courts refused to consider the affidavits sufficient to prove prosecutorial misconduct.)

So, while my avatar applaud's both Li'l bripat's and SeaMajor's enthusiasm and participation in this discussion.....we would still suggest a little more homework for each. And a little less QAnon histrionics.

Just sayin'