Posted on 11/10/2017 11:43:38 AM PST by gubamyster
I have no idea what you are saying. It makes no sense.
The SEALED INDICTMENTS in CRIMINAL CASES are clearly highlighted.
What the hell is your point?
Everyone else on this board seems to have reasonable reading comprehension skills.
My point is that the recent activity in SEALED INDICTMENTS in CRIMINAL CASES in a few venues has exceeded the entire count of same in the 2006 PACER study.
Over and out.
Thanks.
You actually don’t know what you are reading.
I took a brief glance at the study because your argument made no sense.
That number you keep quoting??? It’s not what you think. It seems to me you are saying there were only 284 sealed indictments in the whole of USA in 2006..and then trying to extrapolate to say ..oh my..it must be Mueller in DC because it is such a large number in DC.
Preposterous on the face. Is that what you are claiming??? Only 284 sealed indictments in all of USA in 2006?
If so , go back and read that doc again.
I rest my case. You just admitted I was right.
placemark.
HOGWASH
This is my post that started your insanity:
To: rolling_stone
It does not say Sealed Indictments Case Study.
It is a Sealed CASES study.
A CASE IS NOT THE SAME AS AN INDICTMENT.
Not sure why people are still not understanding that a sealed docket entry is not necessarily indicative of an indictment.
A poster here talked about how they do it in his jurisdiction which does not make an entry for indictments until the case is unsealed.
He didn’t know how they do it in DC and neither do I.
So let’s be clear.
Your number is wrong. Your extrapolation is wrong. There weren’t just 284 sealed indictments filed in 2006. Read the doc.
So once again, this study PROVES my point. NOT ALL SEALED CASES ARE INDICTMENTS
So people should stop making that claim.
Why do I find it so amusing that anyone on FR has even an inkling of hope much less spend time speculating that Hillary or any of her accomplices will be indicted?
Yes, why do you find it so amusing?
Lady Justice is supposed to be blind.
Don’t worry. I will not hire you to analyze my PACER account.
Go to the head of the class for outing BS stories as this was also mentioned a few days ago
When these indictments are “sealed”, do they come with an “unsealing” date?
I'm no lawyer, but I have herd they can be sealed for several months. I'm not sure if there is an expiration date.
Whatever happens, Mueller’s accumulation of high-end democrat attorneys had effectively taken them all out of the market as defense counsel for any important perp. Their activity with the SP office has tainted them.
Yes, why do you find it so amusing?
Lady Justice is supposed to be blind.
—
But clearly she’s not, and Lady Justice is not the funny one, it’s freepers who as a group are more informed than most and are genuinely wise in their assessment of Americanism. Hillary won’t be indicted nor anyone who could take her down.
>>Well, Donald, your “She’s a good person”, might be coming back to rip your administration to bits. Never Show Weakness.<<
Yes, perhaps the most ridiculous comment I’ve ever heard him make. It was a damn lie, and there was absolutely no excuse for having said it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.