Classified reports have ‘damning evidence’ of Trump campaign’s coordination with Russ

[Desiremakesmeweak]

This is what propaganda is, see - you repeat things and then suddenly 'they become true.' Not.

 

[HisArpy]

That is one thing we do know. There is absolutely no reasonable doubt remaining on that point.

Wrong. We do not know anything. What we do know is as I posted earlier, that a Russian connected group hacked the DNC server. Nothing more than that has been release to the public. To extrapolate that to "interference" is improper.

That is irrelevant. They did interfere illegally regardless of whether they interfered effectually.

It is NOT "illegal" for a foreign government to meddle in an election. If you believe so, please quote the law which says that. (Good luck wit dat)

Of course it was, if that communication involved collusion with the Russian's efforts; it makes them accessories, and guilty of criminal conspiracy.

IF. Always IF. Yet you always believe IF means proven beyond a doubt. In the words of Diane Feinstein THERE IS NO EVIDENCE of collusion. How many times do you need to read that to finally realize that "Russian collusion" is FAKE NEWS.

Of course there is. We know he tried to talk Comey into blocking the Flynn investigation and the Russia investigation; we know he fired Comey and, based not only on Comey's notes but Trump's own brag to the Russians, we know why.

No, we don't. At this point it's debatable that the Comey memo even exists. The "brag" to the Russians may not mean what you want it to mean. It can be interpreted that way, but that doesn't mean it IS that way.

Question for you; WHY do you believe only the scurrilous bits and discount the confirmed bits that contradict them? After all, Trump says he fired Comey for a different reason. The Rosenstein letter supports that basis. Yet, for some reason you choose to believe non-proven facts based on possibly non-existent evidence over things we actually DO know.

Blackmon wrote:



And all of that is now undeniable.

No. Debatable, but not undeniable. The full story and facts have yet to be revealed.

 

[Rightguide]

Than why did he offer to testify in exchange for immunity?

I don't know, he might be in some kind of legal jeopardy or he may want to protect his Fifth Amendment rights in the future. Anything he testifies to now without immunity can be used against him in the future. Just guessing, but he may have lied to security officials renewing his security clearance in 2016 and that might have something to do with his concern for immunity protection. I don't know.

 

[Conager]

It's like Oreo lives in an alternative Universe where the sky is not blue, and 2 + 2 does not equal 4.

I would think that the burden of proof to rise to the level of damnation of your Eternal Soul would be higher than the proof for an indictable offence.

In his world, scurrilous allegations with no evidence of all is "damming."

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Than why did he offer to testify in exchange for immunity?

Many people offer to testify in exchange for immunity from prosecution not because they are UNDENIABLY criminally culpable, but simply because they MIGHT be criminally culpable. It's often a "just in case" gambit.

How is it that you are a lawyer and don't know that?

In the case of Flynn, the arguable criminal culpability MOST CERTAINLY would NOT be the mere FACT that he communicated with the Russian ambassador, for fucks sakes.

But it MIGHT WELL be what he SAID to the Russian ambassador.

Again, how is it that, as a lawyer, you don't understand that difference between the mere FACT of a communication and the CONTENT of a communication as the differentiator between what IS and ISN'T criminal behavior?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

If Trump tried to discourage the FBI from investigating any of this, that was wrong and illegal; if he fired Comey for that purpose, that was wrong and illegal (and quite incredibly stupid).

^^^^^(more horseshit from the world's dumbest lawyer)^^^^^^^

It was arguably "wrong." It was unarguably NOT illegal.

It is a commonplace to laud “the independence of law enforcement,” but the truth is that independence goes only so far. The president is the chief executive of the federal government, and the Constitution vests all executive power in him. Everyone else who works in the executive branch is a subordinate, delegated to exercise the president’s power at the president’s pleasure. (The sole exception is the vice president — but let’s not get sidetracked.) The president is the superior of the attorney general, who in turn is the superior of the FBI director — the FBI is a component of the Justice Department.

In sum, the FBI director works for and answers to the president. Yes, we want our law enforcement to be as independent as practicable. To have the rule of law, on which a free society depends, the public must be convinced that the justice system’s results are legitimate. Our law-enforcement officials therefore strive for independence in order to demonstrate that their decisions are fair and just, not driven by political considerations. But this aspiration is not an absolute. The FBI director is not an independent actor. The president is in charge, and must, for example, set enforcement priorities that the FBI is obliged to follow. A prudent president will not interfere in law-enforcement decisions. But that is because doing so would be counterproductive and politically damaging. It would not be unlawful.

As some have observed in the ongoing debate, the Constitution creates no Federal Bureau of Investigation, much less an FBI director. Indeed, there was not even a Department of Justice for nearly the first century of constitutional governance, and the FBI did not exist until 1935 (succeeding the Justice Department’s Bureau of Investigation, which had been created in 1908). In theory, the president could carry out federal law-enforcement functions without an FBI director.

It thus cannot be doubted that a president has constitutional authority to order the FBI to drop a criminal investigation. If a president has a constitutional power, Congress cannot remove it by statute — a law that purported to make the FBI director independent of presidential supervision would be invalid. Well, Congress may not do by indirection what it is forbidden to do directly: It can (and has) enacted obstruction statutes, but they may not be construed to forbid the president to instruct the FBI director to close an investigation.

Does that mean the Constitution insulates the President from an obstruction-of-justice charge based on interference with the FBI’s operations? Of course not. But prosecuting a criminal charge against a sitting President for that specific violation ain't at all easy. Why? Because:

How could a president be said to “obstruct” something he has the constitutional power to shut down entirely? The answer lies in the concept of corruption. [See 18 USC §1505]

To establish the offense of obstructing an FBI investigation, federal law requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused acted “corruptly.” Essentially, this means acting with an understanding that what one is doing is illegal, and with a purpose to subvert the due and proper administration of law.

On the matter of ordering an investigation to be dropped entirely, remember: Because of separation-of-powers principles, prosecutorial discretion is a basic feature of our criminal-justice system. Congress and the courts may not force the executive branch to pursue a case, no matter how serious the crime or compelling the evidence.

There are often good reasons for not pursuing a viable criminal case. Every day, throughout the country, the FBI forgoes various investigations and U.S. attorneys decline prosecutions. Sometimes bringing a criminal case would harm foreign relations or intelligence operations. Prosecuting a business that has committed a serious financial fraud may put hundreds of innocent people out of work. Sometimes a politically fraught prosecution might divide the country and feed a perception of politicized law enforcement (which, one can safely assume, is why Donald Trump soured on the hot campaign idea of prosecuting Hillary Clinton once he became President Trump). Sometimes, a person — particularly one with a record of patriotic service to the country — has been laid so low by scandal, professionally and personally, that prosecution would be overkill. (This was the case with Nixon. And, I suspect, it is President Trump’s inclination when it comes to General Flynn — note that the alleged Trump–Comey conversation about Flynn is said to have happened the day after Flynn’s ignominious resignation.)

Clearly, the fact that one may disagree, even vigorously, with an exercise of prosecutorial discretion does not make that exercise corrupt. To prove corruption, the abdication would have to be egregious and patent, because a president must have at least as much discretion to decline investigation and prosecution as the agents and prosecutors who are his subordinates. Those subordinates exercise extraordinarily broad discretion, which, as courts have repeatedly acknowledged, is judicially unreviewable.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/447801/president-trump-prosecutorial-discretion-obstruction-justice-fbi-director-james-comey-criminal-justice-system

The remedy for a President who has arguably non-criminally failed to uphold his oath to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution of the United States (and presumably the laws duly passed by Congress authorizing investigation and prosecution of innumerable crimes) is impeachment.

The articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon cited his "interfering...with the conduct of investigations by...the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force...." but after his resignation from office (and but for a pardon from President Ford), had the former President been indicted for the CRIME of obstruction of justice, the evidence for that violation would almost certainly NOT HAVE MATERIALLY DEPENDED UPON HIS DEMAND FOR THE DISMISSAL OF ARCHIBALD COX -- something he was legally entitled at the time to affect.

Rather, Nixon's criminal culpability under the obstruction statute had everything to do with evidence demonstrating his efforts to "buy the silence" and/or "subornation of perjury" of defendants in a criminal trial. THAT was the evidentiary grounds in support of an obstruction of justice charge against Richard Nixon.

The laws governing "special prosecutors" and "independent counsels" have undergone quite a change since Nixon's "Saturday Night Massacre."

I suggest you research 28 USC § 591 - § 599 for the current LAW governing the jurisdiction and circumstances governing removal of an independent counsel.

Because you've got the CRIME of an obstruction of justice inexorably and most erroneously intertwined with a (remotely) POSSIBLE IMPEACHABLE offense surrounding an arguable dereliction of executive duty -- the technical term for which is "your head is once again stuck up your ass."

 

[Phelia]

Many people offer to testify in exchange for immunity from prosecution not because they are UNDENIABLY criminally culpable, but simply because they MIGHT be criminally culpable. It's often a "just in case" gambit.

How is it that you are a lawyer and don't know that?

In the case of Flynn, the arguable criminal culpability MOST CERTAINLY would NOT be the mere FACT that he communicated with the Russian ambassador, for fucks sakes.

But it MIGHT WELL be what he SAID to the Russian ambassador.

Again, how is it that, as a lawyer, you don't understand that difference between the mere FACT of a communication and the CONTENT of a communication as the differentiator between what IS and ISN'T criminal behavior?

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/725/961/5a4.gif

The judge understands the law, and apparently you don't. Pagliano was given "use immunity." Had there been not at LEAST a suspicion of criminal activity there would have been no reason not to give him transactional immunity. Use immunity only protects him from prosecution based solely on the testimony he gives. It does NOT protect him from prosecution based on other independently produced evidence. Here's the difference as explained by the DoJ itself:

You don't typically give anyone immunity of any kind but for the purpose of gathering evidence for a potential criminal prosecution. The taking of that immunized deposition alone pretty much constitutes a criminal investigation on its face. And the fact that he was only given use immunity indicates the increased belief on the part of the grantor of immunity that not only has a crime taken place, but that the immunized witness is not about to get a TOTAL PASS for his part in that crime if independent evidence can establish his guilt.

I think the two violations are roughly comparable, which is one reason she won't get jail time. At least Petraeus plead guilty and paid a $100,000 fine.

Clinton quite obviously kept official state business, including classified information, on a private server so that she could control and, if necessary, alter or delete any information that would prove embarrassing (or worse) to her. It was all about NOT being accountable to the public while serving in a public office. Who the fuck did she think she was kidding about the "convenience" factor?

I don't think she should be in prison based on this single scandal. I lump them all together. This, Benghazi, and Whitewater, to name but three stink bombs.

She may not deserve to be in prison for life, but she certainly deserves some time in a jail cell because of her life.

Hey Hoagie, why are you being such a mean old bitch about evidence now? Didn't seem to be an issue before! "OBVIOUSLY"!

Lol.

It's like you people forget that y'all have been spouting bullshit here for yeeeeears. It's not hard to find when it's everywhere!

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Originally Posted by Colonel Hogan
The judge understands the law, and apparently you don't. Pagliano was given "use immunity." Had there been not at LEAST a suspicion of criminal activity there would have been no reason not to give him transactional immunity. Use immunity only protects him from prosecution based solely on the testimony he gives. It does NOT protect him from prosecution based on other independently produced evidence. Here's the difference as explained by the DoJ itself:

717. Transactional Immunity Distinguished

Title 18 U.S.C. § 6002 provides use immunity instead of transactional immunity. The difference between transactional and use immunity is that transactional immunity protects the witness from prosecution for the offense or offenses involved, whereas use immunity only protects the witness against the government's use of his or her immunized testimony in a prosecution of the witness -- except in a subsequent prosecution for perjury or giving a false statement.


You don't typically give anyone immunity of any kind but for the purpose of gathering evidence for a potential criminal prosecution. The taking of that immunized deposition alone pretty much constitutes a criminal investigation on its face. And the fact that he was only given use immunity indicates the increased belief on the part of the grantor of immunity that not only has a crime taken place, but that the immunized witness is not about to get a TOTAL PASS for his part in that crime if independent evidence can establish his guilt.

Hey Hoagie, why are you being such a mean old bitch about evidence now? Didn't seem to be an issue before! "OBVIOUSLY"!

Lol.

It's like you people forget that y'all have been spouting bullshit here for yeeeeears. It's not hard to find when it's everywhere!

Since you conveniently excluded the DOJ explanation of the difference between transactional and use immunity, I've plugged it back in for those (unlike yourself) who might actually be interested.

Additionally (not that you give a fuck since you specialize in ignoring the context of my previous remarks), I was explaining to KO why a WITNESS might OFFER to TESTIFY in EXCHANGE for immunity. ONE of those motivations MIGHT be a "just-in-case" gambit if the question of his criminal culpability was uncertain in his own mind or that of his attorney.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist (lucky for you) to realize that the motivations for a prosecutor GRANTING immunity are far different than that of a WITNESS SEEKING IT which is where the choice between transactional and use immunity comes into play.

Where the criminal culpability of the witness is uncertain or substantially less severe and the prospect of his testimony is instrumental in prosecuting another defendant, then the prosecutor may be inclined to grant transactional immunity -- the witness is free from prosecution on pretty much anything regarding the crime at issue.

If the prosecution wishes to PROTECT its interest in prosecuting the witness based on discoverable evidence OTHER THAN his testimony, "use immunity" is all that will be offered.

It's a pretty simple concept really. And like invoking the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, a witness solicitation for immunity in exchange for testimony does not constitute a legal admission of guilt -- which is what KO was implying by virtue of Flynn's overture to the Congressional committee seeking his testimony.

And for what precious little it might be worth to you, had I been the committee chairperson in charge, I wouldn't have given him immunity either.

And, no, NONE of the above has the slightest bit of relevance to my PERSONAL feelings regarding the criminal culpability for any alleged "offenses" committed by Hillary Clinton. As I've admitted before, I have the same unsubstantiated, inadmissible-in-a-court of law opinions as you obviously do. The difference is, while I might HOPE she COULD be prosecuted based on legally admissible evidence, I don't expect it when the totality of that evidence is not before me.

In the meantime, when I discuss the law in the abstract, I try to do so as accurately as possible.

Now that we've cleared all that up and until such time as you gleefully pounce on whatever imagined contradictions of legal philosophy you next pronounce me guilty of, why don't you go wash up for dinner?

http://book-med.info/img/377/0007430000320_500X500557.jpg

 

[Boxlicker101]

More accusations but still no evidence. Hello, Senator McCarthy.

 

[magicalmoments]

Total and absolute fail.

We DO NOT "know" the Russians "interfered" with the election. What we know is that some intelligence reports suggest that a Russian hacking group hacked the DNC server and gave it to Wikileaks who published it online. There is NO PHYSICAL CONNECTION between that and the election results. it is CONFIRMED that no votes were changed or totals altered in the election.

We also know that, even if they did communicate with the Russians, that is NOT "illegal".

Nor is Flynn talking to the Russian Ambassador "illegal".

There is NO EVIDENCE that Trump attempted to interfere with the investigation (as of yet). Or that his firing of Comey had anything to do with the investigation. It's all pure speculation at this point by people who have NO EVIDENCE of anything. In fact, Comey's refusal to testify may indicate that HIS VERSION of events (via the memo) MAY NOT BE truthful.

Finally, some journalist with a Trump hard on writes some propaganda about how the Russians have influence in the white house and you take that as FACT without proof?

There was no evidence that Nixon tried to cover up the Watergate break in either, at least not until there was.

 

[Conager]

There was no evidence that Nixon tried to cover up the Watergate break in either, at least not until there was.

Brilliant. No evidence means there must be a coverup!!!

 

[magicalmoments]

Brilliant. No evidence means there must be a coverup!!!

I bow to your enlightened analysis.

Flynn sacked for lying
Flynn wanting immunity from criminal prosecution in exchange for testimony
Flynn pleading the 5th.

Someone somewhere wants to keep things covered up.

It's not rocket surgery!

 

[magicalmoments]

More accusations but still no evidence. Hello, Senator McCarthy.

Your president endorses this sort of public trial by rumour.

Last I heard he is still claiming Obama was born in Africa. I bet you Trump believes McCarthy was misunderstood and an all American hero.

 

[magicalmoments]

Since you conveniently excluded the DOJ explanation of the difference between transactional and use immunity, I've plugged it back in for those (unlike yourself) who might actually be interested.

Additionally (not that you give a fuck since you specialize in ignoring the context of my previous remarks), I was explaining to KO why a WITNESS might OFFER to TESTIFY in EXCHANGE for immunity. ONE of those motivations MIGHT be a "just-in-case" gambit if the question of his criminal culpability was uncertain in his own mind or that of his attorney.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist (lucky for you) to realize that the motivations for a prosecutor GRANTING immunity are far different than that of a WITNESS SEEKING IT which is where the choice between transactional and use immunity comes into play.

Where the criminal culpability of the witness is uncertain or substantially less severe and the prospect of his testimony is instrumental in prosecuting another defendant, then the prosecutor may be inclined to grant transactional immunity -- the witness is free from prosecution on pretty much anything regarding the crime at issue.

If the prosecution wishes to PROTECT its interest in prosecuting the witness based on discoverable evidence OTHER THAN his testimony, "use immunity" is all that will be offered.

It's a pretty simple concept really. And like invoking the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, a witness solicitation for immunity in exchange for testimony does not constitute a legal admission of guilt -- which is what KO was implying by virtue of Flynn's overture to the Congressional committee seeking his testimony.

And for what precious little it might be worth to you, had I been the committee chairperson in charge, I wouldn't have given him immunity either.

And, no, NONE of the above has the slightest bit of relevance to my PERSONAL feelings regarding the criminal culpability for any alleged "offenses" committed by Hillary Clinton. As I've admitted before, I have the same unsubstantiated, inadmissible-in-a-court of law opinions as you obviously do. The difference is, while I might HOPE she COULD be prosecuted based on legally admissible evidence, I don't expect it when the totality of that evidence is not before me.

In the meantime, when I discuss the law in the abstract, I try to do so as accurately as possible.

Now that we've cleared all that up and until such time as you gleefully pounce on whatever imagined contradictions of legal philosophy you next pronounce me guilty of, why don't you go wash up for dinner?

http://book-med.info/img/377/0007430000320_500X500557.jpg

What a load of bollocks!

This is politics, all that matters is perception. And public perception is that Flynn is hiding something and every time he opens his mouth he adds to this.

 

[magicalmoments]

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/725/961/5a4.gif





Hey Hoagie, why are you being such a mean old bitch about evidence now? Didn't seem to be an issue before! "OBVIOUSLY"!

Lol.

It's like you people forget that y'all have been spouting bullshit here for yeeeeears. It's not hard to find when it's everywhere!

Must be killing them. Trump keeps making a fool of himself and his closest advisers keep breaking the law. I wonder how long it will be before it all gets to hot for kushner and he either falls on his sword or is fired.

 

[Conager]

I bow to your enlightened analysis.

Flynn sacked for lying
Flynn wanting immunity from criminal prosecution in exchange for testimony
Flynn pleading the 5th.

Someone somewhere wants to keep things covered up.

It's not rocket surgery!

What's Rory got to with it?

 

[HisArpy]

What's Rory got to with it?

I was confused for a moment too. Then I double checked who posted and that cleared things right up for me.

I don't get the mentality of the cover up conspiracy crowd. "We've turned over this rock 100 times already and we STILL don't have any evidence. Oh well, let's look under it again. Something will turn up. It HAS to..."

It's almost like they're looking for their missing car keys. How many times does someone need to open and look in a drawer before they realize the keys are STILL NOT IN THERE - just like the last 5 times they checked?

 

[Rightguide]

Since you conveniently excluded the DOJ explanation of the difference between transactional and use immunity, I've plugged it back in for those (unlike yourself) who might actually be interested.

Additionally (not that you give a fuck since you specialize in ignoring the context of my previous remarks), I was explaining to KO why a WITNESS might OFFER to TESTIFY in EXCHANGE for immunity. ONE of those motivations MIGHT be a "just-in-case" gambit if the question of his criminal culpability was uncertain in his own mind or that of his attorney.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist (lucky for you) to realize that the motivations for a prosecutor GRANTING immunity are far different than that of a WITNESS SEEKING IT which is where the choice between transactional and use immunity comes into play.

Where the criminal culpability of the witness is uncertain or substantially less severe and the prospect of his testimony is instrumental in prosecuting another defendant, then the prosecutor may be inclined to grant transactional immunity -- the witness is free from prosecution on pretty much anything regarding the crime at issue.

If the prosecution wishes to PROTECT its interest in prosecuting the witness based on discoverable evidence OTHER THAN his testimony, "use immunity" is all that will be offered.

It's a pretty simple concept really. And like invoking the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, a witness solicitation for immunity in exchange for testimony does not constitute a legal admission of guilt -- which is what KO was implying by virtue of Flynn's overture to the Congressional committee seeking his testimony.

And for what precious little it might be worth to you, had I been the committee chairperson in charge, I wouldn't have given him immunity either.

And, no, NONE of the above has the slightest bit of relevance to my PERSONAL feelings regarding the criminal culpability for any alleged "offenses" committed by Hillary Clinton. As I've admitted before, I have the same unsubstantiated, inadmissible-in-a-court of law opinions as you obviously do. The difference is, while I might HOPE she COULD be prosecuted based on legally admissible evidence, I don't expect it when the totality of that evidence is not before me.

In the meantime, when I discuss the law in the abstract, I try to do so as accurately as possible.

Now that we've cleared all that up and until such time as you gleefully pounce on whatever imagined contradictions of legal philosophy you next pronounce me guilty of, why don't you go wash up for dinner?

http://book-med.info/img/377/0007430000320_500X500557.jpg

Thank you, Colonel, for your excellent analysis and scholarship. I wish I had your patience explaining the elementary to the willfully ignorant. I for one enjoy your posts and consider them highly instructive.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Your president endorses this sort of public trial by rumour.

Last I heard he is still claiming Obama was born in Africa. I bet you Trump believes McCarthy was misunderstood and an all American hero.

Do you mean he believes the rumor that Hillary's supporters started almost ten years ago? If he ever actually believed it, he no longer does. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-trade-barbs-over-obama-birther-movement.html

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Thank you, Colonel, for your excellent analysis and scholarship. I wish I had your patience explaining the elementary to the willfully ignorant. I for one enjoy your posts and consider them highly instructive.

Thanks, RG.

You know, I fully understand that there are those who don't give a damn about legal minutiae. And I further understand that there are few people (arguably most attorneys in particular) who are above using the law in the most cynical way possible not as a path TO justice but as a manipulation of it.

I simply reject the notion that a callous disregard for the principle of law or the self-serving urge to abuse it for personal gain renders the law itself irrelevant or an instrument specifically designed to oppress rather than protect.

Like any other body of knowledge, say, math, science or history, a solid foundation of legal knowledge can only aid folks in understanding their social environment.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I was confused for a moment too. Then I double checked who posted and that cleared things right up for me.

I don't get the mentality of the cover up conspiracy crowd. "We've turned over this rock 100 times already and we STILL don't have any evidence. Oh well, let's look under it again. Something will turn up. It HAS to..."

It's almost like they're looking for their missing car keys. How many times does someone need to open and look in a drawer before they realize the keys are STILL NOT IN THERE - just like the last 5 times they checked?

I think you are onto something here. But the phenomenon at play seems to be "BECAUSE the keys are STILL not there a CRIME MUST have been committed. SOMEONE (and we think we know who) MUST have STOLEN them.

"Yes, that's it!! What other possible explanation could be 'reasonable'?"

 

[KingOrfeo]

^^^^^(more horseshit from the world's dumbest lawyer)^^^^^^^

It was arguably "wrong." It was unarguably NOT illegal.

It was illegal when Nixon did it, it was illegal when Trump did it. Nixon had the lawful authority to fire Cox, but he committed a crime in doing so.

 

[Rightguide]

I was confused for a moment too. Then I double checked who posted and that cleared things right up for me.

I don't get the mentality of the cover up conspiracy crowd. "We've turned over this rock 100 times already and we STILL don't have any evidence. Oh well, let's look under it again. Something will turn up. It HAS to..."

It's almost like they're looking for their missing car keys. How many times does someone need to open and look in a drawer before they realize the keys are STILL NOT IN THERE - just like the last 5 times they checked?

One wonders if can be a case of liberal intellectual OCD. It's like the guy who never makes it to work because as soon as he starts the car he wonders if he left the front door unlocked.

 

[Rightguide]

Thanks, RG.

You know, I fully understand that there are those who don't give a damn about legal minutiae. And I further understand that there are few people (arguably most attorneys in particular) who are above using the law in the most cynical way possible not as a path TO justice but as a manipulation of it.

I simply reject the notion that a callous disregard for the principle of law or the self-serving urge to abuse it for personal gain renders the law itself irrelevant or an instrument specifically designed to oppress rather than protect.

Like any other body of knowledge, say, math, science or history, a solid foundation of legal knowledge can only aid folks in understanding their social environment.

You're welcome.

Law, like the other pursuits you mentioned, is a discipline that requires the same in others. It is that discipline, rigorously adhered to, that creates a foundation for civilization itself as well as its social environment. If the law is irrelevant there can be no social order, no civilization.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I don't get the mentality of the cover up conspiracy crowd. "We've turned over this rock 100 times already and we STILL don't have any evidence. Oh well, let's look under it again. Something will turn up. It HAS to..."

Investigation can be a slow process, just ask Ken Starr.