Robert Mueller investigation

[lajago]

Delicious food

[umjewman]

You might as well.

I'm reminded of the old joke: "Look to your left. Look to your right. By the end of the year....one of you will be seeking the Democratic nomination for president."

They did a more depressing one at the start of law school, when they said at least one of you will not finish law school.

[Judge Jude]

They did a more depressing one at the start of law school, when they said at least one of you will not finish law school.

I got this one first class, freshman year, but it was Calculus - 'one of you will have to drop out of majoring in Engineering."
This Communications major survived the class - and crushed the life out of someone else's dreams.
#oops

[revo]

Delicious food

Goodbye, peeples.

[Bernie Brewer]

Goodbye, peeples.

Was it the damn Russians trying to interfere with our discussion about their interference with our elections?

[onejayhawk]

Absurd and baseless nonsense, Jay.

How so? How can one have a duty to violate the 4th Amendment?

There are three things that must be proven in an obstruction case. The first is a valid investigation. That is what is being challenged.

J

[Fresno Bob]

They did a more depressing one at the start of law school, when they said at least one of you will not finish law school.

we got it at UC Berkeley freshman orientation...."Only 1 of you will graduate from here....."

[onejayhawk]

I hesitate to post this, but I might as well urge on the fallen horse. There is lengthy article on how badly the FBI fudged the FISA application, using the Mueller report to fill in some redacted portions of the application. The material in quotes is from the FISA application.

"As discussed above, the FBI believes that Page has been collaborating and conspiring with the Russian government [redacted]," the bureau wrote. "Based on the foregoing facts and circumstances, the FBI submits that there is probable cause to believe that Page [redacted] knowingly engage in clandestine intelligence activities (other than intelligence gathering activities) for or on behalf of such foreign power, or knowingly conspires with other persons to engage in such activities and, therefore, is an agent of a foreign power as defined by 50 U.S.C. 1801(b)(2)(E)."

That allegation was at the heart of the Mueller investigation, and the special counsel did not allege that Page, or any American, was involved in what the FBI described.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/byron-york-why-was-fbi-so-wrong-in-trump-russia-wiretap-warrant

J

[B-Fly]

How so? How can one have a duty to violate the 4th Amendment?

There are three things that must be proven in an obstruction case. The first is a valid investigation. That is what is being challenged.

J

No it's not. There is no case law that says that someone who is aware of a pending proceeding is free to intentionally obstruct that hearing if he believes the proceeding was based on false pretenses. Even if the government engaged in unconstitutional searches or seizures, a defendant is guilty of obstruction if he knew of the pending proceeding and acted with corrupt intent to impede that proceeding. The remedy for 4th Amendment violations is suppression of evidence improperly obtained. It is not license to threaten or coerce potential witnesses or to hide evidence.

[onejayhawk]

Brian, that makes no sense. First, intent to obstruct was always the weakest element. I don't think you could prove it for any of the 10. However, there are two other elements that must proven--the investigation and knowledge of the investigation. If the investigation is not a proper search within the meaning of the 4th Amendment, you are also fried. Even more so if the search turns out to be criminal. To that end

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/05/14/barr_assigns_us_attorney_to_review_origins_of_russia_probe_140321.html

J

[B-Fly]

Brian, that makes no sense.

No, what makes no sense is any suggestion that a 4th Amendment violation (if one even occurred) allows one to intimidate, coerce or entice witnesses to lie, disappear or refuse cooperation. There is no precedent for excusing deliberate obstruction.

[onejayhawk]

No, what makes no sense is any suggestion that a 4th Amendment violation (if one even occurred) allows one to intimidate, coerce or entice witnesses to lie, disappear or refuse cooperation. There is no precedent for excusing deliberate obstruction.

Obstruction of what? There is no investigation to obstruct. That is one of the elements, is it not?

BTW Are you confusing this with 1997? Those were real issues in Clinton's impeachment. Not so much here.

J

[GwynnInTheHall]

Obstruction of what? There is no investigation to obstruct. That is one of the elements, is it not?

BTW Are you confusing this with 1997? Those were real issues in Clinton's impeachment. Not so much here.

J

You make me look stable..........

[frae]

I'm sure anyone that cares is already aware but he is scheduled to speak live at 11 AM today.

[frae]

"If we had confidence the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so." Bob Mueller

“Charging the president with a crime was not an option we could consider" Because or DOJ rules so basically only Congress can do this.