|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 20 2017 06:01 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2017 05:59 ticklishmusic wrote:On June 20 2017 05:46 Mohdoo wrote:On June 20 2017 05:40 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
wtf. I dunno how I never heard about that. How is that not utterly fucked up? Do Trump supporters see this as sticking it to globalists or something? What a tragic development. unrelated, happy cake day Thanks! TL always gets my hyped up for my birthday (tomorrow). I can't help but kind of wonder why TL still uses Korean time. TL as an organization sure has drifted from BW. I've always thought birthday icons should be displayed according to when it is that person's birthday in their time zone, but that's just me!
As a community, TL is stuck in their ways like old people yelling at kids on their lawn. Still going by Korean time is so silly it is endearing at this point.
|
On June 20 2017 06:03 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2017 06:01 Mohdoo wrote:On June 20 2017 05:59 ticklishmusic wrote:On June 20 2017 05:46 Mohdoo wrote:wtf. I dunno how I never heard about that. How is that not utterly fucked up? Do Trump supporters see this as sticking it to globalists or something? What a tragic development. unrelated, happy cake day Thanks! TL always gets my hyped up for my birthday (tomorrow). I can't help but kind of wonder why TL still uses Korean time. TL as an organization sure has drifted from BW. I've always thought birthday icons should be displayed according to when it is that person's birthday in their time zone, but that's just me! As a community, TL is stuck in their ways like old people yelling at kids on their lawn. Still going by Korean time is so silly it is endearing at this point.
I would be curious what percentage of TL's total revenue is a (direct) result of brood war.
|
Revenue probably not much, but it wouldn't exist whiteout it... So...
|
On June 20 2017 04:43 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2017 04:20 Plansix wrote:To quote my brother, the word smith that he is “If I was work’n a checkpoint in Iraq and pulled that shit, my ass would be in prison.” I laud the writer for keeping the focus of the article nice and tight: the public can't bring itself to convict police officers. Police forces let their officers do whatever they want because they know they can get away with it, and the reason they get away with it is because the public lets them. If they heard some real public outrage, and if juries would actually hold them accountable for their misdeeds like they're supposed to, they'd do more than just let a problem officer go work somewhere else. It's a substantial part of the problem that can't be overlooked.
No, the problem is not that there is no outcry or that juries do not hold police responsible. The juries does their duty and judges according to the law.
The problem is that the law is laughably lenient to when a police officer is allowed to use deadly force.
The police get away with it because they are acting within the boundaries of the law, if you want to hold police accountable you first need to change the law.
|
On June 20 2017 06:33 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2017 04:43 NewSunshine wrote:On June 20 2017 04:20 Plansix wrote:To quote my brother, the word smith that he is “If I was work’n a checkpoint in Iraq and pulled that shit, my ass would be in prison.” I laud the writer for keeping the focus of the article nice and tight: the public can't bring itself to convict police officers. Police forces let their officers do whatever they want because they know they can get away with it, and the reason they get away with it is because the public lets them. If they heard some real public outrage, and if juries would actually hold them accountable for their misdeeds like they're supposed to, they'd do more than just let a problem officer go work somewhere else. It's a substantial part of the problem that can't be overlooked. No, the problem is not that there is no outcry or that juries do not hold police responsible. The juries does their duty and judges according to the law. The problem is that the law is laughably lenient to when a police officer is allowed to use deadly force. The police get away with it because they are acting within the boundaries of the law, if you want to hold police accountable you first need to change the law.
Disagree; the law as written is sufficient to convict the police; juries simply chose not to (and prosecutors throw the case too often); and are not properly following the applicable standards of law.
some law changes would help a bit.
|
United States43255 Posts
On June 20 2017 06:33 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2017 04:43 NewSunshine wrote:On June 20 2017 04:20 Plansix wrote:To quote my brother, the word smith that he is “If I was work’n a checkpoint in Iraq and pulled that shit, my ass would be in prison.” I laud the writer for keeping the focus of the article nice and tight: the public can't bring itself to convict police officers. Police forces let their officers do whatever they want because they know they can get away with it, and the reason they get away with it is because the public lets them. If they heard some real public outrage, and if juries would actually hold them accountable for their misdeeds like they're supposed to, they'd do more than just let a problem officer go work somewhere else. It's a substantial part of the problem that can't be overlooked. No, the problem is not that there is no outcry or that juries do not hold police responsible. The juries does their duty and judges according to the law. The problem is that the law is laughably lenient to when a police officer is allowed to use deadly force. The police get away with it because they are acting within the boundaries of the law, if you want to hold police accountable you first need to change the law.
In jury selection you're asked questions like whether you think police officer testimony is more trustworthy than that of members of the public and if you give a well reasoned response explaining that police are just as fallible as anyone else with examples and evidence then you're ineligible unlikely to be selected to serve on the jury.
|
On June 20 2017 06:40 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2017 06:33 Gorsameth wrote:On June 20 2017 04:43 NewSunshine wrote:On June 20 2017 04:20 Plansix wrote:To quote my brother, the word smith that he is “If I was work’n a checkpoint in Iraq and pulled that shit, my ass would be in prison.” I laud the writer for keeping the focus of the article nice and tight: the public can't bring itself to convict police officers. Police forces let their officers do whatever they want because they know they can get away with it, and the reason they get away with it is because the public lets them. If they heard some real public outrage, and if juries would actually hold them accountable for their misdeeds like they're supposed to, they'd do more than just let a problem officer go work somewhere else. It's a substantial part of the problem that can't be overlooked. No, the problem is not that there is no outcry or that juries do not hold police responsible. The juries does their duty and judges according to the law. The problem is that the law is laughably lenient to when a police officer is allowed to use deadly force. The police get away with it because they are acting within the boundaries of the law, if you want to hold police accountable you first need to change the law. Disagree; the law as written is sufficient to convict the police; juries simply chose not to (and prosecutors throw the case too often); and are not properly following the applicable standards of law. some law changes would help a bit.
A lot of it is a societal issue. Many people can not see past the idea that cops are somehow "heroes". These guys are armed to their teeth, have full legal capacity to kill someone at the slightest indication of danger, and I am supposed to call them a hero? Either you are running into harm's way in a way that you are taking the risks and assuming responsibility, or you're just an under trained, overly armed security guard. There's nothing heroic about our country's definition of police work. From my understanding, police are told to not put their lives at risk and to totally feel free to shoot someone if it seems like things have a chance of going south. If police were told to always value the life of the public above their own, whether they think this member of the public may be dangerous or not, that would be heroism.
On June 20 2017 06:47 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2017 06:33 Gorsameth wrote:On June 20 2017 04:43 NewSunshine wrote:On June 20 2017 04:20 Plansix wrote:To quote my brother, the word smith that he is “If I was work’n a checkpoint in Iraq and pulled that shit, my ass would be in prison.” I laud the writer for keeping the focus of the article nice and tight: the public can't bring itself to convict police officers. Police forces let their officers do whatever they want because they know they can get away with it, and the reason they get away with it is because the public lets them. If they heard some real public outrage, and if juries would actually hold them accountable for their misdeeds like they're supposed to, they'd do more than just let a problem officer go work somewhere else. It's a substantial part of the problem that can't be overlooked. No, the problem is not that there is no outcry or that juries do not hold police responsible. The juries does their duty and judges according to the law. The problem is that the law is laughably lenient to when a police officer is allowed to use deadly force. The police get away with it because they are acting within the boundaries of the law, if you want to hold police accountable you first need to change the law. In jury selection you're asked questions like whether you think police officer testimony is more trustworthy than that of members of the public and if you give a well reasoned response explaining that police are just as fallible as anyone else with examples and evidence then you're ineligible to serve on the jury.
What!? Source?
|
If the juries consistently acquitting officers in cases where the officer is clearly at fault, it is a flaw in the law. The juries is the least informed member of the legal system(maybe defendants might be less informed).
|
United States43255 Posts
On June 20 2017 06:49 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2017 06:47 KwarK wrote:On June 20 2017 06:33 Gorsameth wrote:On June 20 2017 04:43 NewSunshine wrote:On June 20 2017 04:20 Plansix wrote:To quote my brother, the word smith that he is “If I was work’n a checkpoint in Iraq and pulled that shit, my ass would be in prison.” I laud the writer for keeping the focus of the article nice and tight: the public can't bring itself to convict police officers. Police forces let their officers do whatever they want because they know they can get away with it, and the reason they get away with it is because the public lets them. If they heard some real public outrage, and if juries would actually hold them accountable for their misdeeds like they're supposed to, they'd do more than just let a problem officer go work somewhere else. It's a substantial part of the problem that can't be overlooked. No, the problem is not that there is no outcry or that juries do not hold police responsible. The juries does their duty and judges according to the law. The problem is that the law is laughably lenient to when a police officer is allowed to use deadly force. The police get away with it because they are acting within the boundaries of the law, if you want to hold police accountable you first need to change the law. In jury selection you're asked questions like whether you think police officer testimony is more trustworthy than that of members of the public and if you give a well reasoned response explaining that police are just as fallible as anyone else with examples and evidence then you're ineligible to serve on the jury. What!? Source?
Trying to find where I read that. Edit: So judges instruct jurors to give police testimony equal weight and I'm full of shit. If you imply any kind of prejudice against the police or law enforcement, such as a realistic and pragmatic awareness of how often they cover for each other and fabricate evidence, then you're disqualified because you wouldn't think that about John Random on the street. So you're required to overlook the realities of problems with police testimony but you're not required to automatically view it favourably.
I found this which was interesting but not specifically related to my original claim
http://pepperdinelawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Johnson_Final-proof-for-LS.pdf
If a neutral bystander says he saw A shoot at B and B return fire then you'd accept that. If B is a policeofficer and B's partner says he saw A shoot at B and B return fire then you must weight that no differently to the first example.
|
Michael Flynn didn’t list any interactions with foreign government officials on his application last year to renew his security clearance, despite indicating in a speech days after submitting the application that he had had extensive contacts in Saudi Arabia and other countries, according to a letter Monday from two senior House Democrats.
The letter, obtained by POLITICO, may add to the mounting legal troubles for Flynn, President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser who was fired after just 24 days once it became clear he misled his colleagues about the nature of his contacts with Russia’s ambassador.
Flynn is a target of investigations in the House and Senate into Russia’s meddling in the presidential election — and has begun turning over documents to the Senate Intelligence Committee, which issued multiple subpoenas after Flynn initially declined to comply with the panel’s requests.
Monday’s letter is from Reps. Elijah Cummings of Maryland and Eliot Engel of New York, the top Democrats on the House Oversight Committee and House Foreign Affairs Committee, respectively.
It requests documents from Flynn’s consulting firm and from two businesses that Flynn worked with to promote a U.S.-Russia joint effort, financed by Saudi Arabia, to build nuclear power plants in the Middle East. The effort was chronicled earlier this month in an investigative story in Newsweek.
“We have no record of General Flynn identifying on his security clearance renewal application — or during his interview with security clearance investigators — even a single foreign government official he had contact with in the seven years prior to submitting his security clearance application,” says the letter from Cummings and Engel. Cummings has previously received information on Flynn’s security clearance renewal process from the Defense Intelligence Agency.
Falsifying or concealing information on a security clearance application, the letter notes, is a crime punishable by up to five years in prison. Flynn’s lawyer, Robert Kelner did not respond to a request for comment.
The letter by Cummings and Engel also says it appears Flynn failed to disclose on his security clearance application a trip he took to the Middle East in the summer of 2015 to promote the U.S-Russia nuclear power deal. And it says he provided incomplete information about a trip to Saudi Arabia in October 2015.
It notes that Flynn testified in June 2015 before the House Foreign Affairs Committee that he was traveling extensively to the Middle East.
“General Flynn’s failure to report this trip and any contacts with foreign government officials about this Saudi-Russian nuclear proposal appears to be a potential violation” of law, the letter explains.
Cummings has been investigating Flynn for several months for omitting information on his security clearance application. Last month, the congressman said Flynn appears to have “lied to the investigators who interviewed him in 2016 as part of his security clearance renewal” when he said a 2015 trip to Russia was paid for by “U.S. companies” rather than the Russian propaganda outlet RT.
Flynn is also being investigated by the Pentagon’s inspector general over payments he received from foreign governments after retiring from the Army — a possible violation of the Constitution's emoluments clause.
Source
|
A data analytics contractor employed by the Republican National Committee (RNC) left databases containing information on nearly 200 million potential voters exposed to the internet without security, allowing anyone who knew where to look to download it without a password.
"We take full responsibility for this situation," said the contractor, Deep Root Analytics, in a statement.
The databases were part of 25 terabytes of files contained in an Amazon cloud account that could be browsed without logging in. The account was discovered by researcher Chris Vickery of the security firm UpGuard. The files have since been secured.
Vickery is a prominent researcher in uncovering improperly secured files online. But, he said, this exposure is of a magnitude he has never seen before
"In terms of the disc space used, this is the biggest exposure I've found. In terms of the scope and depth, this is the biggest one I've found," said Vickery.
The accessible files, according to UpGuard, contain a main 198 million-entry database with names, addresses of voters and an "RNC ID" that can be used with other exposed files to research individuals.
Source
In the words of our Secretary of Energy, "oops."
|
On June 20 2017 07:17 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +A data analytics contractor employed by the Republican National Committee (RNC) left databases containing information on nearly 200 million potential voters exposed to the internet without security, allowing anyone who knew where to look to download it without a password.
"We take full responsibility for this situation," said the contractor, Deep Root Analytics, in a statement.
The databases were part of 25 terabytes of files contained in an Amazon cloud account that could be browsed without logging in. The account was discovered by researcher Chris Vickery of the security firm UpGuard. The files have since been secured.
Vickery is a prominent researcher in uncovering improperly secured files online. But, he said, this exposure is of a magnitude he has never seen before
"In terms of the disc space used, this is the biggest exposure I've found. In terms of the scope and depth, this is the biggest one I've found," said Vickery.
The accessible files, according to UpGuard, contain a main 198 million-entry database with names, addresses of voters and an "RNC ID" that can be used with other exposed files to research individuals. SourceIn the words of our Secretary of Energy, "oops."
If you give a password to the Russians to use your database your probably in trouble.
But if you simply dont protect it and they 'happen' to stumble across it and use it then your in less trouble
/tinfoilhat
|
Nothing drips with arrogant privilege quite like feeling compelled to visit North Korea. I am sad for the dude, but I can't help but reflect on the types of people I generally see go to North Korea. It is mostly as some kinda bucket list thing because they want to see first hand the total craziness that is the NK regime. They've lived lives that are so safe and so guaranteed that they can't even comprehend what it means to be in NK. And then shit like this happens. The world, the universe is not an ethically guided or regulated place. Hundreds (thousands?) of children are raped every day and people don't ever seem to fully grasp how real and utterly fucked up the world is. If you live somewhere that you feel unconditionally safe, treasure that. It isn't a guarantee.
|
At six in the morning, a man is startled awake by an insistent pounding on his front door. He opens it to find armed government agents. One group of them begins to ransack the man’s home. Two others take him outside and put him into the back seat of a nondescript government vehicle. One of the armed government agents sits on either side of him, trapping him. As he sits, blinking and confused in his pajamas, they begin to bark questions at him. Was he at a particular meeting, on a particular date, with a political figure who is under suspicion of wrongdoing? The man, confused and afraid and thoroughly intimidated, makes a bad choice — he answers, and he lies. He says he was not at the meeting. The armed government agents smile. They already have witnesses placing the man at the meeting. They already have a recording of the man at the meeting. His lie does not deter, mislead, or even mildly inconvenience them. But now they have him, whether or not he’s done anything wrong before — now he’s lied to the government, a serious crime.
That scenario is not from some totalitarian foreign country or some fictional dystopia. It’s from America, here and now. It happened just like that to one of my clients, interrogated at dawn by the FBI. It represents the vast power of law enforcement — especially federal law enforcement — to turn investigations of crimes into schemes to produce new crimes.
Federal criminal investigative power is in the news as President Trump and his associates face an investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Reports — and some ill-considered tweets by the president — suggest that Mueller’s focus may be not just Russian shenanigans but obstruction of the investigation into the same. Trump supporters are enraged; some Trump detractors are delighted. Nobody should be comfortable, unless they are at ease with vast and flexible law-enforcement power over citizens, especially controversial ones. Our system gives federal prosecutors and investigators — from locals across the country to the rare and elite like Mueller — extraordinary power to turn Americans’ lives upside down and prosecute not just prior crimes but any very common and human missteps their frightened targets make in reaction to the investigation.
Read the second half at National Review
|
United States43255 Posts
On June 20 2017 07:41 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +At six in the morning, a man is startled awake by an insistent pounding on his front door. He opens it to find armed government agents. One group of them begins to ransack the man’s home. Two others take him outside and put him into the back seat of a nondescript government vehicle. One of the armed government agents sits on either side of him, trapping him. As he sits, blinking and confused in his pajamas, they begin to bark questions at him. Was he at a particular meeting, on a particular date, with a political figure who is under suspicion of wrongdoing? The man, confused and afraid and thoroughly intimidated, makes a bad choice — he answers, and he lies. He says he was not at the meeting. The armed government agents smile. They already have witnesses placing the man at the meeting. They already have a recording of the man at the meeting. His lie does not deter, mislead, or even mildly inconvenience them. But now they have him, whether or not he’s done anything wrong before — now he’s lied to the government, a serious crime.
That scenario is not from some totalitarian foreign country or some fictional dystopia. It’s from America, here and now. It happened just like that to one of my clients, interrogated at dawn by the FBI. It represents the vast power of law enforcement — especially federal law enforcement — to turn investigations of crimes into schemes to produce new crimes.
Federal criminal investigative power is in the news as President Trump and his associates face an investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Reports — and some ill-considered tweets by the president — suggest that Mueller’s focus may be not just Russian shenanigans but obstruction of the investigation into the same. Trump supporters are enraged; some Trump detractors are delighted. Nobody should be comfortable, unless they are at ease with vast and flexible law-enforcement power over citizens, especially controversial ones. Our system gives federal prosecutors and investigators — from locals across the country to the rare and elite like Mueller — extraordinary power to turn Americans’ lives upside down and prosecute not just prior crimes but any very common and human missteps their frightened targets make in reaction to the investigation. Read the second half at National Review
In the first example the person has been seized without warning and is being held under some duress without access to legal representation. In the second example the person is the President of the United States and is tweeting while taking a shit. I don't think it's unreasonable to disagree with the first while still having no sympathy for the second.
|
People should really learn to use the Fifth Amendment to their advantage in cases like this. Though that doesn't sound like an investigation that should be legal by any measure.
|
On June 20 2017 07:47 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2017 07:41 Introvert wrote:At six in the morning, a man is startled awake by an insistent pounding on his front door. He opens it to find armed government agents. One group of them begins to ransack the man’s home. Two others take him outside and put him into the back seat of a nondescript government vehicle. One of the armed government agents sits on either side of him, trapping him. As he sits, blinking and confused in his pajamas, they begin to bark questions at him. Was he at a particular meeting, on a particular date, with a political figure who is under suspicion of wrongdoing? The man, confused and afraid and thoroughly intimidated, makes a bad choice — he answers, and he lies. He says he was not at the meeting. The armed government agents smile. They already have witnesses placing the man at the meeting. They already have a recording of the man at the meeting. His lie does not deter, mislead, or even mildly inconvenience them. But now they have him, whether or not he’s done anything wrong before — now he’s lied to the government, a serious crime.
That scenario is not from some totalitarian foreign country or some fictional dystopia. It’s from America, here and now. It happened just like that to one of my clients, interrogated at dawn by the FBI. It represents the vast power of law enforcement — especially federal law enforcement — to turn investigations of crimes into schemes to produce new crimes.
Federal criminal investigative power is in the news as President Trump and his associates face an investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Reports — and some ill-considered tweets by the president — suggest that Mueller’s focus may be not just Russian shenanigans but obstruction of the investigation into the same. Trump supporters are enraged; some Trump detractors are delighted. Nobody should be comfortable, unless they are at ease with vast and flexible law-enforcement power over citizens, especially controversial ones. Our system gives federal prosecutors and investigators — from locals across the country to the rare and elite like Mueller — extraordinary power to turn Americans’ lives upside down and prosecute not just prior crimes but any very common and human missteps their frightened targets make in reaction to the investigation. Read the second half at National Review In the first example the person has been seized without warning and is being held under some duress without access to legal representation. In the second example the person is the President of the United States and is tweeting while taking a shit. I don't think it's unreasonable to disagree with the first while still having no sympathy for the second.
It's not about sympathy; I agree with you that the president's tweets are self-inflicted wounds.
|
On June 20 2017 03:37 LegalLord wrote:
All these years and we still can't quite escape from Bush's MidEast commitment. The idea of Mattis calling the shots there does not sit well with me.
We can't even escape the AUMF from 2001. SoD calls the shots in place of the president, and the executive branch ties enemies to al-Qaeda to call the shots instead of congressional authorization.
|
On June 20 2017 07:55 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2017 07:47 KwarK wrote:On June 20 2017 07:41 Introvert wrote:At six in the morning, a man is startled awake by an insistent pounding on his front door. He opens it to find armed government agents. One group of them begins to ransack the man’s home. Two others take him outside and put him into the back seat of a nondescript government vehicle. One of the armed government agents sits on either side of him, trapping him. As he sits, blinking and confused in his pajamas, they begin to bark questions at him. Was he at a particular meeting, on a particular date, with a political figure who is under suspicion of wrongdoing? The man, confused and afraid and thoroughly intimidated, makes a bad choice — he answers, and he lies. He says he was not at the meeting. The armed government agents smile. They already have witnesses placing the man at the meeting. They already have a recording of the man at the meeting. His lie does not deter, mislead, or even mildly inconvenience them. But now they have him, whether or not he’s done anything wrong before — now he’s lied to the government, a serious crime.
That scenario is not from some totalitarian foreign country or some fictional dystopia. It’s from America, here and now. It happened just like that to one of my clients, interrogated at dawn by the FBI. It represents the vast power of law enforcement — especially federal law enforcement — to turn investigations of crimes into schemes to produce new crimes.
Federal criminal investigative power is in the news as President Trump and his associates face an investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Reports — and some ill-considered tweets by the president — suggest that Mueller’s focus may be not just Russian shenanigans but obstruction of the investigation into the same. Trump supporters are enraged; some Trump detractors are delighted. Nobody should be comfortable, unless they are at ease with vast and flexible law-enforcement power over citizens, especially controversial ones. Our system gives federal prosecutors and investigators — from locals across the country to the rare and elite like Mueller — extraordinary power to turn Americans’ lives upside down and prosecute not just prior crimes but any very common and human missteps their frightened targets make in reaction to the investigation. Read the second half at National Review In the first example the person has been seized without warning and is being held under some duress without access to legal representation. In the second example the person is the President of the United States and is tweeting while taking a shit. I don't think it's unreasonable to disagree with the first while still having no sympathy for the second. It's not about sympathy; I agree with you that the president's tweets are self-inflicted wounds.
Then what is it about? The comparison makes no sense considering how divergent the two situations are.
No one involved in the FBI investigation pressured Trump into firing Comney, unless you consider Sessions an inside mole working to oust Trump.
|
On June 20 2017 08:04 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2017 07:55 Introvert wrote:On June 20 2017 07:47 KwarK wrote:On June 20 2017 07:41 Introvert wrote:At six in the morning, a man is startled awake by an insistent pounding on his front door. He opens it to find armed government agents. One group of them begins to ransack the man’s home. Two others take him outside and put him into the back seat of a nondescript government vehicle. One of the armed government agents sits on either side of him, trapping him. As he sits, blinking and confused in his pajamas, they begin to bark questions at him. Was he at a particular meeting, on a particular date, with a political figure who is under suspicion of wrongdoing? The man, confused and afraid and thoroughly intimidated, makes a bad choice — he answers, and he lies. He says he was not at the meeting. The armed government agents smile. They already have witnesses placing the man at the meeting. They already have a recording of the man at the meeting. His lie does not deter, mislead, or even mildly inconvenience them. But now they have him, whether or not he’s done anything wrong before — now he’s lied to the government, a serious crime.
That scenario is not from some totalitarian foreign country or some fictional dystopia. It’s from America, here and now. It happened just like that to one of my clients, interrogated at dawn by the FBI. It represents the vast power of law enforcement — especially federal law enforcement — to turn investigations of crimes into schemes to produce new crimes.
Federal criminal investigative power is in the news as President Trump and his associates face an investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Reports — and some ill-considered tweets by the president — suggest that Mueller’s focus may be not just Russian shenanigans but obstruction of the investigation into the same. Trump supporters are enraged; some Trump detractors are delighted. Nobody should be comfortable, unless they are at ease with vast and flexible law-enforcement power over citizens, especially controversial ones. Our system gives federal prosecutors and investigators — from locals across the country to the rare and elite like Mueller — extraordinary power to turn Americans’ lives upside down and prosecute not just prior crimes but any very common and human missteps their frightened targets make in reaction to the investigation. Read the second half at National Review In the first example the person has been seized without warning and is being held under some duress without access to legal representation. In the second example the person is the President of the United States and is tweeting while taking a shit. I don't think it's unreasonable to disagree with the first while still having no sympathy for the second. It's not about sympathy; I agree with you that the president's tweets are self-inflicted wounds. Then what is it about? The comparison makes no sense considering how divergent the two situations are. No one involved in the FBI investigation pressured Trump into firing Comney, unless you consider Sessions an inside mole working to oust Trump.
Judging by Trump's last batch of tweets, I think there's a chance Trump actually thinks Rosenstein mind-gamed him into firing Comey as some long-term sinister plan alongside Comey and Mueller to remove his power. At least, that theory has made the rounds a bit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
