• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Is Robert Mueller’s Russian Troll Farm Indictment Falling Apart?

W

Whataborman

Unconfirmed Member
You don't seem to understand how Discovery works. If Mueller and his team continue to deny the defense access to exculpatory evidence, the judge will intervene. Just because he hasn't yet, doesn't mean that he won't.
 

TheMikado

Banned
Jan 3, 2018
1,405
571
225
You don't seem to understand how Discovery works. If Mueller and his team continue to deny the defense access to exculpatory evidence, the judge will intervene. Just because he hasn't yet, doesn't mean that he won't.

I’m sorry but it’s quite clear you have no idea what you’re talking about or how US courts work. I’ll just give you a link to help you out.

“In many countries, including the United States, police and prosecutors are required to disclose to the defendant exculpatory evidence they possess BEFORE the defendant enters a plea (guilty or not guilty).[2]”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exculpatory_evidence

Which makes no sense that they would enter plea without FIRST compelling the court to hand over exculpatory evidence if the judge was actually going to force them to do so. I’m not sure what courts you are familiar with but in the US entering a plea before forcing the persecution to disclose evidence would be idiotic and well short of the “brilliant” move you claim it is.
 

bucyou

Member
Feb 3, 2018
3,130
6,745
715
Not sure why you didn't include the next paragraph from your link

Per the Brady v. Maryland decision, prosecutors have a duty to disclose exculpatory evidence even if not requested to do so. While the prosecution is not required to search for exculpatory evidence and must disclose only the evidence in its possession, custody, or control, the prosecution's duty is to disclose all information known to any member of its team, e.g., police, investigators, crime labs, et cetera. In Brady v. Maryland, the U.S. Supreme Court held that such a requirement follows from constitutional due process and is consistent with the prosecutor's duty to seek justice.[3]

so did they turn it over? no? ohh thats why we are having this discussion....
 
Last edited:

TheMikado

Banned
Jan 3, 2018
1,405
571
225
Not sure why you didn't include the next paragraph from your link

Per the Brady v. Maryland decision, prosecutors have a duty to disclose exculpatory evidence even if not requested to do so. While the prosecution is not required to search for exculpatory evidence and must disclose only the evidence in its possession, custody, or control, the prosecution's duty is to disclose all information known to any member of its team, e.g., police, investigators, crime labs, et cetera. In Brady v. Maryland, the U.S. Supreme Court held that such a requirement follows from constitutional due process and is consistent with the prosecutor's duty to seek justice.[3]

so did they turn it over? no? ohh thats why we are having this discussion....

No, you’re 10000% wrong.
1) the discussion was about muellers request to delay proceedings due to ensuring proper serve process.
2) thank you for that. The prosecution is only required to give what ACTUALLY HAS and is not required to search for it.
The discovery requests would have required Mueller to “search” for 75 years of American intel information. The information needs to be both in his possession and in his control to disclose. It’s a completely and transparent request. It’s literally trolling.
3) you can even read the illustration. If specifies that the prosecutor needs to disclose a witness and their testimony but NOT their identity.

To add to this evidence was already turned over for review, this the defenses request for information from Mueller which against the USs history of meddling in elections has nothing to do with the any plausible evidence of the case against them and and obvious trolls.

It’s like a theft requesting how many times a police officer cheated on his wife as part of a discovery request. It’s absurd.
 
Last edited:
W

Whataborman

Unconfirmed Member
the discussion was about muellers request to delay proceedings due to ensuring proper serve process.

No it wasn't. The discussion was about Mueller and if he would provide the requested discovery evidence should the case go to trial, . You may have tried to turn the discussion in another direction but none of us are buying it.

In any case, I'm tired of arguing with you. It is a 100% certainty that if this case goes to trial, Mueller and his team will be required to turn over all of the evidence they have related to Concord systems, and that evidence will go public. If they don't the judge will compel them to do so.
 

TheMikado

Banned
Jan 3, 2018
1,405
571
225
No it wasn't. The discussion was about Mueller and if he would provide the requested discovery evidence should the case go to trial, . You may have tried to turn the discussion in another direction but none of us are buying it.

In any case, I'm tired of arguing with you. It is a 100% certainty that if this case goes to trial, Mueller and his team will be required to turn over all of the evidence they have related to Concord systems, and that evidence will go public. If they don't the judge will compel them to do so.

From the very last paragraph of the original post.

Specifically, Mueller’s attorneys asked Trump-appointed Judge Dabney Friedrich to delay Concord Management’s formal arraignment scheduled for next week. Concord Management’s extensive April requests–and Mueller’s pleadings complaining about those requests–are contained in Mueller’s Friday filing

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/is-robert-muellers-russian-troll-farm-indictment-falling-apart/
---

So why is Mueller trying to circumvent judicial process here?”

you’re tired because you don’t know what you’re talking about. Such low energy... sigh.

The ramifications of the judge attempting to force mueller to produce 75 years of US intelligence. Which he may not possess and not be able have the control to produce would possibly result a misconduct charge on the part of the judge.

It is a 1000% certainty that Mueller will not turn over 75 years of US intelligence information. Give it a rest. You’re tired.
 

bucyou

Member
Feb 3, 2018
3,130
6,745
715
No it wasn't. The discussion was about Mueller and if he would provide the requested discovery evidence should the case go to trial, . You may have tried to turn the discussion in another direction but none of us are buying it.

In any case, I'm tired of arguing with you. It is a 100% certainty that if this case goes to trial, Mueller and his team will be required to turn over all of the evidence they have related to Concord systems, and that evidence will go public. If they don't the judge will compel them to do so.

Agreed. Notice who is the one turning to "low energy" personal attacks, lol.

We'll find out what happens soon.
 

TheMikado

Banned
Jan 3, 2018
1,405
571
225
Agreed. Notice who is the one turning to "low energy" personal attacks, lol.

We'll find out what happens soon.

Was Trunp launching inappropriate and uncalled for personal attacks when he referred to individuals as low energy? Whatever your answer is it’s true for both of us.