Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!

Mueller’s ‘witch hunt’ snags another witch

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by fastsix, Jun 8, 2018.

  1. g8orbill

    g8orbill Old Gator VIP Member

    98,702
    12,492
    3,683
    Apr 3, 2007
    Clermont, Fl
  2. duchen

    duchen VIP Member

    4,554
    664
    378
    Nov 25, 2017
    No, he is not. I suggest you read Mueller’s filing instead of fringe, partisan comments. Mueller has agreed to give the materials to Concord’s defense counsel. Mueller’s objection is to the material being passed to defendants who have not submitted to the jurisdiction of the court. He is right; charged fugitives do not have the right to discovery. These filings are available on line and primary source information is better than self-affirming political spin on what is said and what the law actually is. (Note that there are other grounds for Mueller's argument as well).

    https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000163-f590-dd70-a56b-f59a8cc60002

    The government and defense counsel have agreed on many procedures designed to enable the government to turn over discovery expeditiously and without redactions while protecting information that affects government interests involved in this case, as well as privacy interests of victims and uncharged third parties. Defense counsel also agrees that discovery is only to be used for the defense of the case. The parties also agree to limit review of discovery to authorized parties (but disagree on who should be permitted to be designated an authorized party). Defense counsel also agrees that for certain discovery designated as sensitive, defense counsel will maintain discovery at their U.S. offices and agrees not to physically or electronically transport any such materials outside the United States.

    The government and Concord Management, however, have not been able to reach agreement on two key provisions. First, due to the number of co-defendants who have chosen not to appear in the United States and are beyond the reach of U.S. legal process, the government seeks, in the first instance, not to allow any co-defendant charged in this criminal case to review discovery until the co-defendant appears before this Court. (Proposed Order, ¶ 2).

    Second, to avoid unnecessarily undermining ongoing law enforcement and national security investigations, the proposed protective order outlines a mechanism to regulate disclosure of particularly sensitive material to foreign nationals. Disclosure of sensitive discovery would initially be limited to domestic defense counsel. (Proposed Order, ¶ 11). After review of the materials, defense counsel could seek permission from the Court to make additional disclosures (subject to the other provisions in the protective order). (Proposed Order, ¶ 11). For any foreign national to whom defense counsel wishes to disclose sensitive materials, defense counsel would provide a firewall counsel for the government (separate from the prosecution team) with the name of any such individual contemporaneous to its request for Court approval.1 If needed, firewall counsel would alert the Court to any concerns or considerations about such disclosures.2 (Proposed Order, ¶ 11).

    As long as Prigozhin chooses not to appear personally in front of this Court, he is not entitled to review any discovery in this case. Courts generally do not allow a charged defendant to seek benefits from the judicial system whose authority he or she evades. See Degen v. United States, 517 U.S. 820, 824 (1996); see, e.g., In re Assets of Martin, 1 F.3d 1351, 1356 (3d Cir. 1993) (noting the “principle of mutuality” that “if a defendant is not willing to suffer the penalties of the crime,” the court “should not afford the defendant an opportunity to improve his or her position”); Williams v. Holbrook, 691 F.2d 3, 14 (1st Cir. 1982) (noting the impropriety of allowing an absent defendant to “opt in” if a matter “is decided favorably”). Courts have rejected motions for discovery and similar relief by defendants who refused to submit themselves to the Court. As one district court explained, Upon learning charges have been brought for a crime in the United States, the fugitive, through counsel, could then request discovery from the government. This would allow the fugitive to preview or test the strength of the government’s evidence without being subject to the court’s jurisdiction. United States v. Nabepanha, 200 F.R.D. 480, 483 (S.D. Fla. 2001); see also United States v. Gorcyca, No. 08-CR-9 (FB), 2008 WL 4610297, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 16, 2008)
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2018
    • Informative Informative x 3
  3. busigator96

    busigator96 Hooked since summer 1997!

    101,057
    6,187
    3,058
    Apr 10, 2007
    Gainesville, FL
    There is no witch hunt. They are gathering plenty of evidence to throw that bum out this fall! ;)
     
  4. gator_fever

    gator_fever GC Hall of Fame

    3,894
    493
    343
    Nov 3, 2013
     
  5. duchen

    duchen VIP Member

    4,554
    664
    378
    Nov 25, 2017
    Pointless, straw man argument by a sycophant. He invents a story to swat it down. Is it his assumption that there was no hacking? Or, that Mueller does not have evidence to indict hackers? Just more meaningless drivel that convinces the fringe right that what happened, did not. You do understand that in a conspiracy case, an investigation of the scope and identity of the conspirators occurs, including whether the scope included a conspiracy concerning the release of the hacked information?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  6. gator_fever

    gator_fever GC Hall of Fame

    3,894
    493
    343
    Nov 3, 2013


    Well to Mueller's credit he did actually indict a bunch of Russian trolls for election cartoons with indictments that looked almost like they were cut and pasted from a magazine article on Russian trolls. Now he has such secret evidence of how he caught them he doesn't want to comply with discovery since they decided to have legal counsel in Court. :D
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2018
    • Funny Funny x 2
  7. fastsix

    fastsix Premium Member

    8,751
    754
    833
    Apr 11, 2007
    Seattle
    Another Russia Today (RT) link? You sure do seem to like posting Russian state propaganda. It's not a very good source to support your arguments that trump has no ties to Russia.
     
  8. Gatorrick22

    Gatorrick22 VIP Member

    60,022
    8,829
    2,358
    Apr 3, 2007
    Lol at this post title... Is Mueller going to burn this "witch" at the stake too? :rolleyes:
     
  9. Minister_of_Information

    Minister_of_Information Under budget & ahead of schedule Premium Member

    14,287
    763
    673
    Apr 3, 2007
    Mar-A-Lago
    Well if the witch isn't Hillary, we talking Donna Shalala or Sally Yates? Janet Napolitano? Cankles II? Susan Rice? Samantha Power? Marina Abramovic? Nellie Ohr? Nancy Salzman? Sara Bronfman?

    Give us a hint. Enquiring minds want to know.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  10. BigCroc

    BigCroc Premium Member

    824
    136
    218
    Apr 3, 2007
    [​IMG]
     
    • Creative Creative x 1
  11. Minister_of_Information

    Minister_of_Information Under budget & ahead of schedule Premium Member

    14,287
    763
    673
    Apr 3, 2007
    Mar-A-Lago
    I'll give you points for creativity, with the caveat that most of the women I listed are likely to be actual witches, and that you'd be cool with that too if it was openly stated rather than denied for political reasons.
     
  12. duchen

    duchen VIP Member

    4,554
    664
    378
    Nov 25, 2017