Establishing a pretense to refuse to testify.

False.

 

Don't project. Most on your side can't imagine not being corrupt partisan shills, hence they assume all the ethical people are as sleazy and criminal as their own side. That's not the case. We are nothing like you. We'd off ourselves out of shame if we had acted like you. That comes with having a conscience.

It must be getting you down, the way all of your cult's bizarre conspiracy fables keep getting laughed at. Don't despair. Keep soldiering on. Today's conspiracy theory may have cratered, but your cult leaders will issue you a new one tomorrow. It will probably contradict today's conspiracy theory, but then, that's never bothered you before. And by repeating it, at least you're earning major brownie points in your cult. Screw reality. You don't need reality; you have your cult, and they tell you what reality is.

 

While you didn't state where you live, there is a point that comes to mind that's not mentioned.

Before any investigation, there has to be a crime committed and identified. Then you seek information about the crime, possible witnesses, etc- But you don't investigate and especially don't go around using subpoena power and intimidation and raids before a crime is actually known to have happened. Part of what is going on right now is just that, a political influence attempting to find a crime by alleging one without evidence, as well as creating fake evidence and promoting it illegally as evidence, specifically the notorious "dossier" paid for by the Clinton/DNC.

We have a huge power battle going on here between the "Insiders" of washington that have controlled the government behind the scenes, gamed the system so to speak, for decades- and an "Outsider", that threatens to expose that gaming of the system, and put an end to it. That is the power some call the swamp or the deep state. Not a conspiracy by a few evil people- more a conspiracy by tradition where the insiders have always been able to do dishonest things for profit and power, because nobody had the power to stop them- and outsiders simply couldn't get in on their own. Trump cracked that barrier; he didn't need their money or support to run. That is why he is being targeted so intensely.

The difference between an investigation and a witch hunt is first, the actual knowledge of a crime, and second, investigating by following substantiated evidence rather than targeting some and trying to frame them.

A former FBI assistant director by the name of James Kallstrom, with 30 years FBI service, was just interviewed and states clearly that this investigation is indeed an effort to target and create, rather than investigate, and lays responsibility squarely on top FBI people favoring and protecting Clinton, and attempting to overthrow a duly elected president. A qualified witch hunt.

 

There has to be the SUSPICION that a crime has been committed.

There. A few less words but more accurate

 

IF your "side" had the moral high ground?
They are indeed nothing like me, and if they were- they wouldn't have the slightest need to be ashamed, they would be thinking for themselves instead of feeding off others and they wouldn't be resorting to nasty insults and denial, avoiding facts and running from truth. The corruption, the denial, the lack of character is what we're fighting. We are used to hearing little kids and lefties deny their bad behavior and try to throw it all back in our face. Bad conduct. No character. Destructive to the nation and to all it's people. You approve, obviously.

No one can control what you believe or what you think you see, but you should ask yourself a question. IF you are happy with the way government has run things like a carnival game for all these decades, happy with them wasting billions of tax dollars, selling influence, and botching every job and refusing to work together- Why are you bitching now?
Are you afraid that "draining the swamp" means actual results and competence will be required of our congress and agencies?
What do you have against that? Why do you protect the people who have done this to all of us?

 

Not so. Suspicion may be cause to look- ask who has reported a crime, what is it- and did it really happen. An investigation requires discovery. You don't form special prosecutors groups and issue subpoenas first.

You get confused when a statement is long. But you also get confused when it is brief. Regardless, you are always confused about what is said. Amazingly consistent.

 

There is a name for that.

Investigation

 

LEGAL definition, not casual language. Investigation is FORMAL.

 

Please cite these "legal definitions"

 

What is INVESTIGATION?
A term that means to examine and to look at carefully, discover the factor make a legal inquiry.

TLD Example: Police conducted a thorough investigation of the accusations of wrongdoing made against the council member, but they could not file charges because they were unable to find any corroborating evidence.

 

investigate

Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Medical, Acronyms, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.
investigate
verb analyze, ask, cognoscere, collect facts, conduct an inquiry, consider, deliberate upon, delve into, dig into, discuss, dissect, examine, examine in detail, examine the particulars, examine with care and accuracy, explore, go into, hold an inquiry, inquire into, inquire into systematically, interrogate, look into, peer into, probe,purrue an inquiry, quaerere, question, reconnoiter, review, scan, scrutinize, search into, seek information regarding,study in detail, survey, take evidence, track, track mentally
Associated concepts: investigate a crime, investigate charges, investigate the merits of a case

 

Full Investigation Law and Legal Definition
A full investigation refers to the careful search or examination with an intension to discover facts. This may include questioning of witnesses, forensic examination and investigation of financial records.

 

So they were investigating the ACCUSATIONS? That is what should be happening here- because that is where the crime is- In the False Allegations.

And Dr Venkman, with associates Stanz, Spangler and Zeddemore conducted a through investigation of the reports of disturbing events in the abandoned mansion, but they could find no evidence of necromancic activity. That means the ghostbusters tried hard, but the witch hunt came up empty because there was no evidence of witches.

 

You claimed to have legal definitions of "investigations".

You didn't.

I provided them to you and now you're saying what exactly?

 

There it is again, the fake "bad faith" narrative. Naturally, the minions are blindly accepting it as they do all the lies.

 

Must be why the judge bashed the Mueller team for telling the judge the reason for the investigation is secret.

 

Well, we know how these investigations generally work, right? When they cannot find any evidence for the reason to investigate, they start setting perjury traps, so they can look like it was not a waste of time and taxpayer money. That is what I have seen with these kind of politically driven investigations. Always a circus.

 

There ya go again. I did not say I had legal definitions- I spoke to the common use and understanding of the word. You can "investigate" or look into anything, including your morning stool. That is not a criminal investigation. Law enforcement generally chooses not to call an inquiry checking on allegations an investigation because the word automatically implies a crime is known to have occurred. Same as seeking a "person of interest" rather than calling a person the suspect before they know if or how the person is involved in what they are investigating.

According to a guide from a long-established Washington law firm-
"In most cases, a federal investigation is triggered by the filing of a credible crime report." CREDIBLE is the key word. Words have meaning- and the more you dilute them and twist them away from what people understand them to mean, the more confusion builds and ignorance gets taken as fact.

Currently we have people claiming everything they don't like is evidence of crime. Credibility is an inconvenient and quickly dismissed nuisance to the obsessed, I think you have shown us that clearly.

 

And the acceptance of the dossier- a huge elaborate lie commissioned and paid for by the Clinton/DNC for the purpose of political sabotage and jumped on by key people in the FBI with full knowledge of the source but without hesitation.... People with high legal positions and duty, but anti-Trump to the core, loaded with hate.. these are people acting in "good faith"?

How conveniently you throw the term around. You demonstrate the fact of bad faith in every post, every time. BAD FAITH, meaning no intention to act with independent judgement, but with a pre-conceived objective- an investigation that starts with an indictment and works backwards trying to find evidence. You need to understand what it really means:

(per Wikipedia and others reference sites)
Bad faith (from French mauvaise foi) is a philosophical concept utilized by existentialist philosophers Simone de Beauvoir and Jean-Paul Sartre to describe the phenomenon in which human beings, under pressure from social forces, adopt false values and disown their innate freedom, hence acting inauthentically.[1] It is closely related to the concepts of self-deception and resentiment.

Adopt false values. Disown your own freedom to think for yourself. Act inauthentically-- ie; Adjust beliefs and perception to fit desired conclusions, and act as if they were legitimate; dishonestly thinking end justifies means.

Once again I challenge you to show us you have some shred of balance in your judgment, show you are capable of acting outside of "bad faith".
Here it is again, for the third time:

So tell us Lee- what are the things you like most about our president? The characteristics or accomplishments that make you feel warm and fuzzy inside?
We know you are hiding them for fear of being attacked by the hate police. But be bold, step up and tell us.

Perhaps the all-time record low for black unemployment that has just been reached?
The remarkable low unemployment levels now that apply to all ethnic groups?
The fact he obliterated the entrenched Clinton Cartel on a shoestring budget from an underdog position?
The unprecedented breakthrough in the 68 year old Korean war?
The soon to be longest economic boom in history?
The fact that even CNN is fessing up, and has somehow finally found the courage to say "Yes- Trump gets credit for the economy"?
The way he pledges to work for all Americans- even you? How can you doubt the character of a man who can pledge that?

How about it- are you going to rate all these things as fake, or man up and give credit where credit is due?

 

The "russia investigation" was formed to attempt to destroy Donald Trump and get him out of office. It never had anything to do with russian "collusion" because there was never any evidence of it. In his shoes I would display a middle finger to Mueller and go on about my business.

 

Sorry, I am in Australia.

Not all investigations require an identified crime. That’s the point of investigating, to see if crime has been committed. What are reported or discovered are circumstances and the circumstances are investigated for any evidence of criminal conduct.

If there is no criminal activity uncovered when the investigation comes to a close then that clears up the circumstances. If there is alleged evidence then it’s presented to the courts in the usual manner. If the investigations being discussed constitute a witch hunt then the courts will take appropriate action

 

It's your fault, you know, that we have such a superiority complex. Given your side's utter moral depravity, it's impossible to _not_ look stellar in comparison.

Don't project. It doesn't fool anyone. All you have is insults and denial, avoiding facts and running from truth.

A. We weren't happy about it.
B. It was bad because of _your_ favorite policies. Namely, because you said money is free speech, corporations are people, monopolies are wonderful, and that special interests should be allowed to buy politicians. And holy toledo, you've got some nerve blaming "refusing to work together" on anyone except the Republicans. Don't peddle such revisionist party propaganda to honest people.
C. We tried to fix it, with you opposing us all the way. Hence, it's your fault, not ours.
D. The policies you adore have made it worse under Trump.

_You_ are the deep state, along with the Trump admin. We are the outsiders trying to drain the swamp, and you're a lifelong swamp denizen, screaming hatred at us specifically because we threaten to tear down your gamed system.

 

You folks cling to the lies about the dossier like a drowning man to a log.

The central argument in the Nunes memo may have just been debunked

http://www.businessinsider.com/nunes-memo-fisa-court-steele-dossier-argument-debunked-2018-2

 

You keep klinging to this but the problem is the footnote ‘speculated’ it was opposition research when they knew exactly where it came from and who paid for it. Withheld from the court. Along with using a Yahho news article that contained info leaked from the dossier as proof for the dossier, basically using the dossier to verify the dossier. All of this at a time when intelligence (Comey) said it was unverified.

 

Here, there must be reason to believe there has been a crime. That doesn't mean the report of one is accurate- indeed mistakes happen all the time, but the allegation of one is the starting point. Once that is confirmed, it move from checking the report to investigating any crime discovered.

In terms of a warrant, probable cause must be presented to a judge, with support- detailing the crime, and why the target of the warrant is relevant and what they expect to discover. Much of the issues being debated now is how much of the points at issue were manufactured rather than discovered, and it appears there was quite a bit. What might be called a "fix", picking a desired conclusion and target first, then a creative search for evidence to support it. That is backwards to what justice must be.

The use of terms probably varies quite a bit. One of our not-so-ethical FBI people provides an example. There was an inquiry going on into careless handling of classified data by Hillary Clinton. That biased FBI official directed those detailing it to change the descriptive term of the inquiry from an "investigation" to a "matter". In doing that, he lowered the perception of the seriousness and criminality of the actions being examined and thereby the reduced the implications of it on the image of Hillary, whom he favored for the election. Loose application of terms can be used to intensify or downgrade- and also to mis-lead, and often is.