Comey is confused

GrundleStiltzkin said:

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.

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?

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.

creepycoug said:

HHusky said:

GrundleStiltzkin said:

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.

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?

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.

I'm not a criminal lawyer, but you don't need an underlying crime for obstruction to stick. The idea of obstruction is interfering the process ... judicial proceeding, agency investigation, etc.

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.

All I hear is obstruction from you

2001400ex said:

SFGbob said:

Sledog said:

SFGbob said:

Sledog said:

Interesting thought process. According to Comey you don't even need a crime to investigate to investigate. KGB man right there.

After 2 years all the witnesses, search warrants and FBI agents working this entirely fabricated crime of a non-crime (collusion) and they have absolutely nothing. Comey thought his firing was the obstruction but he was a liar and he was telling those lies because of his own political beliefs and bias. He was fired for it. Unfit for law enforcement.

All of the Russian hacking, if there was any, and all of the corruption at the FBI that was uncovered by the exposure of McCabe and Strozk and Page happened on Comey's watch. He should have been fired for being a shitty Administrator.

Most forget that all of this crap started under Obama's watch. I believe he was involved and had full knowledge.

I do as well, and I think that much of this "investigation" has been designed to give time and opportunity to the Obama loyalist to cover their tracks.

Why can't we answer at this late date with 100% certainty if the DNC was ever really hacked and who they were hacked by?

If they were hacked? El oh El. You don't recall the emails that were released? Fuck you are stupid.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/russian-officers-indicted-for-allegedly-hacking-clinton-campaign-dnc-emails

Were they "hacked" or were the released by someone on the inside? We still don't know the answer to that question.

creepycoug said:

HHusky said:

GrundleStiltzkin said:

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Hey, cirrhosis gave me exclusive license to that schtick now. Back off.

Or don't. Whatever.

Sledog said:

creepycoug said:

HHusky said:

GrundleStiltzkin said:

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

But do you need a crime to start an investigation? Or odds the FBI, NSA,CIA now the KGB?

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.

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.

Sledog said:

Ok so they didn't have a crime. Thanks.

I don't understand your response.

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.

RaceBannon 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

I don't trust Greek people

Of course you can obstruct justice if there has been no crime committed. If during the course of the investigation in order to determine if there has been a crime committed you harass and intimidate the investigators you're obstructing justice.

But Mueller knew that wasn't the case with Trump, he knew there was no obstruction of justice and that's why he punted on it and tossed it back to the DOJ. His entire investigation was a huge waste of time and money. Yeah I'm glad he caught a tax cheat like Manafort but his investigation into Russian collusion with the Trump team was a complete bust despite Hondo lies to the contrary.


If what Hondo claimed really was a "documented fact" then Trump and everyone at that meeting with the Russians would be facing indictment. But thankfully Hondo is a pathological liar who was just talking out his ass and what he claimed was a "documented fact" is nothing but another of Hondo's endless lies.

And it's a documented fact that Trump's team met with a Russian team to discuss giving DNC emails and Hillary emails to Trump.

Now that all this exonerated bullshit is out of the way.....can the fucking AG get around to legalizing weed across these 50 states?!?

The Throbber needs to be able to buy his edibles when he goes deeper into the Red states.....Wyoming, let's get this. Nebraska...c'mon! The Throbber does NOT want to be a lawbreaker traveling across state lines with contraband indica gummies.

Get your shit together or put Sven in charge.

2001400ex said:

Sledog said:

creepycoug said:

Sledog said:

Ok so they didn't have a crime. Thanks.

I don't understand your response.

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.

OK but in this case they had none of that. They had the fake dossier produced by Steele who, if IIRC, had already been dumped by the FBI for bad info as he had been an informant for them. We have Comey saying nothing in the dossier could be verified in any way. Add the fact that Mueller started after all that means they did it without probable cause to begin an investigation or obtain FISA warrants etc. etc. etc. In fact everything Mueller discovered unrelated to Trump may well be tainted.

This is such an egregious use of power! They did this to a candidate for president and then a legally elected sitting president in attempt to remove him from power.

I see problems with this don't you?

Obama had to be up to his neck in this fiasco as well as Clinton and top people at the FBI, CIA, NSA, justice etc.

What you don't mention is Trump Jr lied about the meeting with Russians in July of 16. And Trump lying about how long into the campaign the Trump tower hotel project was being discussed.. When people lie about things, there's usually a reason why. HTH

What's the reason you tell this lie Hondo?

And it's a documented fact that Trump's team met with a Russian team to discuss giving DNC emails and Hillary emails to Trump.