Justice Delayed Is Justice: Mueller Fights To Delay Russian Collusion Trial

440px-Director_Robert_S._Mueller-_IIIThere is an old joke among criminal defense attorneys that “justice delayed is justice,” a twist of the old adage that “justice delayed is justice denied.”  The joke reflects that fact that the defense almost always benefits from the passage of time and it is the prosecution that often pushes for earlier trial debates to deny the defense enough time to absorb and address evidence. That is not the case with Special Counsel Robert Mueller who has asked federal Judge Dabney L. Friedrich to deny a speedy trial motion and delay any trial of 13 Russians and three Russian companies for efforts to influence the 2016 election. The effort reflects problems in Mueller’s matinee case, including the allegation that he has charged a company that did not exist at the time of the alleged offenses.

 

Mueller previously tried to delay the trial despite the demand of Concord Management and Consulting for a speedy trial within 70 days of the indictment.  That is a right that protects the defendant and is meant to be honored by the court under The Speedy Trial Act absent a waiver or exceptional circumstances.  Often defendants waive the time period as a matter of course to allow more time to develop a case.  Here it is the prosecution that appears desperate for more time.

One of the Russian companies — Concord Management and Consulting — entered the U.S., hired American lawyers, and demanded a speedy trial. The Speedy Trial Act is a 44-year old federal law that dictates that a federal criminal case must begin within 70 days from the date of the indictment.

Mueller continuance motion — available here — cited the complexity of the case and the voluminous record as the basis for the delay.  He argues that “This case . . .  warrants a continuance and exclusion of time to accommodate the voluminous discovery at issue and to allow sufficient time for the Court to resolve certain outstanding procedural issues unique to discovery in this case.”  Mueller notes that the court has the authority to delay the trial “if ‘the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.’”

The speed of the defense, particularly Eric A. Dubelier, a partner with Reed Smith, seems to have take Mueller’s people by some surprise.  The defense is demanding to see evidence which Mueller has been keeping closely held in his office.  It could be the first serious disclosure of the cards in Mueller’s hand for defendants and potential targets.  Thus far the defense is doing an excellent job in setting Mueller’s team back on its heels.

As a general rule, the desire of the defense for a speedy trial should carry the day. The prosecutors control when to issue an indictment.  That triggers the Act and the clock ticking.  The danger for Mueller is that, if he is unwilling to show the evidence or go to trial, he could face the embarrassing prospect of pulling the indictment. Conversely, if he is not ready, his matinee case could prove a flop in whole or in part with acquittals or hung juries.

As Dr. Seuss once asked, “How did it get so late so soon?”

 

92 thoughts on “Justice Delayed Is Justice: Mueller Fights To Delay Russian Collusion Trial”

  1. Just wishful thinking on JT’s part. He has gotten to the point that he’s doing the same thing the Republicans are doing. Throwing BS to see what sticks.

  2. This was a throwaway case that Mueller filed just to show the public he had indicted someone/something Russian.
    He carefully selected the defendants as to fully expect them to never show up to meet the charges.
    Only he was caught with his pants down, as one of those defendants called his bluff and decided to show up and meet the charges.
    Now he is caught between a rock and a hard place, a making of his own haughty presumptions.
    This will be very amusing to see how it unwinds.

    1. If there were spies in the campaign, they would have known there was no collusion to begin with.

    2. I hope the minimum outcome is sanctions on him for filing before ready, wasting courts time, filing frivolous, baseless indictments against companies not in existence, abuse of the judicial system.

  3. There’s a difference of opinion. This slow moving tortoise is the judge & jury. Here’s the verdict.

  4. Jon: you would almost have credibility with me if you didn’t say cutesy little things like calling the case against the Russians Mueller’s “matinee case”, if you didn’t claim Mueller was “desperate”, or the truly outrageous statement that Reed Smith (where I assume you’d love to work at least “of counsel”) is “doing an excellent job in setting Mueller’s team back on its heels.”

    These sorts of uncalled-for editorial comments reflect badly on you as a neutral commentator. Just more red meat to the Trumpsters out there.

    1. These sorts of uncalled-for editorial comments reflect badly on you as a neutral commentator. Just more red meat to the Trumpsters out there.

      Don’t know how to break it to you, Nutchacha, but no one employed to write ‘commentary’ eve actually pens ‘neutral commentary’.

      1. Oh, so you’re admitting that Jon IS a pro-Trump pundit, not just some law professor explaining the law? OK, got it.

        1. I’ll explain it to you real slow: Prof. Turley has his own perspective. Sometimes his judgements are congruent with Trump’s interests and sometimes they aren’t. That really isn’t his concern.

    2. One other thing, Jon: it was a JOINT motion to exclude time from the Speedy Trial calculation. You left out that little fact.

    3. What is he if not “ set back on his heels” when he’s trying to convince a judge to deny a speedy trial?

    4. Natacha:

      Why would you think that this is one of the very few, neutral, straight reporting sites in existence? It is an op-ed blog. Professor Turley, as a law professor, has been discussing his legal opinion on this case, as well as other topics that interest him. His opinion is on the merits of the case, and the conduct of Mueller. As a professor of law, his opinion carries some weight.

      You appear disappointed that the author did not inject politics into his legal analysis, and then ensure those politics aligned with yours. If you actually read the blog and his former interviews, you will discover that Professor Turley has criticized every Administration when he felt the situation warranted, including President Trump. That may, or may not, coincide with your own opinion, but I wish you would not be rude to our host.

      You may want to consider writing why you agree or disagree with the actual merits and handling of the case.

  5. In Mueller I trust.

    Don’t mess with the Marine. You won’t live long enough to regret it.

  6. I have to say that I did not expect such a “dial it in” motion which reflects almost no effort at all, let alone to explain why they didn’t wait to indict. What’s going on here?

    1. To me, the most ridiculous part of Mueller’s argument for a continuance is where it says, “Moreover, a significant portion of this documentary evidence is in Russian.”

      Was Mueller intending to submit the “evidence” to an American jury in Russian? Did Mueller’s team not translate the “evidence” in order to figure out that it was, in fact, “evidence”?

      And he mentions nothing about issues related to classified information or CIPA (Classified Information Procedures Act), which he should have done if he thinks any of the information requested by the defendant is classified and that procedures related to sharing such information with the defendant might cause or contribute to delays.

      The absence of any reference to classified information in Mueller’s motion is highly suspicious, given that the pretext for Mueller’s unlawful investigation is that he’s conducting a “counterintelligence” investigation (notwithstanding absence of legal authority to do so under 28 CFR 600.1).

        1. Thanks for reminding me. That clears up most of my confusion.

          Actually, I did notice that in the caption of the motion — but forgot while reading the contents of the motion and noticing what’s in it and, more especially, what’s not in it — which is any reference to classified information or CIPA. I think that’s what distracted me and made me suspicious of the entire thing. There’s no way that classified information isn’t involved here, so I don’t understand why that wasn’t mentioned while requesting a continuance.

        2. The very simple answer is, of course, that Mueller did it for publicity purposes, rather than any serious intent to actually bring any of the charged people or entities to trial. Obviously, if he had been serious about bringing them to trial, the indictment would have been sealed, and there would have been attempts to track the indicted persons/entities in an attempt to get them within US jurisdiction to put them on trial. If you read the original indictment, it was a cut and paste half ass job. Unfortunately for Mueller, his bluff is now been called. He’s trying to backtrack and delay, and the defendant and their attorneys are pressing their advantage because they think they can get Mueller to withdraw the indictment to spare themselves the humiliation of losing at trial.

  7. There are ample arguments for expediting or delaying the moments of decision or the trial. It would seem that, after discounting the legal strategies, political posturing, and other obvious BS, taking time to cross as many Ts and dot as many Is as possible would be the way to go. Given the complexities of all this and the continuing surfacing of new issues upon scraping the surface of any one issue, Mueller should take his time. This works to the advantage of the truth. If there is no damming evidence there then that will speak in favor of those who are complaining. If there is damming evidence it will most certainly be well hidden; except in some cases such as that of the idiot Cohen, but it is in the best interests of America that it be revealed and the perps slammed. Demanding an end to the investigation and the constant whining about that which has yet to be revealed, is nothing more than a tactic of those either under indictment or getting close to being indicted. Follow the whining, sniveling, tweeting.

    1. Except that Mueller didn’t take his time as he is now claiming. Especially since these indictments were involving foreigners.

      Poor work by Mueller’s team and now a couple of delay tactics will cause this aspect of the investigation to blow up.

    2. “If there is damming evidence it will most certainly be well hidden” ? ? ?

      Damming (or damning) evidence should have been discovered by Mueller BEFORE bringing the indictment. You don’t bring an indictment and THEN go looking for the evidence.

      Part of the “truth” that needs to come out is whether or not Mueller brought indictments for political propaganda purposes instead of in the interest of justice.

      “Follow the whining, sniveling …” — in this particular case, it seems that it’s Mueller who’s doing the whining and sniveling.

      1. ‘Damning evidence ‘should’ have been discovered…’ That’s why they call it an investigation, to find the evidence. Only an idiot would argue otherwise. So far there has been ample evidence ‘discovered’ to charge various pals of Trump. His personal lawyer is an example of who Trump hires and enough of an argument to continue searching for evidence.

        Also, translating Russian, or any foreign language, into English to be used in a court and not have the ‘defense’ lawyers argue every nuance, takes time.

        Regardless of what Mueller finds or doesn’t find, taking his time is the best way to get to the truth. Or do you champion the winner who gets off because of a technicality or because he has the money to paper the other side into submission.

        As far as who is doing the whining and sniveling, we have had over a year of the greatest whiner to come along in US history. Our twit of a President takes first place given the technological advantage of tweeting. If ever there was someone who whines it is Trump.

        1. Absolutely NOTHING you wrote is relevant.

          (1) The issue is THIS case, not other cases or any ongoing investigations.

          (2) “That’s why they call it an investigation, to find the evidence. Only an idiot would argue otherwise.”

          Actually, only a FLAMING IDIOT would argue that the investigation needs to go on after the indictment has been brought. If there’s need for further investigation, the prosecutor should not have brought the indictment.
          Your statement, “If there is damming evidence it will most certainly be well hidden,” is pure nonsense. The issue is THIS case concerning which an indictment has already been filed with the court.

          (3) “translating Russian, or any foreign language, into English to be used in a court and not have the ‘defense’ lawyers argue every nuance, takes time.”

          That’s not an argument that relevant to discovery. That’s an argument that would happen in court. For the purposes of discovery, all that’s required is to cough up the requested information. If there’s an argument about translation or the time associated therewith, the defense can make that argument. It’s not Mueller’s place to make an argument that the defense hasn’t made related to accuracy of translation.

          (4) “… do you champion the winner who gets off because of a technicality …?

          Constitution of the United States of America, Sixth Amendment: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial …”

          That’s not a “technicality.” It’s a fundamental right. That’s why it’s referred to as a “right.” I don’t know what country you were raised or educated in (if educated), but in the USA the Constitution is the law of the land, and enforcement of basic rights is not considered a “technicality.” In this instance, the right to speedy trial is structured into what’s known as Due Process of Law, which is another right.

          (5) And again, in THIS case, it’s Mueller doing the whining. Your statements about Trump are not relevant. Trump is not a party, or even a witness, in THIS case.

          Mueller is doing ALL the whining — that is, Mueller and you.

          1. I haven’t followed the case that closely, but I can recall from the indictments that they are based on identity fraud in setting up social media accounts. Does the government need to prove motive for this type of crime, or not? It would seem rather easy to prove the fact of setting up fraudulent accounts, and not revealing of sensitive methods. However, if the govt. has to prove a malevolent motive (interference in the election), then I could see it not being worth it.

            1. “Does the government need to prove motive for this type of crime, or not?”

              Yes — at least regarding Count One of the indictment.

              Per arguments contained in the defendant’s motion for in camera inspection of legal instructions provided to the grand jury, it seems that the main issue is that the indictment doesn’t specify that the conduct was “willful,” as defined by knowing violation of rules and/or regulations.

              https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4461391-Miscellaneous-Relief.html

              So right now, the indictment is deficient on its face, at least per Count One. I believe the indictment can be modified to state the offense correctly (possibly not — I’m not sure), but if the grand jury was given improper instructions and voted to indict without having the fact that the offense must be “willful” explained to them, along with a reasonable explanation of what “willful” means, the indictment, or at least Count One of the indictment, can and probably will get tossed out by the court.

              Per the defendant’s argument, “willful” is a very high standard of intent — very hard to prove because, as the defendant’s lawyer asserts, most Americans aren’t even familiar with the regulations that were allegedly violated. It’s not enough to suspect that you’re engaged in unlawful conduct while committing the alleged crime, but according to the defendant’s lawyers, you actually have to be reasonably familiar with the law you’re violating.

              But the motion is only related to Count One of the indictment, and that’s all I’m familiar with at this point. I haven’t read the actual indictment, but will be familiarizing myself with the case through the motions and arguments. That’s where the applicable statutes and case authorities will be explained as the case proceeds.

            2. OK — I just looked at the entire indictment, and from an extremely cursory review (like reading the Bible in less than 5 minutes), it appears that Count One is the only Count that refers to this particular defendant. The other counts refer to other companies and individuals but didn’t appear to specifically mention Concord Management.

              https://www.scribd.com/document/371674609/Internet-Research-Agency-Indictment#download&from_embed

              So if Count One fails for any reason, such as the failure to include “willfully” in the description of the alleged conduct in the indictment and/or especially in the instructions to the grand jury while seeking the indictment, it appears that this defendant will skate clean away.

    3. Troll extraordinaire: you forgot to mention Trump is fat and stupid! You’re slipping!

      Please, do consider a conversation with your MD about appropriate drug cocktail for your terminal case of TDS.

      Same as MSM, “Isaac” was on the exact opposite side of this argument Re. Ken Starr during the Bill Clinton sexapade scandal. Finger wagging Clinton: “I did NOT have sex with that woman!”…and HRC: “…a vast right wing conspiracy…”

      https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2016/06/09/voices-rise-and-fall-kenneth-starr/85471772/
      http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/06/starr/

      DNC charges against Trump: they’re all guilty, toss them in prison, impeach, impeach, impeach.
      RNC charges against the Deep State: trust your over lords, who have only and always good intentions

      Must America really name cities after MS13 members, as Pelosi demands? Is Eric Swallwell’s idea correct that we should confiscate certain weapons from law abiding Americans?

    4. taking time to cross as many Ts and dot as many Is as possible would be the way to go.

      Judge: “Why are you requesting to deny the defendant(s) a speed trial?”
      SC: “I hadn’t translated all the evidence that was in Russian, nor had I crossed all my T’s or dotted all the I’s before deciding to indict.”
      Judge: “Do you have a case to present to this Court?”
      SC: “We’re after the truth your honor, and I’m confident it’s in there somewhere.”
      Judge: “Do you have a case to support the indictments or not?”
      SC: “Perhaps, but in the interest of justice, we…”
      Judge: “Mr. Ham Sandwich, on behalf of the American people, this Court apologizes for the incompetence of the SC and his staff. Case dismissed. And Mr. Mueller, don’t come back here until you have complied with discovery requirements and are prepared to present your case.

    5. Mueller has all of the time in the world pre-indictment. He controls when it goes to the Grand Jury. Why would he bring it to the GJ if he’s not ready to go?

  8. “As a general rule, the desire of the defense for a speedy trial should carry the day.”

    6th Amendment: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial …”

    Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 48. Dismissal

    (a) By the Government. The government may, with leave of court, dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint. ***
    (b) By the Court. The court may dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint if unnecessary delay occurs in: *** (3) bringing a defendant to trial.

    What are the odds for dismissal by Mueller vs. dismissal by the Court?

    I don’t see Mueller being granted any delays here, since I don’t believe the Speedy Trial Act recognizes delays necessitated by discovery involving classified information or delays involving Mueller being unable to handle the workload per failure to be ready to cough up the requested discovery concerning classified information. All of that should have been anticipated by Mueller before the indictment was filed.

    I also don’t see Mueller EVER wanting to cough up classified information to Russians during a case which has “loser” written all over it — which would make Mueller a double loser — loser of the case and discloser of classified information — so even if the case is dismissed without prejudice — which will probably happen, just so Mueller can temporarily save face by claiming he’ll refile later — I don’t think the case will be refiled after being dismissed.

    It was pretty clear Mueller never intended to bring this case to trial even while bringing the indictment, since Mueller’s initial reaction when the Russian’s lawyers made an appearance in court was to claim that there was some question as to whether the defendant had been properly served —

    (LOL LOL LOL — that one still cracks me up)

    — so it will be interesting how long the Judge intends to indulge Mueller’s charade. Every time I’ve ever been in court, the judge never kept it a secret that the docket was crowded and that the court’s patience for nonsense was extremely limited.

  9. I hope Mueller does not get his continuance. This could be really fun. 😉

    1. “fun” — or “funnier”? This case has comedy hall of fame written all over it. Mueller’s next delaying motion might be about his dog having eaten his homework.

      1. William Bayer – I expect the water pipes will burst and all the evidence will be destroyed. 🙂

        1. Eventually, Mueller will ask for a delay because he’s pre-scheduled to officiate at St. Crispan’s Day ceremonies.

        2. By the way — this is the other good writer/legal analyst at The Federalist I referenced to you yesterday or the day before, whose name I couldn’t remember: John Dellaportas. The article I read by him is very good — well-written, well-constructed thoughts:

          http://thefederalist.com/2018/05/08/fbis-raid-michael-cohen-sets-dangerous-precedent/

          I dug through my Disqus comment history to find that this morning, to tell mespo about how a conversation we’d had was useful in locating the ONLY error I was able to locate in an otherwise very good article — and I only noticed the error because I’d been making it myself, until mespo and I hashed it out — about why Stormy Daniels conduct regarding payment from Trump/Cohen might not be extortion.

  10. “The speed of the defense, particularly Eric A. Dubelier, a partner with Reed Smith, seems to have take Mueller’s people by some surprise. The defense is demanding to see evidence which Mueller has been keeping closely held in his office. It could be the first serious disclosure of the cards in Mueller’s hand for defendants and potential targets. Thus far the defense is doing an excellent job in setting Mueller’s team back on its heels.”

    Yes, let’s see this evidence, and right now. Looks like this defense has confidence, and have challenged the fat and bloated state in a way not expected. When you run the show for so long, it is a shock when you are challenged. It appears there are tough days ahead for all these state actors out to protect their entitled paychecks.

  11. Dubelier and Seikaly representing Concord Management and Consulting requested discovery of reems of classified information without invoking The Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA). Judge Friedrich will not allow Dubelier and Seikaly to funnel classified information to Russia. CIPA will be invoked. The entire trial will be conducted in a Secure Compartmentalized Information Facility (SCIF), including, especially, discovery as well as Dubelier and Seikaly’s work product, so that Russia will not benefit from disclosure of classified information. Jeannie Rhee for the OSC will beat Concord over its head like a drum with classified evidence. Just you wait and see.

  12. if you are not ready to proceed, then dont indict-its not rocket science-tis would be laughable it it was not part of a slow motion coup

    1. Thanks for checking in with today’s Pravda Faux News talking points.

      this is to “I have a ‘Hannity was here’ tattoo across my lower back” teddie

      1. So you learned about this story from Fox News? I learned about this from quite a few publications and since none of them are the NYT or WaPo, I’m very confident their reporting is spot on since the facts all concur with the court transcripts.

        1. Mike Peterman, Dubelier and Seikaly are conducting a fishing expedition for The Kremlin. Among other things, The Kremlin wants to know the identities of Campaign Official 1, Campaign Official 2 and Campaign Official 3 in the indictment against Concord et al. No American should be cheering The Kremlin on in their quest for classified information from the United States government. CIPA must and will be invoked.

          1. Your comments, one and all, are besides the point. Read the Special Counsel’s motion. It is perfunctory. It makes none of these arguments. Frankly, I’ve never read anything quite as half-hearted in a serious case. Whatever Concord is or wants, all of this suggests indictments brought to soon and for the wrong reasons. Frankly, the risk of disclosure of classified information to Russia would, one would think, far outweigh a criminal show trial over what appears to be a modest and hapless effort to influence American politics. It’s standard operating procedure for defendants in cases like this to engage in fishing expeditions for classified information. It’s why such cases are rarely brought, and often dismissed. Mueller and company should have anticipated this.

            1. I understand that you want the case dismissed. The Judge refused to do that. Most likely because a Grand Jury brought the indictment based on evidence presented to the Grand Jury. In any case, the protection order that the OSC seeks is only a temporary delaying tactic. There will be a CIPA trial for Concord Management and Consulting. The OSC will win that trial. And The Kremlin will be none the wiser for it.

              1. I don’t know if a judge is less likely to dismiss a case that was brought via a grand jury indictment.
                The Bundys were indicted by a grand jury, and the judge dismissed that ( Nevada) case.
                Different circumstances, but IF the judge is inclined to dismiss the case against Concord, the grand jury indictment would not prevent him from doing so.

                1. to dismiss the case against Concord, the grand jury indictment would not prevent him from doing so.

                  And it’ll be fun to watch Late4Dinner when it happens.

                  1. But, but, but . . . You didn’t say anything about, you know, the non-sequitur. Dubelier and Seikaly are asking for a speedy trial. They did not file a motion to dismiss. It may be the case that they are hoping that Mueller will drop the charges. But I don’t think so. What The Kremlin really wants is to legalize election meddling by means of data analytics and the use of bots and trolls. That’s why they asked for discovery of evidence of the United States interfering in the elections of other countries going all the way back to 1945.

                    You see, The Kremlin still doesn’t recognize the distinction between free and fair elections versus elections without ballot secrecy, where the GRU and the FSB are standing next to voter, looking over the voter’s shoulder and breathing down the voter’s neck while they cast their ballots. There appears to be some doubt as to which sort of election Nii prefers.

                    P. S. Don’t forget about Campaign Official 1, Campaign Official 2 and Campaign Official 3. Those generic descriptors are place holders for people to be named in future indictments. There’s some question as to whether or not The Kremlin already knows the identity of those three Campaign Officials, anyway.

          2. L4D, of course any foreign government would want to know what our intelligence has gathered against them.

            And that’s why this group of indictments was totally for show and not for substance. No chance that this trial moves forward due to the discovery of documents that would have to be revealed.

            This was a poorly played action by Mueller and his team. The judge may grant Mueller’s motion so he can save face. Otherwise, an embarrassment.

            1. Mike Peterman….
              – One possibilty I’ve seen mentioned is that the prosecution will dismiss the charges.
              I don’t know how this “Concordcase” will turn out, but I wouldn’t lay heavy odds that ” the OSC will win that trial”, as predicted by L4D.

              1. TN, assuming the Judge performs the proper ruling and refuse to delay the trial, I concur that Mueller will have to withdraw the charges. No chance they give up themselves up for discovery.

                This case should never have been brought until the very end of the ‘investigation’.

                This was a big mistake.

                1. The only possible mistake was indicting organizational defendants exempted from Rule 43. And even then it was merely a risk–not necessarily a mistake. Mueller needs the indictment against those organizational defendants in order to bring future indictments against Campaign Officials 1, 2 & 3, who were merely described in the indictment against the Internet Research Agency, Concord Management and Consulting and Concord Catering. That’s why Mueller will not drop the charges. And that’s why the trial is virtually guaranteed to go CIPA. (Joe Biden was a legislative genius).

        2. Pay attention: “slow coup” is patent goggle-eyed conspiracy claptrap. But it looks good on you, though.

          this is to “Pravda Faux News is my life theme” mikey

  13. Getting back on topic it could almost be said that the main thrust of Meullers activities are 1. How to continue to ride the gravy train and 2. In such a way as to protect his real clients the Clintons and the DNC.

  14. WAKE UP AMERICA !
    YOUR GOVERNMENT IS HIJACKED BY ZIONISM
    Washington, DC is an ‘Israeli occupied territory’

    The Satanic Terrorist state of Israel, Zionist Jews have hijacked the American Media & Political System.
    Because the Zionists control the media most all Americans are ignorant of our situation.

    The American people have been duped, the U.S. / Israeli invasions are illegal wars.
    As the U.S. / Israeli invasions are War Crimes, the U.S. & Israel have Zionist Nazi Governments.
    The U.S. & Israel have committed the same crimes as the Nazis – Wars of Aggression, War Crimes & Crimes Against Humanity.
    The International Criminal Court & Interpol can arrest & prosecute the U.S. / Israeli war criminals.
    The U.S. Courts can arrest & prosecute them also but for years the U.S. Courts have been shown to be too corrupt.

    The Zionist Nazi Governments of the United States & Israel will be
    CONVICTED OF WAR CRIMES
    as the German Nazis at the Nuremberg Trials after World War II

    http://buenavistamall.com/USIsrael.jpg

    1. There lies one area that we have no need of in our Constitutional Republic. The leftovers of the Third Form of Socialism. They have no home in our country even less than the Second Form Progressive Socialists.

      Seig Me No Heils Kamerad. Just a version of International Socialism and sad, poor, version at that.

      The only group that serves The Party that The Party rejects.

      But Pelosi loves you as does Schumer.

      1. Michael is a well known idiot on this site. Feel free to ignore at all times.

Comments are closed.