Connect with us

News

Best of the Best Lawyers Indict A Russian Company That Doesn’t Exist?

It seems that Robert Mueller’s probe into allegations of Russian collusion during the 2016 election is falling apart at the seams. 

Published

on

Robert Mueller

It seems that Robert Mueller’s probe into allegations of Russian collusion during the 2016 election is falling apart at the seams.  According to court transcripts, one of the Russian companies Mueller accused of funding a conspiracy to meddle in the election was revealed in court to not have existed during the time period alleged by his team of prosecutors, said a lawyer representing the defendant.

According to the Daily Wire:

U.S. Magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey asked Eric Dubelier, one of two lawyers representing the accused Russian company, Concord Management and Consulting LLC, if he was representing a third company listed in Mueller’s indictment.

Trending: Revealed: Trump Would’ve Won Five More States In 2016 Landslide If Not For McMullin & Johnson

“What about Concord Catering?” Harvey asked Dubelier. “The government makes an allegation that there’s some association. I don’t mean for you to – do you represent them, or not, today? And are we arraigning them as well?”

take our poll - story continues below

Will Hillary Clinton enter the 2020 race for president?

  • Will Hillary Clinton enter the 2020 race for president?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

“We’re not,” Dubelier responded. “And the reason for that, Your Honor, is I think we’re dealing with a situation of the government having indicted the proverbial ham sandwich.”

“That company didn’t exist as a legal entity during the time period alleged by the government,” Dubelier explained. “If at some later time they show me that it did exist, we would probably represent them. But for purposes of today, no, we do not.”

 

 

Ryan Saavedra explains: “The term ‘indict a ham sandwich’ is believed to have originated from a 1985 report in the New York Daily News when New York Chief Judge Sol Wachtler told the news publication that government prosecutors have so much influence over grand juries that they could get them to ‘indict a ham sandwich.’”

It’s long past time for this witch-hunt to be shut down.

H/T Gateway Pundit

 

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

News

Biden Condemns Trump for Using the Word ‘Lynching,’ But Said the Same Thing In 1998

Ain’t that something?

John Salvatore

Published

on

Democrats can literally quote themselves from decades past and then argue they didn’t say what they said. Doesn’t even matter if their words are on record. If that sounds funny to you, it’s because it is. They are ridiculous. President Trump for example, if he wanted to, could pull a word-for-word sentence from Joe Biden’s past, blast Biden for using it, then Biden would claim he never said it. That’s how Democrats operate. It’s just lie after lie. On Tuesday, Trump used the word “lynching” to describe how he’s being treated by Congressional liberals. Naturally, the left blew a gasket. Biden, himself, wasn’t pleased with 45’s words. But Biden is pretty much a comedian at this point. From Daily Wire: Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden was quick to attack President Donald Trump on Tuesday after Trump referred to impeachment as a “lynching,” which is the same term that Biden used in 1998 to describe the impeachment of then-President Bill Clinton. “So some day, if a Democrat becomes President and the Republicans win the House, even by a tiny margin, they can impeach the President, without due process or fairness or any legal rights,” Trump tweeted. “All Republicans must remember what they are witnessing here – a lynching. But we will WIN!” So some day, if a Democrat becomes President and the Republicans win the House, even by a tiny margin, they can impeach the President, without due process or fairness or any legal rights. All Republicans must remember what they are witnessing here – a lynching. But we will WIN! https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1186611272231636992 Impeachment is not “lynching,” it is part of our Constitution. Our country has a dark, shameful history with lynching, and to even think about making this comparison is abhorrent. It’s despicable. https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1186691273870233601?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1186691273870233601&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailywire.com%2Fnews%2F1998-remarks-from-biden-surface-after-he-attacks-trumps-lynching-remarks WATCH: While Biden has called Trump’s lynching…

Continue Reading

News

Dem Lawmaker’s Bill Would Put Citizens In Jail for Six Months for Using the B-Word Out of Context

In what world??

John Salvatore

Published

on

Democrats not only want to regulate the 2nd Amendment but they figure it’s time to go after the 1st, also. Because who needs freedom of speech? After all, even Rhodes Scholar Lebron James said there are negatives that come with freedom of speech – and he’s someone to be listened to! Check out this Democrat lawmaker from the same state as Elizabeth Warren. He wants the word “bitch” to be taxed but he’s going about it in a way only a Democrat would go about it. If you use the word in a wrong way, you’d be fined $200 or sent to jail for six months. Seems just a tad bit excessive for using…a word, doesn’t it? Oh, those silly Dems. From Reason: Massachusetts is taking the fight against nasty words to the next level with a new state bill that would ban the use of the word bitch in certain contexts. State Rep. Daniel Hunt (D–Boston) has put forward H. 3719 that would prohibit the use of the big, bad b-word when deployed to “to accost, annoy, degrade or demean” another person. Anyone who did so would be considered a “disorderly person” under state law. Penalties could include fines of up to $200 or six months in jail. Hunt’s bill specifies that either the person called a bitch or a witness to the bitch-calling could report the crime to the police. Reactions: Thanks a lot Massachusetts! California, the center of the universe when it comes to stupid, stupid laws, will see this and not only copy it but one up it somehow. https://twitter.com/Arqahn/status/1186764482611236864?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1186764482611236864&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitchy.com%2Fbrettt-3136%2F2019%2F10%2F22%2Fmassachusetts-democrats-bill-would-make-it-a-crime-to-say-the-b-word%2F What will we do with all the dogs https://twitter.com/SorryNotaBot/status/1186786524991389696?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1186786524991389696&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitchy.com%2Fbrettt-3136%2F2019%2F10%2F22%2Fmassachusetts-democrats-bill-would-make-it-a-crime-to-say-the-b-word%2F “Don’t mess with my first amendment, bitch.”- Jesse Pinkman (probably) https://twitter.com/presidentshemp/status/1186776934958665733?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1186776934958665733&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitchy.com%2Fbrettt-3136%2F2019%2F10%2F22%2Fmassachusetts-democrats-bill-would-make-it-a-crime-to-say-the-b-word%2F Free speech unless some bitch gets feelings hurt. https://twitter.com/AnthonyBialy/status/1186766905442537474?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1186766905442537474&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitchy.com%2Fbrettt-3136%2F2019%2F10%2F22%2Fmassachusetts-democrats-bill-would-make-it-a-crime-to-say-the-b-word%2F Daniel J. Hunt is too big for…

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Best of the Week

Send this to a friend