Mueller Has a Tiger by the Tail

[Good1]

Always nice to see the bully cry unfair.

That's just it, while you might see Trump as a bully, many of us see your combined efforts and tactics as a bigger, more unfair bully, currently personified by malicious Mooooler and his malicious prosecution, who is getting revenge for himself (who was turned down FBI Director position), for Rosenstein (who felt slighted in being used to fire Comey), and every other hater in the media, who combine to create one giant bully.

Nobody likes bullies, and at some point it's not about the underdog Trump (who is being bullied), but the people he represents, bullied by a vocal minority. The vocal minority should pay for this prosecution in the interest of transparency.

 

[Poindexter]

The great irony of the Trump era is seeing liberals passionately defending overreaching and rights violations by the FBI and CIA. They used to understand the threat to a free society posed by unaccountable prosecutors and investigators. As with many other issues, their principles seem to depend on the party affiliation of those involved.

Another irony is to see them reflexively go for McCarthyism tactics when challenged, eg anyone who opposes them is a Russian agent or dupe.

Another irony is seeing leftist and media tantrums about human rights and how evil NK is after their shameless fawning during the Olympics, now that it looks like Trump -- and not Obama -- might accomplish what Bill Clinton, G.W. Bush and Obama could not.

 

[UsualName]

Discovery is supposed to eliminate the element of surprise in court. Surprises in court are unfair, like releasing dirt before an election, without enough time for the other candidate to respond. Discovery assures the case is fully litigated, and also increases chances of an out-of-court settlement, saving the costs of court. Without it, court is open to all sorts of shenanegans. Avoiding discovery indicates shenanegans are already afoot, indicating malicious prosecution. For this reason, the cost of prosecution should be taken off the backs of taxpayers and turned over to any group of private takers and foreign agents.

Discovery is usually appropriate but not always. The government often hides identities when they have an ongoing investigation or to protect informants, etc.

 

[UsualName]

He has a right to assert that right- but the court decides.

The government has had many, many cases either dismissed or they chose not to proceed where the government would not produce evidence as requested.

Big shocker here, but I have to let you know that the government is often big on aggressively pursuing evidence that is incriminating for the defendant, but often/usually has a bullshit reason- usually some high and mighty national security bullshit story- why evidence that makes them look bad should be exposed.

Refer to Rod Rosenstein for more on this. That is about all he does these days. Oh, and yes, the Intel Committee- after months of wrangling got a section of a redacted report unredacted that was being protected for national security reasons. Turns out that having the public find out that McCabe and the FBI paid 70K for a conference table was a national security risk.

True, the court does make the ultimate decision. Can’t argue with that.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Another irony is seeing leftist and media tantrums about human rights and how evil NK is after their shameless fawning during the Olympics, now that it looks like Trump -- and not Obama -- might accomplish what Bill Clinton, G.W. Bush and Obama could not.

View attachment 187225

View attachment 187226

View attachment 187227

Nobody cares, go back to Russia troll.

 

[Good1]

Discovery is usually appropriate but not always. The government often hides identities when they have an ongoing investigation or to protect informants, etc.

If they think they need to redact, then redact during discovery, allowing time for the other party to motion for a lifting of the redaction.

 

[Slartibartfast]

That's just it, while you might see Trump as a bully, many of us see your combined efforts and tactics as a bigger, more unfair bully, currently personified by malicious Mooooler and his malicious prosecution, who is getting revenge for himself (who was turned down FBI Director position), for Rosenstein (who felt slighted in being used to fire Comey), and every other hater in the media, who combine to create one giant bully.

Nobody likes bullies, and at some point it's not about the underdog Trump (who is being bullied), but the people he represents, bullied by a vocal minority. The vocal minority should pay for this prosecution in the interest of transparency.

Ok.. Trump being bullied.

Karma is a bitch. (Dharma really).

And it is not bullying, he is the one going on about collusion and pardoning himself like a wild man.

The investigation has not put a finger on his collar.

 

[Good1]

Nobody cares, go back to Russia troll.

If you were to go back to where you came from, where would that be? Panama? Brittain? Canada? How are these places better than (supreme over) Russia?

 

[Poindexter]

Nobody cares, go back to Russia troll.

Says the paper trading blowhard from Colombia who changed where he's from after I called him out.

Why haven't you registered? Foreign trolls like you have no business trying to influence our politics with elections coming up in November.

If you were to go back to where you came from, where would that be? Panama? Brittain? Canada? How are these places better than (supreme over) Russia?

See above.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

Discovery is usually appropriate but not always. The government often hides identities when they have an ongoing investigation or to protect informants, etc.

Discovery is appropriate if the defense team so decides. The judge cannot stop discovery as a defendant has a right to defend themselves. The judge can rule against elements of it if the government makes a successful argument, but the judge can also dismiss a case if the governments need to suppress it deprives the defendant of the right to cross examine a crucial witness or access to exculpatory evidence. Defense lawyers know this and try to push the discovery into areas where the government does not want to go.

So it is up to the judge to decide whether a piece of evidence it relevant, crucial to a defendants defense and if it is then that's the government's problem. They need to decide whether exposing that is worth getting a conviction.