All true. I was making a general point. I'm not supporting this thing as it's so broad and it seems written for more lay audiences.
Biden issues pre-emptive pardons in final hours for Anthony Fauci, Liz Cheney, Milley and others
- Thread starter Mr.Gr33k
- Start date
Other than Hunter, please post the courts, any courts, findings as to this statement .
Are you trying to rewrite history or just blathering your personal thoughts on your toilet seat investigations of Tik Tok.
"American Oversight has uncovered the signed directive from Jeff Sessions instructing a federal prosecutor to carry out Trump’s authoritarian demand to investigate Hillary Clinton."
https://americanoversight.org/sessions-letter/
Here are the letters and emails discovered.
https://www.documentcloud.org/docum...rDirective/?mode=document#document/p3/a485908
Comey was investigated by the FBI during Trumps term.
Trump had accused him of leaking sensitive documments.
Here are the findings of that investigation.
https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2019/o1902.pdf
Neither of these amounted to anything.
Action speak louder than words.
Last edited:
The rule is that you must answer every question the committee asks you, otherwise you can be held in contempt of Congress. However, the committee cannot demand that you answer a question if, in answering, you will incriminate yourself.
You still have your Fifth Amendment right when you testify before Congress.
Liz Ceney is not currently under investigation.
This assumption is based on disinformation being pushed by Trump to get the FBI to investigate Cheney based on an ethics complaint filed by GOP members.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5055401-trump-accuses-liz-cheney/
It is stated in the Ethics Complaint" The allegation is that Cheney violated the “anti-contact rule” of legal ethics, by communicating with Cassidy Hutchinson without going through her lawyer. And, because of that supposed violation, the Subcommittee urges the FBI to investigate Cheney for the crime of witness tampering (p. 117).
That accusation is based on a selective quotation of the anti-contact rule, leaving out the very words that prove that it does not apply. The effect is to create a public show that may well serve political purposes, but should be a complete nonstarter under any bona fide legal review.
https://www.justsecurity.org/106004/ethics-complaint-cheney-hutchinson/
The problem is, though, that she didn’t, because the rule applies only to lawyers who are representing clients – which Cheney was not.
Both the House report and the America First Legal complaint conspicuously lop off the first seven words of the sentence they quote from Rule 4.2(a), which make it clear why the rule doesn’t apply:
During the course of representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate or cause another to communicate about the subject of the representation with a person known to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the prior consent of the lawyer representing such other person …. (emphasis added)
Cheney was not representing a client.
In the US system, the prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence the FBI has helped collect. Although the FBI don’t normally make public their recommendations to the prosecutors, they frequently make recommendations and engage in productive conversations with prosecutors about what resolution may be appropriate, given the evidence
[/QUOTE]Some of us were discussing Hillary Clinton's mishandling of confidential communications earlier. In that instance, FBI Director Comey basically said Hillary violated the law, but didn't think the case should be pursued.
[/QUOTE]
This is what Comey actually said in his briefing:
"In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.
As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case."
Full briefing here:
https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-rele...-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system
The meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction" is pretty clearly and specifically tailored to distinguish between diplomatic residents and other residents however.
Just sayin'...........
That's a standard, all-purpose, hardcore lawyer rule btw.
Has never been held to apply to a non lawyer.
I know you went to a lot of trouble to research this, but Cheney's conversations with Cassidy Hutchinson are problematic. There was an Ethics Complaint from the Republican House and there is enough to question Cheney's discussions with Hutchinson. Some might have the opinion that is not substantive, but it is within the House's authority.
By the way, saying something should be investigated is not declaring someone is guilty. Hyperbole from Trump or Republicans and conversely Democrats doesn't change this simple notion. Additionally, my opinion or anyone else's that investigators would likely not be able to prove Cheney violated any law or bar ethics standard is a moot point.
Last edited:
Fifth amendment of the Constitution for anyone who is wondering.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Annotations to the amendment.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-5/
Last edited:
Not really, I knew most of it from reading in the past, it took about 10 minutes to find it again and compose that post.
If you want copies of text messages between Hutchinson, Farah and Cheney on the matter and would like to discuss their content that was released by the House, I believe I remember where I saw them as well.
It is not, you are correct, but if someone is not suspected of being guilty of something why call for an investigtion.
Because there's a process whether we agree with it or not. There's a process whether it's political or not.
At the time on these pages, I found Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony problematic. Liz Cheney's engagement with Hutchinson was probably imprudent.
Last edited:
There seems to be some question whether someone can take the Fifth if they themselves are not on trial. The idea that someone would be required to speak freely and openly when they have been pardoned for an alleged crime has been thrown around in recent years.
In practice, I think politicos are very well-versed and well-coached on how to evade answering questions.
Miranda was made in the 1970's IIRC. Time to chuck that out as well.
How about Brown v Ohio Board of Education? 1950's IIRC. Chuck it out as well.
Any legal decision made more than 6 months ago is crap, right?
Your problem is this: The 1898 decision applies currently relevant law to a currently relevant fact situation. There was an immigration law framework in place by the 1890's - albeit not one that we would be comfortable with today. So the argument that the 14A was just to assure former slaves that they were full citizens in the late 1860's and irrelevant after that time doesn't work.
So you say that hordes of brown people are going to sneak in and reproduce and subvert the integrity of the country and undermine its immigration system. Well, substitute the word "yellow" for the word brown and that's very similar to the argument used in 1898. Not much has changed.
You say "There are more browns coming in than yellows in 1898. It's a god damn crisis!" And I say: "Maybe time for a constitutional amendment then. You know how to do that, huh?"
Because the disturbing thing about what Trump has done is that it has bypassed all legislative debate and avoided the deliberately high hurdle to instituting constitutional amendments. Now you have a situation where the constitution is / isn't whatever the Big Man says it is from week to week - kinda like Putin's Russia or Kim's North Korea.
We don't want that, do we?
After all, we know how much Republicans protect the constitution...... (except when it comes to fucking over women and non whites, I guess).
