It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Xcathdra
Exactly - how can Mueller be ready to bring an indictment but not be ready to go to court?
He just rushed this nonsense out there assuming that no one would bother responding.
What a crock.
originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: SpartanStoic
The hearing today did not go well for the government either with regards to Concord management. Apparently Concord catering was also listed by the government in the indictment. Until the lawyers representing Concord management noted that the catering portion was not a legal entity at the times the government is claiming. They also requested the government provide evidence that it is a legal entity which the government could not.
The government relented and said they would try and serve that entity thru other legal channels.
Defense counsel waived their right to hear the charges and entered a not guilty plea, noting they are exercising their right to a speedy trial.
Another example of the SC not having their ducks in a row before appearing in court.
originally posted by: carewemust
or is Mueller's team that bad?
originally posted by: Xcathdra
originally posted by: carewemust
or is Mueller's team that bad?
yes
Me thinks he is not used to A - people fighting back and B - judges who dont tolerate is crap.
originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Sillyolme
You do realize that if the judge is not satisfied with the scope memo, Mueller's entire enterprise is in jeopardy, right?
If the judge determines that Mueller is operating outside the scope of authority granting his position, everything he has worked toward could be so much dust.
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: DJW001
Doesn't seem like much in the way of due process when the evidence, and the authority to pursue said evidence, is kept secret.
Especially in a world where the prosecutor has tried to prosecute a company that didn't exist.
originally posted by: DJW001
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: DJW001
Doesn't seem like much in the way of due process when the evidence, and the authority to pursue said evidence, is kept secret.
Especially in a world where the prosecutor has tried to prosecute a company that didn't exist.
Doesn't exist, or is not formally registered in the United States? The investigation has to unravel a tangled web of shell corporations registered in multiple countries and jurisdictions. конгрессное питание might exist somewhere.
originally posted by: DJW001
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: DJW001
Doesn't seem like much in the way of due process when the evidence, and the authority to pursue said evidence, is kept secret.
Especially in a world where the prosecutor has tried to prosecute a company that didn't exist.
Doesn't exist, or is not formally registered in the United States? The investigation has to unravel a tangled web of shell corporations registered in multiple countries and jurisdictions. конгрессное питание might exist somewhere.
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
originally posted by: DJW001
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: DJW001
Doesn't seem like much in the way of due process when the evidence, and the authority to pursue said evidence, is kept secret.
Especially in a world where the prosecutor has tried to prosecute a company that didn't exist.
Doesn't exist, or is not formally registered in the United States? The investigation has to unravel a tangled web of shell corporations registered in multiple countries and jurisdictions. конгрессное питание might exist somewhere.
"Might"?
Burden of proof....come on man.