Fed prosecutors drop charges against Russians.

Story

Apparently the best time to slide a false charge under the radar is during a pandemic.

Your own story acknowledges that it's much more likely than not that the charges, that these Russians spread political lies on social media, were true.
It's just that US Federal Court isn't the right forum for disputes between governments.  I'm surprised they let it get this far.

Are you saying that they violated federal law or no? Because, if the federal court system isn't the right forum, then they didn't break federal law.

---

Your own story acknowledges that it's much more likely than not that the charges, that these Russians spread political lies on social media, were true.
It's just that US Federal Court isn't the right forum for disputes between governments.  I'm surprised they let it get this far.

Are you saying that they violated federal law or no? Because, if the federal court system isn't the right forum, then they didn't break federal law.

That doesn't follow.
The individuals (almost certainly) broke federal law.  Whether or not a legal procedure takes place now doesn't change the fact of what they did then.
But because they enjoy the protection of Russia, they can not be tried in US courts.  Russia could argue that US law doesn't apply to these people, but the US would argue it does.  
Treaties between the US and Russia would have to set the venue, procedures, and applicable laws for any trial.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Are you saying that they violated federal law or no? Because, if the federal court system isn't the right forum, then they didn't break federal law.

That doesn't follow.
The individuals (almost certainly) broke federal law.  Whether or not a legal procedure takes place now doesn't change the fact of what they did then.
But because they enjoy the protection of Russia, they can not be tried in US courts.  Russia could argue that US law doesn't apply to these people, but the US would argue it does.  
Treaties between the US and Russia would have to set the venue, procedures, and applicable laws for any trial.

The ones who volunteered to stand trial in the US were never prosecuted, with the Feds delaying and delaying more until finally they managed to admit it was a lie and bury it in a week where nothing was being covered unless it was about the pandemic. It's obvious that Mueller only charged them for political reasons, fully expecting that he could get a pile of "see how much we are discovering," all the while knowing it was meaningless but believing that the charges would never be contested.

Two years. Tens of millions of dollars. One process crime that appears phony. One unrelated tax violation unearthed. A bunch of foreigners who couldn't be prosecuted unless they chose to be, including some who weren't prosecuted after they challenged the charge.

And "almost certainly broke federal law" is bull [BLEEP].

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

I guess you didn't read Rosenstein's letter appointing Mueller, unless you're one of the useful idiots buying the nonsense that it was based on the Steele Dossier.

Had Obama done more than tell Putin to cut it out (which he did) and Brennan warning his counterpart, you and your fellow Trumpettes would have cried foul because he was trying to aid Clinton's campaign.

You got it bad, man. Lenin had it right.

Please.  Go watch jim Jordan's cross.  It's priceless.

"Yeah, that’s Strauss"

I watched it. Jim Jordan's rapid fire histrionics were typical deflections. Good job ignoring the rest of my post. Lenin would have loved you.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

Please.  Go watch jim Jordan's cross.  It's priceless.

Don't bother. This person is so confused it's hard to respond to. He'd rather just hurl insults or use elementary name-calling. I did appreciate Jordan's cross, and oddly enough on the other side, Nadler was concise. The "nobody is above the law" after every Dem questioning was a bit over theatrical.

So you just hurl an insult while accusing me of hurling insults.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

Are you saying that they violated federal law or no? Because, if the federal court system isn't the right forum, then they didn't break federal law.

That doesn't follow.
The individuals (almost certainly) broke federal law.  Whether or not a legal procedure takes place now doesn't change the fact of what they did then.
But because they enjoy the protection of Russia, they can not be tried in US courts.  Russia could argue that US law doesn't apply to these people, but the US would argue it does.  
Treaties between the US and Russia would have to set the venue, procedures, and applicable laws for any trial.

You said federal court isn't the right venue. Is it the correct venue except that Russia is shielding them from prosecution or is it the wrong venue and they shouldn't have been charged? How is Russia protecting them, BTW? They showed up to court. The court proceedings didn't take place because the prosecution voluntarily dropped the charges. Existing treaties already establish rules for these instances. The government isn't going to negotiate where these crimes would be prosecuted. They have jurisdiction or they don't. 

Governments can negotiate the extradition of foreign nationals based on applicable laws but that isn't happening here.

---

That doesn't follow.
The individuals (almost certainly) broke federal law.  Whether or not a legal procedure takes place now doesn't change the fact of what they did then.
But because they enjoy the protection of Russia, they can not be tried in US courts.  Russia could argue that US law doesn't apply to these people, but the US would argue it does.  
Treaties between the US and Russia would have to set the venue, procedures, and applicable laws for any trial.

The ones who volunteered to stand trial in the US were never prosecuted, with the Feds delaying and delaying more until finally they managed to admit it was a lie and bury it in a week where nothing was being covered unless it was about the pandemic. It's obvious that Mueller only charged them for political reasons, fully expecting that he could get a pile of "see how much we are discovering," all the while knowing it was meaningless but believing that the charges would never be contested.

Two years. Tens of millions of dollars. One process crime that appears phony. One unrelated tax violation unearthed. A bunch of foreigners who couldn't be prosecuted unless they chose to be, including some who weren't prosecuted after they challenged the charge.

And "almost certainly broke federal law" is bull [BLEEP].

You defend Russians more zealously than a younger Bernie Sanders...

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

The ones who volunteered to stand trial in the US were never prosecuted, with the Feds delaying and delaying more until finally they managed to admit it was a lie and bury it in a week where nothing was being covered unless it was about the pandemic. It's obvious that Mueller only charged them for political reasons, fully expecting that he could get a pile of "see how much we are discovering," all the while knowing it was meaningless but believing that the charges would never be contested.

Two years. Tens of millions of dollars. One process crime that appears phony. One unrelated tax violation unearthed. A bunch of foreigners who couldn't be prosecuted unless they chose to be, including some who weren't prosecuted after they challenged the charge.

And "almost certainly broke federal law" is bull [BLEEP].

You defend Russians more zealously than a younger Bernie Sanders...

Not at all. Personally I think the Russians are not competent enough to do anything meaningful. If another country was messing with our elections it was probably China.

How do you defend your "almost certainty"? Just because Mueller claimed it? If you have a good basis for your certainty I'd like to hear it.

I base my opinion on the fact that Mueller could have jumped in and had them tried them in court immediately, and instead delayed, delayed, delayed until it was finally swept under the rug. That's strong evidence that he was just making up the charges.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

You defend Russians more zealously than a younger Bernie Sanders...

Not at all. Personally I think the Russians are not competent enough to do anything meaningful. If another country was messing with our elections it was probably China.

How do you defend your "almost certainty"? Just because Mueller claimed it? If you have a good basis for your certainty I'd like to hear it.

I base my opinion on the fact that Mueller could have jumped in and had them tried them in court immediately, and instead delayed, delayed, delayed until it was finally swept under the rug. That's strong evidence that he was just making up the charges.

I tend to agree that Russian propaganda had minimal influence, especially because it was just amplifying stuff that was already out there in our political conversation, but, nonetheless, we have laws against foreigners participating in our political campaigns.  Just because you only gave my wife a scratch, doesn't mean we can't press charges against you for battery.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Wasn't it a Russian ad firm that would run ads of whatever the customer provided? And wasn't it a total of $64,000? Are we supposed to think that swayed the election more than Google's tilted search results?
And what about Bloomberg? He spent $700 million trying to sway the election and the effect was minuscule.

---

Not at all. Personally I think the Russians are not competent enough to do anything meaningful. If another country was messing with our elections it was probably China.

How do you defend your "almost certainty"? Just because Mueller claimed it? If you have a good basis for your certainty I'd like to hear it.

I base my opinion on the fact that Mueller could have jumped in and had them tried them in court immediately, and instead delayed, delayed, delayed until it was finally swept under the rug. That's strong evidence that he was just making up the charges.

I tend to agree that Russian propaganda had minimal influence, especially because it was just amplifying stuff that was already out there in our political conversation, but, nonetheless, we have laws against foreigners participating in our political campaigns.  Just because you only gave my wife a scratch, doesn't mean we can't press charges against you for battery.

Once again I ask, how do you know those particular Russians, or any Russians, were putting out propaganda?

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

That doesn't follow.
The individuals (almost certainly) broke federal law.  Whether or not a legal procedure takes place now doesn't change the fact of what they did then.
But because they enjoy the protection of Russia, they can not be tried in US courts.  Russia could argue that US law doesn't apply to these people, but the US would argue it does.  
Treaties between the US and Russia would have to set the venue, procedures, and applicable laws for any trial.

You said federal court isn't the right venue. Is it the correct venue except that Russia is shielding them from prosecution or is it the wrong venue and they shouldn't have been charged? How is Russia protecting them, BTW? They showed up to court. The court proceedings didn't take place because the prosecution voluntarily dropped the charges. Existing treaties already establish rules for these instances. The government isn't going to negotiate where these crimes would be prosecuted. They have jurisdiction or they don't. 

Governments can negotiate the extradition of foreign nationals based on applicable laws but that isn't happening here.

A defendant in the US system has the right to discover or subpoena anything related to the charges they face. Russia's government pretty clearly intended to use that right to discover our spies and their secrets. US federal courts were not designed to cope with that. A special tribunal would have to be set up if they wanted to pursue these charges further.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

You said federal court isn't the right venue. Is it the correct venue except that Russia is shielding them from prosecution or is it the wrong venue and they shouldn't have been charged? How is Russia protecting them, BTW? They showed up to court. The court proceedings didn't take place because the prosecution voluntarily dropped the charges. Existing treaties already establish rules for these instances. The government isn't going to negotiate where these crimes would be prosecuted. They have jurisdiction or they don't. 

Governments can negotiate the extradition of foreign nationals based on applicable laws but that isn't happening here.

A defendant in the US system has the right to discover or subpoena anything related to the charges they face. Russia's government pretty clearly intended to use that right to discover our spies and their secrets. US federal courts were not designed to cope with that. A special tribunal would have to be set up if they wanted to pursue these charges further.

The government charged them because they felt they had sufficient evidence to prove their case. They knew beforehand what would be available during discovery. If they didn't want that information available, then they shouldn't have charged them. The courts are fully prepared for that, so I'm not sure where you get the idea that they couldn't "cope" with it. The Russian government had nothing to do with the discovery process and the defendants showing up to prove their innocence. You just said a bunch of random unrelated things.

---

A defendant in the US system has the right to discover or subpoena anything related to the charges they face. Russia's government pretty clearly intended to use that right to discover our spies and their secrets. US federal courts were not designed to cope with that. A special tribunal would have to be set up if they wanted to pursue these charges further.

The government charged them because they felt they had sufficient evidence to prove their case. They knew beforehand what would be available during discovery. If they didn't want that information available, then they shouldn't have charged them. The courts are fully prepared for that, so I'm not sure where you get the idea that they couldn't "cope" with it. The Russian government had nothing to do with the discovery process and the defendants showing up to prove their innocence. You just said a bunch of random unrelated things.

The prosecutors couls get all the information they need through the legal discovery process. The problem is that the defense can as well.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

The government charged them because they felt they had sufficient evidence to prove their case. They knew beforehand what would be available during discovery. If they didn't want that information available, then they shouldn't have charged them. The courts are fully prepared for that, so I'm not sure where you get the idea that they couldn't "cope" with it. The Russian government had nothing to do with the discovery process and the defendants showing up to prove their innocence. You just said a bunch of random unrelated things.

The prosecutors couls get all the information they need through the legal discovery process. The problem is that the defense can as well.

The "problem" is that the Witch Hunt was so anxious to smear the President that they simply fabricated a case and pretty much everyone with a brain can see that pretty clearly..

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

The government charged them because they felt they had sufficient evidence to prove their case. They knew beforehand what would be available during discovery. If they didn't want that information available, then they shouldn't have charged them. The courts are fully prepared for that, so I'm not sure where you get the idea that they couldn't "cope" with it. The Russian government had nothing to do with the discovery process and the defendants showing up to prove their innocence. You just said a bunch of random unrelated things.

The prosecutors couls get all the information they need through the legal discovery process. The problem is that the defense can as well.

How is it a problem when the accused is allowed to see the evidence against them? And how does that have anything to do with prosecutors dropping the case they made against them?

I’ve never once heard of an instance where prosecutors dropped a case because they didn’t want the defense to know what evidence they had.

---

The prosecutors couls get all the information they need through the legal discovery process. The problem is that the defense can as well.

How is it a problem when the accused is allowed to see the evidence against them? And how does that have anything to do with prosecutors dropping the case they made against them?

I’ve never once heard of an instance where prosecutors dropped a case because they didn’t want the defense to know what evidence they had.

I guess you haven't paid very much attention to the gitmo proceedings..

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

How is it a problem when the accused is allowed to see the evidence against them? And how does that have anything to do with prosecutors dropping the case they made against them?

I’ve never once heard of an instance where prosecutors dropped a case because they didn’t want the defense to know what evidence they had.

I guess you haven't paid very much attention to the gitmo proceedings..

Please explain how charging someone can be justified while simultaneously not wanting the defense to see the evidence you have against them? Anyone that doesn’t want you to see the evidence is hiding it for nefarious purposes. 

I know I’m wasting my time because you never actually answer the questions that prove your points wrong; you just deflect until the attention is off the original topic.

---

I guess you haven't paid very much attention to the gitmo proceedings..

Please explain how charging someone can be justified while simultaneously not wanting the defense to see the evidence you have against them? Anyone that doesn’t want you to see the evidence is hiding it for nefarious purposes. 

I know I’m wasting my time because you never actually answer the questions that prove your points wrong; you just deflect until the attention is off the original topic.

It's a problem because the military considers the facts that might be discovered to be secrets. They're classified. I can't explain it, but maybe the prosecutors at Gitmo can.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

The prosecutors couls get all the information they need through the legal discovery process. The problem is that the defense can as well.

How is it a problem when the accused is allowed to see the evidence against them? And how does that have anything to do with prosecutors dropping the case they made against them?

I’ve never once heard of an instance where prosecutors dropped a case because they didn’t want the defense to know what evidence they had.

It probably has something to do with not wanting to reveal our sources and methods.  If the thing went to open court, the defense would have all kinds of questions about the source of the evidence and how the evidence was gathered, and maybe we just don't want to get into that.

---