The more sensitive the information, the harder for the defendant to mount a good defense. Does the defendant even get to see all the evidence the jury sees? Does the judge put his thumb on the scales of justice or merely produce summaries--"this is the evidence as I see it" sort of thing? Counterintelligence cases are most often dealt with using other tools, since very often the people involved aren't citizens, aren't entitled to be in the US, and can easily be punished by mere expulsion and penalties if they return to the US. That's how we've done things for many a generation. Until now, when all things are legal, apparently, or should be.


Easier to have this kind of defendant when they're tried in absentia. But then there's no defense at all and the issue of "fairness" is as far from the trial as Smolensk is from Kolyma. Criminal cases aren't tried this way, but in the absence of a trial the perception of winning seems to be on the accuser, i.e., the prosecutor. Hence the "Mueller's onto something, look at all the indictments." In other words, "Look at all the claims of guilt." Yeah, and Linus Pauling was onto something, so is Trump, look at all the claims. If wishes were fishes ... Now, if if the domestic domestic and the case would certainly go to trial, people are a bit more savvy than if they're international and a trial isn't likely.

He’s a very very bad man

HANG TOUGH, MR. MUELLER

from traitors..................from within and out.........Bob Mueller.....

Mueller is always one step ahead of the riff-raff.