Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pop Goes the Weasel

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Pop Goes the Weasel

    With one line if questioning Comey testimony becomes meaningless, there is nothing there but Comey's hurt feelings and his leaking of documents


    Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
    Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

  • #2
    USC641 & USC793

    Anything you do as a part of your employment by the government is government property.

    You may not convert government property for your own purposes.

    It is illegal to leak documents or materials regardless of classification.

    Just the facts of that, enh...

    Apparently the only 'leak' that did not happen is that Trump was never under investigation while Comey was Director of the FBI.


    On the Plains of Hesitation lie the blackened bones of countless millions who, at the dawn of victory, sat down to rest-and resting... died. Adlai E. Stevenson

    ACG History Today

    BoRG

    Comment


    • #3
      That is not true.

      Those were private notes and not a government document. Personal notes taken at meetings are not government documents, unless classified material is taken, and that should not be taken as notes in the first place.

      This is nothing but an excuse to make Comey the bad guy.

      The bad guy here is the Trump administration.
      We are not now that strength which in old days
      Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
      Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
      To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
        With one line if questioning Comey testimony becomes meaningless, there is nothing there but Comey's hurt feelings and his leaking of documents
        We shall see. Reason is explained here: https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/201...eachment-flynn && http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a..._word_and.html

        In short this: "For the record, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the words I hope can qualify as obstruction of justice." && "That’s not an explicit order, but at least two federal courts of appeals have found that “I hope” statements, when spoken by a defendant with potential sway over the statement’s target, can constitute obstruction of justice." Which, unless you are claiming that the predisent is above the law, doesn't bode well for him.
        It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed. The hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion

        Comment


        • #5
          ...and that's that.

          The esteemed senator from Idaho played it exactly right. He is not only a senator of the United States but a former prosecutorial attorney who knows how to ask questions. He asked the right questions of Comey and he got the right answers. Comey himself said, under oath, that the words "I hope" do not and cannot constitute obstruction of justice. The words "I hope" are merely a wish for a particular outcome.
          Well played Senator Risch.
          ARRRR! International Talk Like A Pirate Day - September 19th
          IN MARE IN COELO

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Jose50 View Post
            The esteemed senator from Idaho played it exactly right. He is not only a senator of the United States but a former prosecutorial attorney who knows how to ask questions. He asked the right questions of Comey and he got the right answers. Comey himself said, under oath, that the words "I hope" do not and cannot constitute obstruction of justice. The words "I hope" are merely a wish for a particular outcome.
            Well played Senator Risch.
            Disingenuous. The words "I hope" did not exist in a vacuum. Surrounding circumstances, prior events, body language, tone, speaker-listener roles and relative rank, are as important as the words.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Admiral View Post
              USC641 & USC793

              Anything you do as a part of your employment by the government is government property.

              You may not convert government property for your own purposes.

              It is illegal to leak documents or materials regardless of classification.

              Just the facts of that, enh...

              Apparently the only 'leak' that did not happen is that Trump was never under investigation while Comey was Director of the FBI.


              That is incorrect. Simple fact.
              “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
              “To talk of many things:
              Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
              Of cabbages—and kings—
              And why the sea is boiling hot—
              And whether pigs have wings.”
              ― Lewis Carroll

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Jose50 View Post
                The esteemed senator from Idaho played it exactly right. He is not only a senator of the United States but a former prosecutorial attorney who knows how to ask questions. He asked the right questions of Comey and he got the right answers. Comey himself said, under oath, that the words "I hope" do not and cannot constitute obstruction of justice. The words "I hope" are merely a wish for a particular outcome.
                Well played Senator Risch.
                I also liked Senator Risch's questions, and Senator Rubio. They both did great.
                "Stand for the flag ~ Kneel for the fallen"

                "A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer." ~ Bruce Lee

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Jose50 View Post
                  The esteemed senator from Idaho played it exactly right. He is not only a senator of the United States but a former prosecutorial attorney who knows how to ask questions. He asked the right questions of Comey and he got the right answers. Comey himself said, under oath, that the words "I hope" do not and cannot constitute obstruction of justice. The words "I hope" are merely a wish for a particular outcome.
                  Well played Senator Risch.
                  US Federal courts disagree with you.
                  It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed. The hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                    That is incorrect. Simple fact.
                    When is it legal to leak documents or material?
                    "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Vaeltaja View Post
                      We shall see. Reason is explained here: https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/201...eachment-flynn && http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a..._word_and.html

                      In short this: "For the record, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the words I hope can qualify as obstruction of justice." && "That’s not an explicit order, but at least two federal courts of appeals have found that “I hope” statements, when spoken by a defendant with potential sway over the statement’s target, can constitute obstruction of justice." Which, unless you are claiming that the predisent is above the law, doesn't bode well for him.
                      What? The case of the bank robber not wanting his girlfriend to tell about a weapon: “I hope and pray to God you didn’t say anything about a weapon.”

                      That's a completely different situation.
                      {}

                      "Any story sounds true until someone tells the other side and sets the record straight." -Proverbs 18:17

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Comey being "disturbed " is not a criminal act.
                        Trump can easily claim he was merely expressing a desire for the FBIs investigation into Flynn to deliver a decision on the matter one way or the other.
                        It's personal interpretation.
                        The Democrats are acting like pimple faced teenagers, standing in front of a mirror (TV cameras) squeezing zits, and accomplishing nothing more than turning their face red....
                        Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
                        Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by BorderRuffian View Post
                          What? The case of the bank robber not wanting his girlfriend to tell about a weapon: “I hope and pray to God you didn’t say anything about a weapon.”

                          That's a completely different situation.
                          Maybe. Not for me - or you - to decide. Yet it shows that the phrase alone doesn't make it 'innocent'.
                          It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed. The hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Vaeltaja View Post
                            US Federal courts disagree with you.


                            Not really.
                            Given that the article you cited did not identify the case or the holding, I suspected that there was a reason for that. Your article linked to a tweet by a NYT reporter. His tweet said "I hope" was enough. I looked at the actual case and that is not what the court held.

                            What the court actually held is as follows:
                            In McDonald’s case, the district court based the obstruction of justice
                            enhancement on: (1) Callahan’s testimony that, when she visited McDonald while he
                            was incarcerated, he showed her a note urging her not to say anything about the knife;
                            and (2) the letter McDonald wrote to Callahan which stated in part, “I hope and pray
                            to God you did not say anything about a weapon when you were in Iowa. Because it
                            will make it worse on me and you even if they promised not to prosecute you[.]
                            http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/08/04/072601P.pdf


                            Nowhere in the decision does the court say "I hope" alone is enough.
                            In case above, the Court held that "I hope" followed by a specific direction is enough to sustain a conviction for obstruction of justice.

                            The context of a Court's holding is important and the article omitted that. Probably intentionally.
                            This case does not say what your linked articles claim it does.
                            It can be used to support an argument, but does not establish "I hope" alone is enough.
                            Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                            Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Nichols View Post
                              When is it legal to leak documents or material?

                              Regardless of legality, it harms Comey's credibility and suddenly makes Trump's demand for loyalty seem much more reasonable.
                              Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                              Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X