US v Concord. DOJ Drops Rosenstein and Mueller’s Nonsense Case Against Russian Company Concord LLC

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by icehole3, Mar 17, 2020.

  1. Dutch

    Dutch Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    Messages:
    46,383
    Likes Received:
    15,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I’m not sure who are the real Americans here, these who know what the word “allegedly” means, or these who do not.

    Apparently, you do not.
     
  2. Dutch

    Dutch Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    Messages:
    46,383
    Likes Received:
    15,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Amendment or not, aren’t companies are innocent until proven guilty? :buggered:
     
  3. Dutch

    Dutch Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    Messages:
    46,383
    Likes Received:
    15,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Can someone or anything be guilty until proven innocent? :hiding:
     
  4. Paul7

    Paul7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2012
    Messages:
    15,854
    Likes Received:
    11,608
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And even that failed.
     
  5. Paul7

    Paul7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2012
    Messages:
    15,854
    Likes Received:
    11,608
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What have they been proven guilty of? Crazy LW conspiracy theories aren't convictions, didn't you learn that from the collusion delusion?
     
    Dutch likes this.
  6. stone6

    stone6 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    9,281
    Likes Received:
    2,780
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    My guess is that Concord pressed for the release of classified information as part of their attorneys discovery process and DoJ weighed that exposure against the unlikelihood of any of the Concord management ever being brought to justice even if convicted.
     
  7. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It appears you bought into their bluff. I did not.

    Concord Management and its attorneys knew the DOJ was bluffing. You don't.
     
  8. stone6

    stone6 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    9,281
    Likes Received:
    2,780
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    We disagree. I don't think they were bluffing. The DoJ standard for an indictment was and is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. However, some of that evidence was apparently based on classified material, which the government did not want to share with the defense or in open court.
     
    The Mello Guy likes this.
  9. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your faith in the credibility and veracity of DoJ is typical of the average MSM fed American.
     
  10. stone6

    stone6 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    9,281
    Likes Received:
    2,780
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No organization composed of human beings is perfect. Be careful not to throw the baby out with the wash.
     
  11. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't expect perfection from government servants or organizations. All I ask is they honor their oath of office and protect and defend the constitution as they enforce legitimate laws. In countless cases the DoJ has totally let me down in that regard, for many long years.
     
  12. stone6

    stone6 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    9,281
    Likes Received:
    2,780
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Sounds as if you've been in court a lot.
     
  13. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I've been in court enough to know that rarely is justice delivered.
     
  14. stone6

    stone6 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    9,281
    Likes Received:
    2,780
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I suppose that depends on your perspective. Presumably, one that involves losing most of the time.
     
  15. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, my perspective is knowing right from wrong and justice from injustice, not winning or losing.
     
  16. stone6

    stone6 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    9,281
    Likes Received:
    2,780
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Ah...someone with the wisdom of Solomon. The Internet is full of them. What makes your conclusions any better than anyone else's? The system may be imperfect, but we assume the "law" and our justice system is better than no system whatsoever...in which disputes would settled only based upon the power exercised by the contestants. IOW, with what would you replace it?
     
  17. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm all in favor of the rule of law, absolutely.

    But that doesn't mean I have to pretend that the current US system follows the rule of law, especially as to juries and nullification.

    I'm all in favor of constitutional governance, but that doesn't mean I have to pretend we have that in this country today.

    What's your point?

    Just to keep things in perspective, at the request of the US government Julian Assange sits in prison for having published the truth about government crimes.
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2020
  18. stone6

    stone6 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    9,281
    Likes Received:
    2,780
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And, will continue to do so for sometime. He may have exposed a few crimes, but he also exposed some of the "crown jewels" of our intelligence networks. This isn't 1787. We're all grown-up today, with global responsibilities largely inherited from former European colonial powers, with global commitments. If you want to return to a less complex and more simple agricultural society, there are still places for you, primarily in the Southern Hemisphere and developing countries. But, you'd better hurry.
    That said, we might agree on some of the reforms needed for our justice system. Jury nullification works in mysterious ways...and various ways...and may be traced to "early legislatures" in the case of Grand Juries, in English common law. I could be mistaken, but I believe I remember that they proceeded the English Parliament, and were an early form of a "counter" to absolute monarchial rule.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  19. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, the jury had a major role in the foundation of the US.

    To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, the jury is the best device yet devised by mankind to keep government within its bounds.

    In the old days the jury was seen as the conscience of the community.

    Today it is mostly just a rubber stamp for the government.
     
  20. stone6

    stone6 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    9,281
    Likes Received:
    2,780
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    However, in the "good old days," society was far more simple and there was literally "less law." Complexity requires specialization and specialization yields "experts," for both the defense and prosecution. I would contend that the "average citizen" was intellectually better equipped in the 18th century to sit on a Grand Jury, than today, although the Grand Jury's powers remain. That's what creates problems with "jury nullification" (IMO).
     
  21. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you happen to believe that all political power flows from We The People, if you believe that the government serves at the pleasure of the people, then jury nullification is very good. If you believe that the people should have an opportunity to judge those too many laws you refer to, then jury nullification is a great way for that to happen on a case by case basis.

    If you believe that the people should be able to prevent improper and unjust prosecutions on a case by case basis, then jury nullification is good.

    If you wonder about why things happen, if you're interested in cause and effect analysis, why does the government censor dissenters? Why does the judiciary suppress knowledge about jury nullification? Why is it, here in the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave, that an attorney introducing the topic of jury nullification into a criminal trial will most likely be found in contempt?
     
  22. stone6

    stone6 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    9,281
    Likes Received:
    2,780
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Depends upon the circumstances of the specific case. I view it as another "check and balance." The "jury" is generally replaced, in European continental law, by a panel of judges. Does that mean a defendant get's "less justice," insomuch as they are NOT being judged by a jury of their peers? I wouldn't confuse expertise with the use of power for its own sake. Continental law grew out of Roman and Napoleonic Law...a justice system for the diversity and multi-cultural scenarios of Empires. As you undoubtedly know, there was a lot of discussion at the time of the American Revolution and the subsequent writing of the Constitution regarding whether or not Republican government was fit for large and heavily populated diverse countries. Many thought not.
     

Share This Page