Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Comey is confused
Comments
-
This could be Mueller's "thanks" to Trump. And a bone to the vast seas of disappointed democrats.
Mueller is still a storm trooper piece of shit who ruined lives based on nothing
Regardless of what he said or didn't say -
Hey, cirrhosis gave me exclusive license to that schtick now. Back off.creepycoug said:
I'm not a criminal lawyer, but you don't need an underlying crime for obstruction to stick. The idea of obstruction is interfering with the process ... judicial proceeding, agency investigation, etc.HHusky said:
It is wrong to say that you cannot obstruct justice simply because there proves to be no underlying crime. That justification is contrary to law and precedent. I have already said that the decision itself may have been a good one, despite any error in the justification. We can't gauge the quality of the decision, of course.GrundleStiltzkin said:
I'll bite, what's wrong about Barr's legal opinion? The two parties with knowledge and legal authority to charge Trump did not make charges. I get that you don't like that decision. What about it is simply wrong?HHusky said:That who is totally lying? Bob Barr's legal opinion is simply wrong. We haven't even seen Mueller's report. We're discussing this out in the open. You girls should be happier. Strangely, you're not.
So, if you have someone who's being looked at for suspicion of doing something, you're not allowed to get in the way of that effort by, say, destroying evidence. Even if the guy gets off, you won't.
That idea has been bouncing around here the last couple of days; I haven't chimed in because it doesn't really matter and because I don't care.
Or don't. Whatever. -
But do you need a crime to start an investigation? Or odds the FBI, NSA,CIA now the KGB?creepycoug said:
I'm not a criminal lawyer, but you don't need an underlying crime for obstruction to stick. The idea of obstruction is interfering with the process ... judicial proceeding, agency investigation, etc.HHusky said:
It is wrong to say that you cannot obstruct justice simply because there proves to be no underlying crime. That justification is contrary to law and precedent. I have already said that the decision itself may have been a good one, despite any error in the justification. We can't gauge the quality of the decision, of course.GrundleStiltzkin said:
I'll bite, what's wrong about Barr's legal opinion? The two parties with knowledge and legal authority to charge Trump did not make charges. I get that you don't like that decision. What about it is simply wrong?HHusky said:That who is totally lying? Bob Barr's legal opinion is simply wrong. We haven't even seen Mueller's report. We're discussing this out in the open. You girls should be happier. Strangely, you're not.
So, if you have someone who's being looked at for suspicion of doing something, you're not allowed to get in the way of that effort by, say, destroying evidence. Even if the guy gets off, you won't.
That idea has been bouncing around here the last couple of days; I haven't chimed in because it doesn't really matter and because I don't care. -
Crimes are what you have when a tribunal with appropriate jurisdiction has concluded that the crime was committed, based on the relevant standard of proof.Sledog said:
But do you need a crime to start an investigation? Or odds the FBI, NSA,CIA now the KGB?creepycoug said:
I'm not a criminal lawyer, but you don't need an underlying crime for obstruction to stick. The idea of obstruction is interfering with the process ... judicial proceeding, agency investigation, etc.HHusky said:
It is wrong to say that you cannot obstruct justice simply because there proves to be no underlying crime. That justification is contrary to law and precedent. I have already said that the decision itself may have been a good one, despite any error in the justification. We can't gauge the quality of the decision, of course.GrundleStiltzkin said:
I'll bite, what's wrong about Barr's legal opinion? The two parties with knowledge and legal authority to charge Trump did not make charges. I get that you don't like that decision. What about it is simply wrong?HHusky said:That who is totally lying? Bob Barr's legal opinion is simply wrong. We haven't even seen Mueller's report. We're discussing this out in the open. You girls should be happier. Strangely, you're not.
So, if you have someone who's being looked at for suspicion of doing something, you're not allowed to get in the way of that effort by, say, destroying evidence. Even if the guy gets off, you won't.
That idea has been bouncing around here the last couple of days; I haven't chimed in because it doesn't really matter and because I don't care.
Before that very moment, all you have are facts and circumstances, and people's versions of them. You need probable cause to believe that that there are facts and circumstances that would satisfy the elements of a crime if a tribunal with jurisdiction were to find it so.
Obstruction of Justice is about fucking up process. The actual commission of the facts necessary to satisfy the elements of a crime is not a formal predicate to the occurrence of obstruction. -
Ok so they didn't have a crime. Thanks.
-
I don't understand your response.Sledog said:Ok so they didn't have a crime. Thanks.
But I take back what I said. Probable cause is what you need for a search warrant.
What is needed to start an investigation? Probably just enough to satisfy those in charge that it's not a waste of time. Say someone here starts a rumor that OBK is a terrorist (don't worry Derek; I'm not being an idiot. It's a hypo). Say someone on this board, like you, has connections to law enforcement and takes this rumor seriously and says, "hey, I think we may have a terrorist posting on HCH." At that point, someone may just start poking around. I would guess, but I don't know, that poking around is legally the beginning of an investigation. I don't think you need much for law enforcement to merely start looking into things. They can question people, watch you, search for clues, etc. What you do need something for (probable cause) is to start crossing the privacy boundaries. Search and seizure are different than launching a probe.
You know all this better than I do. -
I agree that you can obstruct justice without a crime being committed or maybe charged by trying to preempt the investigation. There was no crime charged when Nixon asked the FBI and CIA to cover up the break in. Yet he did obstruct justice and there was a crime. Trump did not commit a crime - vindicated exonerated! - but had he told Sleepy Jeff to gum it up that's obstruction.
Where this witch hunt runs into trouble is the lack of probable cause and the "lying" (don't @ me bro) to the FISA court on the basis for the wire tap of a political opponent. That actually should concern all Americans. Its happened three times that I know of in my life time. LBJ, Nixon, and now Obama. Bi partisan.
There was no basis for the wire taps, special counsel or any of the last two years. Let's not forget two investigations in the house and senate as well
Vindicated
Exonerated -
And Popadopolous (sp) has a nice case for when he was used to try to gin up a warrant.
Imagine W launching an investigation and wire tap on Obama in 2007 without going to Obama first and saying - hey we're hearing you were born in Kenya and are a terrorist. Instead accuse him of it and investigate him for two years -
No. He really doesn't.creepycoug said:
I don't understand your response.Sledog said:Ok so they didn't have a crime. Thanks.
But I take back what I said. Probable cause is what you need for a search warrant.
What is needed to start an investigation? Probably just enough to satisfy those in charge that it's not a waste of time. Say someone here starts a rumor that OBK is a terrorist (don't worry Derek; I'm not being an idiot. It's a hypo). Say someone on this board, like you, has connections to law enforcement and takes this rumor seriously and says, "hey, I think we may have a terrorist posting on HCH." At that point, someone may just start poking around. I would guess, but I don't know, that poking around is legally the beginning of an investigation. I don't think you need much for law enforcement to merely start looking into things. They can question people, watch you, search for clues, etc. What you do need something for (probable cause) is to start crossing the privacy boundaries. Search and seizure are different than launching a probe.
You know all this better than I do. -
I don't trust Greek peopleRaceBannon said:And Popadopolous (sp) has a nice case for when he was used to try to gin up a warrant.
Imagine W launching an investigation and wire tap on Obama in 2007 without going to Obama first and saying - hey we're hearing you were born in Kenya and are a terrorist. Instead accuse him of it and investigate him for two years
