“We don’t believe…”
Look, pal, it’s either true or it’s not. It has nothing to do with your belief.
From this lawyers bio @
Representation of Individuals in High-Profile Matters
In addition to his representation of companies in governmental investigations, Bob has represented individuals in several high-profile investigations, including witnesses in the 2016 election investigation by the Special Counsel and the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. He has handled matters related to charges of corruption, leaking confidential information, and fraud, including civil suits and class action matters.
So why is it this guy is defending a russian spy? And would he doing so present a conflcit seeing how he was on muellers team?
Yeah, themz weasel words. Who gives a shit what her lawyers believe.
If only there was someone they could ask.
What I believe myself is there were multiple sex offers and they want to know how to defend against the one that’s on deck.
Yeah, she offered sex just for sex, if a job got thrown in, just cake to put the “icing” on.
A woman in her “job” does not “offer” sex for something she wants. If she’s trying to persuade a man to do something, she signals in some way that she’s available for sexual action. Once the man accepts sex, he has compromised himself, but that’s another matter.
I think it degrading any time a woman has to prostitute herself for any purpose, but that’s the reality, at least in this kind of transaction.
FWIW, I won’t be shocked to see her end up in witness protection. She’ll fall out a window if she returns to Russia. Putin despises failure in his agents and betrayal in the form of cooperation with our law enforcement will get her dead. We can be sure our people will remind her of that.
Sending her to prison would be cruel. She can be given some sinecure, maybe teach at our Army Language School.
Well, he believes that it’s some first class legal eaglin’ so there’s that.
He would say that, wouldn’t he ?
I’m glad everybody else is catching that, too. It’s not an assertion, it’s a personal comment.
Low-energy defense. Not good.
Epistemological muddle:
“We don’t believe it’s true,” Driscoll said.
She and her lawyers don’t believe it’s true?
Are they trying to find out?
Yes. It would seem to be important information to have.
I think he was representing people testifying in front of the SC, which is an adversary situation, not working for Mueller.
Sometimes, some lawyers prefer not to ask for all the facts.
It’s clear what she is. The only question is the quid pro quo.
Of course the Russians would never use a honey trap for something like this. Obviously the woman just likes older fat guys.
Might be better for the client not to do that.
He said he had no issue with the proposed rules placed on materials from the government, but he claimed that, according to the government, most of the evidence was from Butina’s computer.
“We’re not talking about state secrets here,” he said.
Well, except maybe we are.
The next hearing is in September?
It sounds like the gov’t is ready to turn over discovery materials. Is the next hearing scheduled so far out because it’s expected the defense will have reviewed all of it by then?
I want to see as much of this settled as possible in the run-up to the midterms. Voters need to know who in our politics has been compromised, who is complicit, and who is trying to defend us.