A federal judge this week took a stab at resolving a months-long discovery dispute that has embroiled the case special counsel Robert Mueller brought against Russian individuals and organizations allegedly behind 2016’s election meddling on social media.
Sounds like as good a solution as one could ask for. I know some will say that you can’t trust the Reed Smith lawyers to abide by the protective order, but the court must assume that the lawyers appearing before it will comply with their ethical obligations, at least until they give the court reason to doubt it. Also, Reed Smith is a respectable firm and its lawyers won’t be likely to risk their careers and law licenses on behalf of a Russian client.
Sounds like a job for SuperBarr and the Justice League! We wouldn’t want to infringe on Russia’s right to legally hack away at our intelligence services.
I saw the headline and thought this was a Trump win, because with Barr on board, I have adjusted to the Gov’t being the bad guys. But I had to read the article to realize that this is a leftover from our Mueller days - back when we had hope he would save us.
I was also confused at first. I think TPM uses “gov’t” instead of “ttump admin” to show the difference.
I, too had to read the article to see that the Judge did agree with the right side. In the age of Double Speak its hard to know whats what.
I don’t think that I have a problem with the ruling, but may I point out, in response to this concern, that the current President of the United States is quite likely, to a substantial degree, an asset of a foreign adversary.
Not a lawyer. Is this a win for the good guys?
In my very long life, I do not believe I recall so many news stories about foreign adversaries fighting prosecution in our courts.
When this national nightmare is over, how long will it take to regain our sanity?
YES!!!
Or maybe NO!!!
It’s not exactly clearly written. Journalism – how do it work?
The headline isn’t as bad as the FTFTFNYT headline re: El Paso (“Trump Says Something Something Unity Unicorns”), but still …
Especially when that foreign adversary occupies the Oval Office currently.
Yep. Even if we have no way of verifying compliance, abusing the presumption of good faith would be a gigantic and unheard of development for the GOP and its legal henchmen. At least if we were in 1962.
I appreciate the reason for it, but I am always a bit uncomfortable with special rules that limit the discovery abilities of the defendant because of secret government intelligence.
Same here. Today, “government” is run by Trump, so I assumed the worst.
Basically, I don’t trust anyone appointed as part of Trump’s slate of “conservative” fave raves.
Especially one who used to go out with Brett Kavanaugh, vouched for him, and then “spent a lot of long hours” helping his drive to get on the Supreme Court.
https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2006/06/20060601-4.html
+/- 8 years
It’s a sign of the times that I had to click on the article to make sure that the government the judge sided with was our US government.
I guess some firewalls are still holding…
It’s not likely to happen in my lifetime. Maybe my kid will see it. Or his future kids. Or their kids.
As I understand it, “discovery” involves Russia requesting every intelligence document created since the dawn of man “to be fair of the bias against it.”
I say, just nuke’em. Life’s too damn short ; - )
Violence works, amirite, Republicans?
You and your Russian conspiracy theories!
Why, I was assured just last month by this Unfading Green chap that you’re merely hallucinating Russian trolls instead of – oh, wait…
