BREAKING: Mueller’s Prosecutor Abruptly Resigns From Roger Stone Case After DOJ Backs Down From Exce

You have been misinformed.

"Again, I think it is terrible that Manning has been convicted of espionage. I think it would equally terrible if Edward Snowden was ever convicted of it. But courts have not suddenly stopped requiring espionage defendants to intend to injure the US. That intent has not been required since at least 1941."
OpinionJuris, (International Commission of Jurists), Correcting a Common Misperception of the Espionage Act, 31.07.13.
https://opiniojuris.org/2013/07/31/correcting-a-common-misperception-of-the-espionage-act/

 

I didn't say that the Democrats were performing.

 

Tribe is "aging." No doubt his judgements aren't as reliable as they once were. But on impeaching Trump, he was exactly right. The firing of Comey, was Trump's "Saturday Night Massacre." He wanted Comey out of the way to stifle the FBI's investigation into the Russian interference. In fact, that's what he told both the Russian Foreign Minister, the Russian Ambassador, and Lester Holt days later.

 

LOL! You think Barr and the other fixtures of our corrupt Deep State are 'my people'? You must not read my posts.

Barr lobbied for the AG post so he could cover up the crimes of the felons who have attempted to rig and then nullify the 2016 election. Barr has always been a toady for the corrupt bipartisan political establishment.
He may eventually indict a few DOJ/FBI non entities, but, IMO, Barr and Durham will do everything they can to keep Brennan, Clapper, The Clintons, Comey, McCabe, Jarret et al out of jail.

 

Actually he was wrong. They didn’t impeach him for firing Comey...nor is it impeachable

 

Interesting...and I would probably agree. But, I am not (nor was Comey) arguing intent with malice. The point was with or without malice there had to be an understanding that a law was being broken and that understanding could never have been proven, according to Comey. Remember, the quantity of e-mails reviewed was in the tens of thousands. Much of the handling process (secure servers, accounts, etc) was vague or left up to the individuals and fell into the area of rules and procedures, not crimes. Second day, many of the "classified e-mails" sent, were classified only upon review and NOT classified at the time they were sent or received. Of those that were classified at the time, all were exchanged between people with the proper clearances. And, of course, only three e-mails had partial classification markings that Clinton explained she either overlooked or throughs the markings were part of the text...such as "(c)" or "(C)", before a classified portion of the text. None had the words CONFIDENTIAL or TOP SECRET or SECRET on the e-mails themselves.
Right or wrong, the FBI could not prove "intent" or an awareness that any law was being violated - with or without malice.

 

Wow! Is that an admission that Trump is?

 

Trump is performing at the highest levels, and or the American people.

the dems aren’t

 

True...but the House Judiciary Committee began with it, as a result of the the "road map" left by Mueller's investigation into obstruction. At the time Mueller began his investigation, the events in Ukraine had not occurred. It was those events that offered a clearer path to impeachment and the investigation shifted to the House Intelligence Committee. Also...the possible obstruction charges Mueller was investigating are still TBD - as in the Stone case. Additionally, there are ongoing investigations into the origin of the investigations. It would not surprise me to see futures charges, complimented by the recent obstruction into the Stone sentencing.

 

"Performing" in the sense of entertainment...but those are issues that will be focused upon during the forthcoming campaigns.

 

None of the usual defense lawyer chatter about intent will work when you are charged with violating The Espionage Act.

"Notice: the Gorin Court did not limit “bad faith” to obtaining national-defense information with the “intent” to injure the United States; it also considered bad faith obtaining national-defense information while having “reason to believe” that the information could be used to injure the US. Those are very different mental states.

Nor is Gorin an outlier. No court in the 70 years since the Supreme Court’s decision has held that the Espionage Act requires the defendant to obtain (or receive, or transmit, etc.) national-defense information with the intent to injure the US. And that is not surprising: all of the various subsections of 19 USC 793 make clear that is enough for a defendant to have “reason to believe” information could be used to injure the US. That much more easily satisfied mens rea requirement appears in 793(a), 793(b) (“with like intent”), 793(d), and 793(e). It does not appear in 793(c) — but only because that provision, which deals with receiving or retaining information “connected with the national defense,” does not require even potential injury to the US."
OpinionJuris, International Commission of Jurists, Correcting a Common Misperception of the Espionage Act, 31.07.13.
https://opiniojuris.org/2013/07/31/correcting-a-common-misperception-of-the-espionage-act/

 

And the house found nothing at the end of that road map, fully exonerating the President

 

Oh in that case the dems are on point...comic gold

 

I think you are missing the point. Clinton's defense was not based on malice or non-malice, which is what you are arguing and what your link argued. She was arguing that she had no knowledge at all regarding a violation regarding the handling of classified material; because aside from three e-mails, with partial classified markings, out of tens of thousands of e-mails, her excuse of not seeing it, or misinterpreting the partial markings, was a plausible defense. And, as Comey pointed out, for which no federal prosecutor would indict. [The DoJ standard was beyond a reasonable doubt...the same standard at trial.]
I think you are fixated on the malice vs. non-malice argument, because you consider it relevant to the Clinton e-mail case. I don't. Perhaps, if you have a link to an opinion that relates the Clinton case to the opinion expressed in your link, it would clarify your position? Personally...I think you are trying to put a square peg in a round hole. Both are valid pieces...but they don't really fit together.

 

No. I'm not discussing Trump, at all. Sorry for being unclear. I should have said: The post is referencing Democrats, it is in no way about Trump.

Hope this helps.

 

Ah...a unique perspective. Presumably that of an anarchist. Don't find many around these days. IOW, anyone associated with the U.S. government, regardless of Party is a member of the Deep State? Trump himself is a member of the Deep State? It is one Deep State gang fighting another Deep State gang?
Actually, I've often noted that the reason I do not believe in one giant Conspiracy Theory is because such would be impossible given the thousands upon thousands of competing smaller conspiracies.

 

Not really, but thanks anyway. It's a silly argument to be trying to determine which Party produces the greatest number of clowns.

 

How so?

 

Not true. They found enough to impeach him successfully, but not enough to convince a Republican Senate majority (less one) that the charges rose to the level of conviction on impeachment, coupled to an unwillingness to hear new direct witnesses and/or new documentation relevant to the charges.

 

Partial list of Democrat hoaxes aimed at Trump:

Racist
Nazi
White-supremacist
Collusion
Nazi
Profiteering
Racist
Ukraine stuff

And the Clown Show continues...

Now, they're focus group testing 'interference in a court proceeding'.

Don't be surprised to find out the whole thing was a set-up. Barr is saying that those prosecutors sandbagged him.

 

It was a pure partisan impeachment. They got enough to accuse him, but as the trial highlighted it really wasn’t anything and they couldn’t make their case

 

They are funny. Like the Wile E Coyote is funny falling off the cliff

 

Really? All he had to do was call them and ask what their sentencing recommendations would be. You think all four were secret members of the Deep State and plotting against him? And, you want to discuss all of those opinions about Trump? Why don't we just agree that anyone who disagrees with him on anything is a member of the Deep State?

 

Hmmm...they did. They impeached him. If House Republicans didn't go along, they were either dumb and blind or were conspiring with him. Let's see how they do in November.