DOJ recovers missing text messages between anti-Trump FBI agents Strzok and Page

#26
#26
Septic said:
Not really what I was asking but OK.

"Good reason" is subjective, I'm asking if there are objective lines that must be crossed to qualify as obstruction of justice.

If that threshold was met, what difference does it make what these two fbi agents thought?
Click to expand...

I don't know...maybe if their bias was so intense it affected the manner in which they did their job? Fabricating or hiding evidence, excluding or embellishing testimony/interviews of others? Your assumption seems to be since it's Trump they are investigating and it's the FBI, their is zero chance they would or could allow their personal bias affect their judgement in this particular matter. Not an attorney, but yes, I would guess there are objective lines defined within our laws that must be crossed to constitute obstruction of justice.
 
#29
#29
Vol737 said:
I don't know...maybe if their bias was so intense it affected the manner in which they did their job? Fabricating or hiding evidence, excluding or embellishing testimony/interviews of others? Your assumption seems to be since it's Trump they are investigating and it's the FBI, their is zero chance they would or could allow their personal bias affect their judgement in this particular matter. Not an attorney, but yes, I would guess there are objective lines defined within our laws that must be crossed to constitute obstruction of justice.
Click to expand...

The only thing I'm positing is that either trump broke a law as defined by the law or he didn't.

If the investigators broke the law then they too should be held accountable. Thus far however, all I've seen is that they didn't like him - which frankly puts them in the majority.

Is there anything to suggest they've fabricate evidence or anything else? I'm fairly certain these interviews are being recorded as potential evidence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#32
#32
Septic said:
The only thing I'm positing is that either trump broke a law as defined by the law or he didn't.

If the investigators broke the law then they too should be held accountable. Thus far however, all I've seen is that they didn't like him - which frankly puts them in the majority.

Is there anything to suggest they've fabricate evidence or anything else? I'm fairly certain these interviews are being recorded as potential evidence.
Click to expand...

Which any two bit lawyer can have each and every "fact" they uncovered tossed out of court because of that. If the investigators are not impartial and unbiased even with personal opinions (which aren't so personal any more), a lawyer would have a field day with that.

A fact LG refuses to address because he knows it's true.

Ask him if he'd rather be on the defense or the prosecution of an LEO that has their personal opinions and prejudices come to light in a trial.
 
#34
#34
Contextualizing the deputy attorney general’s memorandum on the former FBI director

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's Memo Against James Comey, Annotated - The Atlantic


17%2B-%2B1
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#35
#35
Septic said:
I believe all law enforcement investigations are biased. How does that matter if the law was proven to have been broken?

I'm simply looking for a rational explanation for the conflation of the subjective beliefs of these two agents causing the law to objectively have been broken.
Click to expand...

Hatch act violations would be their issue because they were using government phones.

Hell, if you post anti government stuff on facebook using a government computer they can nail your ass to the wall.
 
#36
#36
Septic said:
Is the charge of obstruction of justice based on formal broken laws or is simply a matter of belief?

If the former, what difference does it make if the two FBI people thought Trump was a moron? If Trump fired Comey to impede an investigation for example, how is it relevant what these two believed, however ethically debatable?
Click to expand...

Or, if it's shown that the FBI was corrupt, firing Comey isn't obstruction; it's wise.
 
#37
#37
Grand Vol said:
Which any two bit lawyer can have each and every "fact" they uncovered tossed out of court because of that. If the investigators are not impartial and unbiased even with personal opinions (which aren't so personal any more), a lawyer would have a field day with that.

A fact LG refuses to address because he knows it's true.

Ask him if he'd rather be on the defense or the prosecution of an LEO that has their personal opinions and prejudices come to light in a trial.
Click to expand...

That's all fair, I get the optics aspect of it. I'm trying to discern the legal aspect of a clearly broken law versus the investigators not "liking" the accused.
 
#38
#38
Franklin Pierce said:
Regardless of whether or not there was/is a secret society conspiracy, the fact remains that the text messages and emails show an EXTREME BIAS within the Obama justice department, and the FBI.

There is no denying that fact.
Click to expand...

I deny that. Fake news.

Channeling my inner Trump.
 
#40
#40
Orange_Crush said:
Or, if it's shown that the FBI was corrupt, firing Comey isn't obstruction; it's wise.
Click to expand...

Sure, but coming to that conclusion after the fact is a bit disingenuous if being used as the reason for the firing.
 
#41
#41
Septic said:
That's all fair, I get the optics aspect of it. I'm trying to discern the legal aspect of a clearly broken law versus the investigators not "liking" the accused.
Click to expand...

if Trump is guilty, Trump is guilty. Doesn't matter what the FBI did or if someone actually used the specific term "guilty". Looking at you mick.

but being guilty and being charged/prosecuted and found guilty is a different thing entirely. especially if it comes down to a case of double jeopardy.

if thats the case that they can't prove him guilty, good luck getting rid of him early. might hurt his chances at reelection but you never know.
 
#43
#43
Septic said:
That's all fair, I get the optics aspect of it. I'm trying to discern the legal aspect of a clearly broken law versus the investigators not "liking" the accused.
Click to expand...

Remember one thing about the law. All the defense has to do is sew doubt into the minds of the judge and/or jury for everything to fall apart.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#44
#44
Septic said:
That's all fair, I get the optics aspect of it. I'm trying to discern the legal aspect of a clearly broken law versus the investigators not "liking" the accused.
Click to expand...
Hatch Act - This is what the FBI people would most likely be in trouble for violating law wise.

he Hatch Act, a federal law passed in 1939, limits certain political activities of federal employees, as well as some state, D.C., and local government employees who work in connection with federally funded programs. ​The law’s purposes are to ensure that federal programs are administered in a nonpartisan fashion, to protect federal employees from political coercion in the workplace, and to ensure that federal employees are advanced based on merit and not based on political affiliation.​​​​ ​​
Click to expand...

U.S. Office of Special Counsel


Hatch Act
 
#45
#45
'Nothing' is what's going to happen.


It never does.

These are the best politicians money can buy. It cracks me up when Americans turn up their noses at 'corrupt' governments when we have the Super Bowl, World Series, Stanley Cup winner right here at home.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#46
#46
lawgator1 said:
Good.

I have been wondering if the FBI secret society met at the pizza Comet Ping Pong place. Maybe we can find out.
Click to expand...

When Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin) was asked earlier today if he thought that Strzok and Page were speaking in jest when the term "secret society meeting" was used, he replied "That's a real possibility."

I can't believe how fast he back-peddled. Did we perhaps overreach just a bit while on Fox News Tuesday night, Senator? Thank God that these text messages have been found. Maybe we can even uncover where Strzok and Page were having lunch? Or more urgent stuff, such as where they were meeting for nookie?
 
#47
#47
Grand Vol said:
Remember one thing about the law. All the defense has to do is sew doubt into the minds of the judge and/or jury for everything to fall apart.
Click to expand...

I don't think reasonable doubt applies in civil cases, preponderance of evidence rings a bell. I also recall reading somewhere that a person doesn't even have to have actually obstructed justice to be convicted, only that they endeavored to.

Any lawyers in here know bout this?
 
#48
#48
Franklin Pierce said:
Regardless of whether or not there was/is a secret society conspiracy, the fact remains that the text messages and emails show an EXTREME BIAS within the Obama justice department, and the FBI.

There is no denying that fact.
Click to expand...

Absurd. It shows that Strzok and Page didn't like Trump (shudder!)... but Strzok was removed from the Mueller investigation as soon as this was revealed last summer and he was only serving in a menial capacity to begin with.

Outside of that, there is the fact that Andrew McCabe's wife is a Democrat. That doesn't necessarily reveal anything about him or whether or not he can do his job professionally. He was not a member of Mueller's investigation.
 
#49
#49
FLVOL_79 said:
Hatch Act - This is what the FBI people would most likely be in trouble for violating law wise.



U.S. Office of Special Counsel


Hatch Act
Click to expand...

Wouldn't one have to make the assumption that they are acting against trump because he's whatever political party they are not?

I think they just thought he was a moron which again, puts them inline with reasonable people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#50
#50
BowlBrother85 said:
Absurd. It shows that Strzok and Page didn't like Trump (shudder!)... but Strzok was removed from the Mueller investigation as soon as this was revealed last summer and he was only serving in a menial capacity to begin with.

Outside of that, there is the fact that Andrew McCabe's wife is a Democrat. That doesn't necessarily reveal anything about him or whether or not he can do his job professionally. He was not a member of Mueller's investigation.
Click to expand...

Yeah, no.

As a former LEO, you never ever want your personal opinions out during an investigation. Ever. Such things, even if it's a minor portion, can taint the whole investigation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top