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

Putting a square peg in a round hole is citing Comey as a credible human being.

This is the point:

"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.

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/

"ntent has not been required since at least 1941."

 

The Mueller indictments were via Grand Juries. The DoJ policy on indictments is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. On the other hand, Trump can fire any one he likes in the Executive Branch for any reason, unless it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he did so to cover up a crime. However, also per DoJ policy, he cannot be indicted for ANY reason, as long as he's a sitting President.
Investigations, a point you make yourself, are NOT indictments and indictments are not convictions. Until there are publicly announced results, the Durham investigation is a nothing burger. Hopefully, however, we'll see its results before the end of the Trump Presidency in January 2021.

 

You need to check again...Bolton first response was that he would see how the McGahn subpoena was resolved in Court. The Court ruled in favor of the House on the McGahn subpoena (saying he must testify), but the decision has been appealed to the Supreme Court and is unresolved. Bolton then said he would not respond to a House subpoena, but would respond to one from the Senate. The Senate refused to vote for subpoenas for new witnesses.

 

No...based on Bolton's attorney's remarks and the sworn testimony of those who worked for him (Hill, Vindman, and others), there was sufficient reason for the Senate to subpoena Bolton. Republicans blocked it.

 

I stand by my post.

 

Just an observation on your post...you did post that you believe AG Barr to be a "toady for the bi-partisan political establishment."

 

Meanwhile 1,100 former justice department employees have signed a letter calling for Barr's resignation for his apparent abdication of his sworn responsibilities and surrender to the will of the White House.Thy are further asking any department employees who have witnessed irregularities or violations of department policy to come forward with their case.

 

IMO, Comey IS a credible human being. And, I described why your link is irrelevant in the Clinton e-mail investigation. You are confusing two types of "intent" (intent to cause harm and intent meaning knowledge that a crime was being committed). Review the case again. Intent with malice was never an issue in the Clinton case.

 

You are entitled to your opinion...not the facts.

 

Would you care to rephrase that?

 

No. Bolton's attorney's remarks are sufficient.

 

No. Do you believe that once impeached there was a constitutional obligation for the Senate to hold a trial? Are you aware that some of the Republicans who voted against conviction and removal, conceded that the "facts" presented by Schiff & Company were correct, but in their opinion did not rise to the level of conviction upon impeachment? What's "attachment 105952?"

 

The attorney confirmed the Times report?

 

What NYT report are you referencing?

 

Why am I not entitled to the facts? That puts a significant obstacle in front of my ability to support my points.

The attachment is a smiley scratching his head. It illustrates an inability to make sense out of the quoted post.

 

If you're not referring to the report on what is claimed to be in Bolton's book, what are you referring to? What specific comments by Bolton's lawyer are you referencing?

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...down-from-exce.568014/page-28#post-1071436035

 

I don't care who, it's wrong to use the FBI like special forces hunting Bin Laden. Busting in and snatching a old woman who was deaf.

 

Pretend it was ICE and he was illegal, since it doesn’t bother you then.

 

I'm referring to the November 8th letter from Bolton's attorney Charles Cooper to the General Counsel of the House, regarding the subpoenas presented to both Kupperman and Bolton, wherein Cooper splits the case of "executive privilege" away from the McGahn subpoena issue, as follows:

"Here, unlike McGahn, information concerning national security and foreign affairs is at the heart of the Committee's impeachment inquiry, and it is difficult to imagine any question that the Committees' might put to Dr. Kupperman that would not implicate these sensitive areas. After all, Dr. Kupperman was the Deputy National Security Advisor to the President throughout the period to your inquiry. The same is true, of course, of Ambassador Bolton, who was National Security Advisor to the President, and WHO WAS PERSONALLY INVOLVED IN MANY OF THE EVENTS, MEETINGS, AND CONVERSATIONS ABOUT WHICH YOU HAVE ALREADY RECEIVED TESTIMONY [ED NOTE: UKRAINE], AS WELL AS MANY REVELANT MEETINGS AND CONVERSATIONS THAT HAVE YET TO BE DISCUSSED IN THE TESTIMONIES THUS FAR." [ED NOTE: CAPITALIZATION IF MY EMPHASIS.]

This letter was submitted in a Kupperman suit in which Kupperman sought a court opinion regarding his legal responsibility to respond to the House subpoena or to obey the Presidential order against his response to the subpoena. Since the principal case regarding McGahn had yet to be settled (and is still in appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, both the WH and the House agreed that Kupperman's petition to the Court was "moot" and it was declared such by the judge on December 30th.

The basic argument of the letter was one of which constitutional provision applies to Congressional subpoenas? The House clearly has "the sole power of impeachment." But, clearly, there is a "limited power" of executive privilege by the President, which would be "less limited" in matters of foreign affairs and national security.

I suspect the decision of the House to withdraw the Kupperman subpoena was in recognition of this and moved ahead without the Kupperman or Bolton subpoenas, with the understanding that a Senate subpoena (with the Senate's advise and consent powers over foreign policy) would, ultimately, be a stronger case before the Courts. Whether or not the Supreme Court addresses this difference in their forthcoming review of the McGahn decision is an open question? Remember that Bolton did say that he would have obeyed a Senate subpoena and would have testified at trial. Such testimony was blocked by the Senate vote not to hear additional testimony.

As of now...there has been no recent Supreme Court decision on the Congressional right of subpoena versus the President's right to executive privilege. The position of the President, in other court filings on different issues, is that "executive privilege" is absolute regarding anything the President claims it upon. That would reverse prior court decisions during Watergate that ruled that it may not be used to cover-up Presidential crimes.

 

"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/

Focus on this: "Intent has not been required since at least 1941."

I doubt that anybody still really believes Comey or any of our other secret police chiefs are at all credible.

 

LOL! does anyone doubt that rather obvious fact? The rest of your post regarding anarchy etc. was not responsive to anything from my posts.

 

Your whole post is Red Herring that has nothing to do with the damage the left and the FBI has done to themselves with their bogus manufactured investigations.

 

Perhaps, you should read the sentence prior to the one you quote. "But courts have not suddenly stopped requiring espionage defendants to intent to injure the U.S." Your quote refer specifically to the "intent to harm," not intent with knowledge that a crime was being committed. Clinton's defense, which the FBI found "plausible" was that she was unaware that she was breaking a law at all...i.e. there was no "intent" at all, with or without malice.

 

How many FBI people have been criminally indicted over the "Russian hoax?"

 

You seem to be lumping President Trump into the establishment. Neither he or Barr would do so. You seem to count ALL of the U.S. government as the "Deep State." So...if you are not advocating anarchy, what are you advocating?