Reply With Quote
saying something over and over again with a forced laugh doesn't make it true, hater.
you got rekt and you don't even know it.
Innocent until proven guilty ma nig
OJ was innocent
saying something over and over again with a forced laugh doesn't make it true, hater.
you got rekt and you don't even know it.
For the same reason. It would prejudice a jury if they have read that the defendant was working on behalf of the Russian government, which is something they haven’t been formally charged with in their current case.I'm not talking about that.
I'm talking about the conclusion Mueller wrote that Kremlin was behind Ira. Judge said you better stop with that BS Bob
The jusge never ever even hinted that he thought those claims were false (even if he did, do you think the judge has more information than mueller did to make that kind of claim?)
And you can repeat your semantics argument till eternity ma nig.
Won't make it a pointless one
She said those were opinions. Opinions are not facts thus false.
Prosecutors are never allowed to publicly opine about the guilt of the defendant while charges are pending. In any case. That’s the issue here.
Not even going to get into the logic of your last post lol
Exactly. That's why she said stop it.
So basically the Russian government has not runt troll farms
-Hater
Absolutely 100% wrong.
-pgardn
Read YOUR article.
This is about ONE particular company you fckn idiot.
Exactly
not because the contents of the report were “false”
Opinions are not facts.Exactly
not because the contents of the report were “false”
Thus the charge of Kremlin being in charge of IRA is not fact.
I'm even OK with calling it a baseless allegation. But in my book a baseless allegation is false until backed up by facts.
it was one of the conclusions following their investigation. but its improper to make those kinds of statements about a defendant who had a trial pending. the judge made no comment as to whether or not the allegations in the report were true or false. judge has no basis to know... he's not part of the investigation
Judge said there's no evidence thus opinions thus not facts.it was one of the conclusions following their investigation. but its improper to make those kinds of statements about a defendant who had a trial pending. the judge made no comment as to whether or not the allegations in the report were true or false. judge has no basis to know
We can play semantics all day. Actually can't. Gotta get some work done
Judge said there's no evidence thus opinions thus not facts.
We can play semantics all day. Actually can't. Gotta get some work done
From the statement itself. Judge says the indictment does not include link between Kremlin and the Ira. Thus Bob needs to stop that :
The Special Counsel Report describes efforts by the Russian government to interfere with
the 2016 presidential election. See Special Counsel Report 36–65; see also Indictment, United
States v. Netyksho, No. 18-cr-215 (D.D.C. July 13, 2018), Dkt. 1 (indictment against multiple
Russian intelligence officers based on the alleged hacking and leaking of private do ents
belonging to Democratic officials). But the indictment, which alleges that private Russian
en ies and individuals conducted an “information warfare” campaign designed to sow discord
among U.S. voters, Indictment ¶ 10, does not link the defendants to the Russian government.
Save for a single allegation that Concord and Concord Catering had several “government
contracts” (with no further elaboration), id. ¶ 11, the indictment alleges only private conduct by
private actors.
The Report, however, identifies the social media efforts alleged in the indictment as one
of “two principal interference operations in the 2016 U.S. presidential election” carried out by
the Russians. Special Counsel Report at 9; see also id. at 14 (similar). The Report also refers to
the defendants’ “social media operations” as “active measures”—a term of art “that typically
refers to operations conducted by Russian security services aimed at influencing the course of
international affairs.” Id. at 14 (emphasis added); see also id. at i, iv, 14, 35, 174. Elsewhere,
the Report states that “[defendant Yevgeniy Viktorovich] Prigozhin is widely reported to have
ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin.” Id. at 4. And more significantly, the concluding
paragraph of the section of the Report related to Concord states that the Special Counsel’s
“investigation established that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election through the
‘active measures’ social media campaign carried out by” Concord’s co-defendant, the Internet
Research Agency (IRA). Id. at 35 (emphasis added). By attributing IRA’s conduct to
“Russia”—as opposed to Russian individuals or en ies—the Report suggests that the activities
alleged in the indictment were undertaken on behalf of, if not at the direction of, the Russian
government.
Now he billion peso question:
If the indictment does not contain the link between Kremlin and IRA. Then do you think there's any evidence of Kremlin running those troll farms???
No of course not
If there was any evidence it would obviously be in the indictment.
Case closed
all that but can't address...
Judge said there's no evidence thus opinions thus not facts.
We can play semantics all day. Actually can't. Gotta get some work done
As an additional tidbit ma nigas:
This statement by judge ensures Bob will most likely not testify in congress. As now he has been put a muzzle on claiming Russia ran the troll farms.
And in the event stupid democrats still force him to they will probably ask him vanilla questions like what has he had for breakfast or who's his favorite superhero
But I just did. If there was any evidence it would be in the indictment.all that but can't address...
no, it wouldn't. a US federal court can't indict the government of russia for committing a crime
and that still isn't the judge calling anything false
They indicted IRA. The Mueller report claimed it was controlled by Kremlin. The indictment only said Ira had government contracts. The judge said that's not enough link. Told Bob to shut the up about Russia running the troll farms.no, it wouldn't. a US federal court can't indict the government of russia for committing a crime
and that still isn't the judge calling anything false
There's a couple of posters in denial in the Flynn thread for this.
yes this is all true. in federal court they indicted the IRA. they didnt indict the kremlin (they aren't able to). mueller's investigation didnt have the same limitation, so they had no problem claiming that the kremlin controlled IRA. the only issue was making that publicly available while IRA is facing trial
no, he didnt. please share the exact quote claiming that.The judge said that's not enough link.
he told them the report was inappropriate because it concluded IRA was guilty, and they're not supposed to make those kind of statements publicly while the defendant is awaiting trialTold Bob to shut the up about Russia running the troll farms.
just think about it, does it make any sense for a judge in a criminal action to have more foreign intelligence than mueller's team to the extent that he can call the claims in the report true or false? he has no say over that, its not his business.
but in refereeing a criminal trial, it is within his domain to make sure prosecutors aren't improperly making public comments about the defendant's guilt, as it may prejudice the jury. further comments such as their ties to the russian government will only prejudice a jury further. those portions of the report should have been redacted and not publicly available, until after IRA's trial
Judge:
And more significantly, the concluding
paragraph of the section of the Report related to Concord states that the Special Counsel’s
“investigation established that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election through the
‘active measures’ social media campaign carried out by” Concord’s co-defendant, the Internet
Research Agency (IRA). Id. at 35 (emphasis added). By attributing IRA’s conduct to i
“Russia”—as opposed to Russian individuals or en ies—the Report suggests that the activities
alleged in the indictment were undertaken on behalf of, if not at the direction of, the Russian
government.
The judge is only commenting on the Mueller report and the indictment. And calling out Muellers bull .
Now answer the question. If there had been evidence of direct Kremlin involvement in IRA don't u think it would be in the indictment? Mueller already tried to link by saying Ira had government contracts. Why not include entire evidence? There is absolutely no reason not to unless it does not exist
nowhere in that quote does he cast doubt as to the accuracy of mueller's claims. nowhere. i mean you posted the whole quote. there's nothing there saying the claims were unsubstantiated or false
this was addressed at length yesterday. no, it wouldn't be in the indictment. because you'd essentially be indicting the kremlin, which a federal court lacks the authority to doNow answer the question. If there had been evidence of direct Kremlin involvement in IRA don't u think it would be in the indictment? Mueller already tried to link by saying Ira had government contracts. Why not include entire evidence? There is absolutely no reason not to unless it does not exist
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions