USA DoJ drops prosecution in "Russiagate" case

Comments

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 2,040

    @Wolfgang posted:

    Something happened sort of unnoticed by the general public due to the all covering "Corona" topic

    DOJ abruptly drops once-heralded prosecution of Russian troll farm ...

    For the proper context of the DOJ's decision to drop this specific prosecution, Wolfgang, we should note that the article to which you linked does NOT say the government decided the two companies against which it will drop indictments were not guilty. To the contrary, the articles quotes the government's motion to drop the indictments as saying, "There is a substantial federal interest in defending American democratic institutions, exposing those who endeavor to criminally interfere with them, and holding them accountable, which is why this prosecution was properly commenced in the first place.... In light of the defendant’s conduct, however, its ephemeral presence and immunity to just punishment, the risk of exposure of law enforcement’s tools and techniques, and the post-indictment change in the proof available at trial, the balance of equities has shifted." Translation: We still think they did it, but we now believe the potential cost of holding them accountable - if that's even possible - is too great.

    We should also note that the article to which you linked reports that prosecutors vowed to "continue to pursue their case against the 13 Russians who were named in Mueller's indictment, along with the troll farm that Concord was alleged to have funded, the Internet Research Agency."

    I've never believed any of the Mueller investigation-indicted Russian individuals or companies would actually stand trial for their misconduct. Instead I believed the indictments identified alleged violators and gave Americans a more complete picture of what happened in the 2016 election.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 2,662
    edited March 21

    We still think they did it, but we now believe the potential cost of holding them accountable - if that's even possible - is too great.

    Sure ... the DoJ apparently thought they could get away with conducting the case because the accused would not show up in court for a real case with all its ramifications, such as discovery of documentation to prove the case. Now, oh no, the accused did exactly what they weren't supposed to do ... and now the next steps would have shown rather openly that there was no evidence against the accused, instead it would become evident quickly that the DoJ case was a fabricated setup for a coup against the USA president.

    I've never believed any of the Mueller investigation-indicted Russian individuals or companies would actually stand trial for their misconduct.

    That's exactly what the investigation and people behind it had in mind so they could be proclaimed guilty in absence and the USA people be fooled into believing a case that never really existed.

    Instead I believed the indictments identified alleged violators and gave Americans a more complete picture of what happened in the 2016 election.

    Ha ha ... you believed exactly what you were meant to believe.

    Now it turns out that the whole investigation and indictment case holds no water ... and not because a court evaluated evidence, but rather because the prosecuting party was caught with their pants down when asked to produce their evidence as part of discovery procedure. And, of course, they would not admit that discovery would bring to light that there was no evidence and no case in the first place, they claim some protection of who knows what secret procedures, technics and tools, etc

Sign In or Register to comment.