18 days after I lay out how ConFraudUs is central theory of Mueller case(s),
https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/02/17/the-conspiracy-to-defraud-the-united-states-backbone-of-the-internet-research-agency-and-manafort-indictments/ …
and a week after I expand it in NYT
http://nyti.ms/2FFDhnr
@benjaminwittes discovers it.https://www.lawfareblog.com/about-russia-indictment-robert-muellers-legal-theory-and-where-it-takes-him-next …
No. I'm discussing the law. You're treating the law like it's a tea society. The 5th Circuit does not "exhort." It writes opinions, that one of which is not relevant here. You can ignore the larger history of conspiracy in the US, or you can discuss law as it actually exists.
-
-
Your obstinance on this point is especially absurd that I address the specific legal context in which ConFraudUs works WRT the known crimes in front of us.
-
in anything involving Weissman, I'm biased by
@SidneyPowell1's exposure of his egregious prosecutorial misconduct. It's regrettable that such an unscrupulous partisan is involved in a matter where it's important that justice be done and that it be done with clean hands. -
You're arguing he's a partisan bc he applauded federal law be followed?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
you say that the 5th Circuit does not "exhort". I was quoting from a decision that used the very word "exhortation" , including the very excerpt in which the term was used, in a decision involving Andrew Weissman, Mueller's henchman.pic.twitter.com/5kprXIPjCV
-
GOOODIIIIIIIEEEE!!!!!! That's fucking irrelevant to how legal precedent works. Legal precedent works the way Ben laid out, now you searching for specific words in a document.
-
Moreover, your "exhortation" comment is totally off point, given the precedents Ben laid out, which IS the way law works.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.