Discussion: Judge Sends Warning Shot To Mueller Team In Russia Troll Case

TPM Article Topics
21

Your post put me in mind of this: https://youtu.be/PN4ggCXwUsU

2 Likes
22

I think it was that Ted Cruz was his undergraduate classmate at Princeton and then Josh’s wife went to law school with Ted Cruz at Harvard.

8 Likes
23

What did she get wrong in this bit? She made no conclusions in it. She just reported on what went down with the Judge. From my take the Judge, appointed by Trump, allowed Mueller to go forward but cautioned that he has a high bar if he’s to get a conviction. How much knowledge of the courts must I have to get that?

6 Likes
24

Josh Marshall on Ted Cruz- went to Princeton together but didn’t remember Cruz being there at the time.

@irasdad @tena

10 Likes
25

Thanks, greysea. I knew that at some point they were in school together somewhere. hahahahahahaha

7 Likes
26

TPM managing editor David Kurtz, an attorney.

6 Likes
27

Yes.

2 Likes
28

From the headline, I assumed a ruling that was far worse for Mueller than what the article reports actually took place in the courtroom.

11 Likes
29

I agree. That was my reaction too.

7 Likes
30

I think that the implication of what the judge said was less a “warning shot” than simply friendly advice. The gist of the story (as far as I could tell) was that the judge upheld Meuller’s right to prosecute this particular case, but warned him that it would be difficult to prove. That may simply be a statement of fact. Meuller knows how much evidence he has and the judge was probably just confirming that this wasn’t going to be a waste of time by making this clear.

Put another way, the judge was probably saying something to the effect of “This will be tough to prove, you know. Make sure you have everything in line before proceeding.”

14 Likes
31

Q: What do you call someone who knows what a pager is?
A: A history major!

25 Likes
32

I’m sure the Judge is not privy to all Mueller has and should have just kept her mouth shut. Trump put her on that bench and Mueller is after Trump. If I were her I’d STFU and just stick to Judging. Given her association with Trump her editorial comments are telling.

3 Likes
33

Maybe that’s why he has a soft spot for him. :wink:

1 Like
34

Criminal convictions all have “high bars.” Do we think the Mueller folks are so stupid that they charged things that they didn’t think they could prove beyond a reasonable doubt? That’s unlikely.

6 Likes
35

Yes, I remember that too. It made moot the ignorance of FARA is a defense for foreigners argument.

2 Likes
36

Yes, sort of.

Prosecutors said (in a filing) that, if and when the case comes to trial, they won’t have to show that the defendants had a legal duty to file reports with the FEC or to register with DOJ.

All the judge said about that today, on one out of her 46 pages, was that “the government may ultimately have to prove that the defendants agreed to a course of conduct that, if carried out, would require disclosure to the FEC or DOJ.”

Not sure I’d have called it a “warning shot,” but it’s perhaps a little stronger than “friendly advice.”

3 Likes
37

Whatever causes heartburn …….

https://www.politicususa.com/2018/11/15/nicolle-wallace-reports-mueller-has-triggered-a-total-trump-meltdown.html

13 Likes
38

Why should a judge not respond to an argument advanced by the prosecution?

1 Like
39

Actually these 2 TPM reporters got it COMPLETELY wrong.

Judge Friedrich didn’t impose some new, special, unanticipated ‘high bar’ in response to the arguments of Concord (which for some reason I don’t agree with at all was allowed to appear before the court to argue this motion on a limited purpose basis that doesn’t even subject the company to sanctions if they don’t go any further).
In point of fact, Judge Dietrch agreed with the government and actually REITERATED what, in my own opinion, has been the proper test for culpability in the context of a large on-gong conspiracy - that it’s actually NOT necessary for the government to prove that the defendants here ‘specifically intended’ to break some possibly arcane or little known or obscure or highly technical law captured in a little-used corner of the U.S. Code,. Rather, as the government argued, it’s only necessary for the government to prove that the foreign company knew or ought to have known that some breach of US domestic law was being broken or was intended to be broken, with the foreign entities’ participation.

That’s not a HEIGHTENING of the standard test for complex on-going multiparty conspiracies potentially engaging parties who may not even be aware of the full identity or plans of fellow co-conspirators - that’s actually a recognition of the so-called co-conspiracy effect - that X can be held criminally responsible for something that Y does does even where X and Y never meet or even are aware of each other’s involvement or identity, SO LONG AS both X and Y are effectively conjoined by a common intention to contribute to the conspracy AND both know that SOME ONE involved in furthering the conspiracy is engaging in illegal acts or is to do that.

So my POINT was that neither of the TPM reporters know how to read legal opinions, because they got this diametrically 100% 360 degrees wrong. I did single out Sneed, but it’s because she does this so often it’s like some sort of critical thinking glitch has control over her analytical function.

40

No, but they argued that there are certain things they won’t have to prove — and the judge let them know today that she’s not entirely convinced.

3 Likes