Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

LexusLover · 10-13-2016, 02:45 PM

"I have no basis to judge how frequently the FBI uses the strong-arm investigative tactics mentioned in the op-ed piece."

What is "strong-arm" is highly subjective, although the word implies physical violence or the threat of physical violence, but the reality is very often (BushHog knows it too) local and state personnel are "managed" by Federal agents with the local/state folks doing the "heavy lifting" and "dirty work" for the ongoing investigation. It has less to do with "the size of the case" and more to do with available assets and personnel. A "high profile" case might get more Federal attention, and occasionally you will notice the Feds fading into the background before the case gets fully dumped onto the locals.

In the instant case it couldn't get much more "high profile" than the wife of a former President who is also a current candidate for POTUS.

The simple explanation for Hillary's Walk ..is politics. Pure and simple!

Can the BushHog think of any relatively recent Political Prosecutions in Texas? That's just the flip side of Hillary's Walk. Ronnie Earle is the best example.

Prosecutorial discretion vs. Prosecutorial indiscretion.

In the Federal system judges and us attorneys alike have to focused on appointments for promotions. Commie is a short-timer if Trump gets elected .... so he can't punch Hillary out.... and if he saves her ass he might get a cozy bench someplace from which to retire. He's bought and paid for ..... Had he not been a former U.S. Attorney I would say he's just ignorant on the law. But since he is one, he's just a bought liar....and political hack.

If one couldn't convict on circumstantial evidence of "intent" then 80% of the folks in prison would be on the street. He knows it! All they would have to say is .... "I didn't know"!

lustylad · 10-13-2016, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LexusLover

"I have no basis to judge how frequently the FBI uses the strong-arm investigative tactics mentioned in the op-ed piece."

What is "strong-arm" is highly subjective, although the word implies physical violence or the threat of physical violence, but the reality is very often (BushHog knows it too) local and state personnel are "managed" by Federal agents with the local/state folks doing the "heavy lifting" and "dirty work" for the ongoing investigation. It has less to do with "the size of the case" and more to do with available assets and personnel. A "high profile" case might get more Federal attention, and occasionally you will notice the Feds fading into the background before the case gets fully dumped onto the locals.

In the instant case it couldn't get much more "high profile" than the wife of a former President who is also a current candidate for POTUS.

The simple explanation for Hillary's Walk ..is politics. Pure and simple!

Can the BushHog think of any relatively recent Political Prosecutions in Texas? That's just the flip side of Hillary's Walk. Ronnie Earle is the best example.

Prosecutorial discretion vs. Prosecutorial indiscretion.

Speaking of strong-arm tactics, I was shocked at the way Wisconsin/Milwaukee prosecutors went after the Club for Growth people who defended Scott Walker against that 2012 gubernatorial recall vote. Pre-dawn raids, handcuffs, seizure of computers, etc. Gestapo stuff. For alleged violations of campaign finance rules. Prosecutors ultimately lost the case but did great damage. It showed how Democrats are so upset over Citizens United that they will stoop to these kinds of tactics. In their mind, the end justifies the means. I don't believe the prosecutors were reprimanded for what they did. But look at the upside from their point of view - they were able to seize and pore over thousands of private emails and documents indicating who the big GOP donors are, so they know who to harass and embarrass in the future. And of course, there is the "chilling effect" on conservative political activity in general. A nice reward. Who cares if the Constitution gets shredded?

Tiny · 10-13-2016, 04:23 PM

James Comey, who used to be a federal prosecutor, is a hypocrite. He put Martha Stewart in jail, not for insider trading when she sold 4,000 shares of Imclone after being advised to do so by her broker, but because of the defense she mounted when falsely accused of insider trading by the government. He also started to prosecute Jayson Blair for making up stories for the New York Times. Comey's reason for ending the case against Hillary Clinton was because no reasonable prosecutor would pursue the case. Well, Stewart and Blair show that by his own standards, he must have been an unreasonable prosecutor. Of course, his definition of reasonable would probably depend on how much a case would have helped or hurt his career prospects and job security.

Do I think Hillary should be prosecuted for a felony in relation to her emails? Probably not. She's guilty of hubris, and extreme bad judgement and carelessness. Perhaps that means she's not qualified to be president. It doesn't mean she should go to jail.

I'm a big believer in mens rea, the concept that you shouldn't go to jail if you don't know you committed a crime. Democrats are holding up mens rea reform in Congress because they want to be able to continue sending white collar criminals to jail for crimes they never knew they committed. Despite what I wrote, if a few powerful politicians like Hillary went to jail, maybe it would change their attitude.

LexusLover · 10-13-2016, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tiny

James Comey is a hypocrite. He put Martha Stewart in jail, not for insider trading when she sold 4,000 shares of Imclone after being advised to do so by her broker, but because of the defense she mounted when falsely accused of insider trading by the government.

It is my recollection that Martha Stewart was convicted of lying to Federal investigators ... "false information" .....

Ring a bell?

When a cook gives false information .. it's prison....

.. when the Clintons do .... it's their forgetfulness.

Commie is for sale. Plain and simple.

When Texas Republicans are accused of selling influence, it's a criminal case, but when Eastern HillBilly Democrats do it's "business as usual"! "They just don't know any better!"

Tiny · 10-13-2016, 04:47 PM

Lustylad and LexusLover, along the lines of Scott Walker and Texas Republicans, Bob McDonnell's is a case worth looking at. The Wall Street Journal had an interesting comparison between his situation and Hillary Clinton's recently,

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-fbi-...ves-1475709394

The_Waco_Kid · 10-13-2016, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LexusLover

"lived with" what? The "red button" as you say?

As the "First Lady" who couldn't find cancelled checks in shoe boxes in her clothes closet and dodged sniper fire on the tarmac in Europe ..... not to mention not knowing her hubby was getting his knob polished in the other end of the house .....

... she was so fucking far away from the "red button" it would have appeared to be a pimple on a gnat's ass to her at 100 yards!

All I can say to you: "Give me a FUCKING break"!!!!!!

You are seriously Gruberized!!!

she "managed" to find that box of Rose Law Firm records, in the White House, just a few months after the statute of limitations expired on all potential charges over WhiteWater.

brilliant!!!

DSK · 10-13-2016, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

..yada yada yada ..hack in action..yada yada yada

As for the investigative tactics mention in the article, yes, the FBI sometimes uses those. Often times they do not. Generally they don't, at least in my limited experience with criminal investigations...

blah blah blah

LexusLover clearly demonstrated your limited experience with criminal law, too.

In fact, in the language of the street, he bitch slapped you all to hell!!!

Yssup Rider · 10-13-2016, 06:29 PM

How would you know to criticize someone's experience with criminal law, Jewish Baker?

The_Waco_Kid · 10-13-2016, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

How would you know to criticize someone's experience with criminal law, Jewish Baker?

how would you know, porky pig? Hog says he is a lawyer but not criminal law. there's a difference pig. also i'm Bill Gates is Hog really a lawyer at all?

bambino · 10-13-2016, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

how would you know, porky pig? Hog says he is a lawyer but not criminal law. there's a difference pig. also i'm Bill Gates is Hog really a lawyer at all?

I say no to both. Why would you want to be Bill Gates, or a lawyer? The new pig face tush is a fraud along the lines of Lubed.

CuteOldGuy · 10-13-2016, 09:24 PM

Hey, TexasDickHog! What does it tell you when a person destroys evidence after it has been subpoenaed?

lustylad · 10-14-2016, 02:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Hog says he is a lawyer but not criminal law... is Hog really a lawyer at all?

Who gives a fuck? At least he posts politely and coherently, unlike the other lefties in this forum. Or do you prefer wasting time trying to "converse" with idiots like Sissy Chap, LubedAss, oinkboy and the chimp?

lustylad · 10-14-2016, 02:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tiny

Lustylad and LexusLover, along the lines of Scott Walker and Texas Republicans, Bob McDonnell's is a case worth looking at. The Wall Street Journal had an interesting comparison between his situation and Hillary Clinton's recently,

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-fbi-...ves-1475709394

Hey Tiny, check my OP. That's the same article I opened this thread with!

LexusLover · 10-14-2016, 02:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Hey, TexasDickHog! What does it tell you when a person destroys evidence after it has been subpoenaed?

He can't tell you. But it's "circumstantial evidence" of guilt!

The well known evidentiary assumption is the evidence was damning.

And the subpoena has nothing to do with it, other than make it stronger.

lustylad · 10-14-2016, 02:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tiny

I'm a big believer in mens rea, the concept that you shouldn't go to jail if you don't know you committed a crime. Democrats are holding up mens rea reform in Congress because they want to be able to continue sending white collar criminals to jail for crimes they never knew they committed...

Ditto. Fucking tort lawyers own the Dems. I also applaud the recent SCOTUS decision acquitting Bob McConnell and requiring prosecutors to prove an explicit quid pro quo in corruption cases. Even though the decision makes it harder to convict Hillary for her Clinton Foundation pay-for-play corruption, it puts a leash on over-reaching prosecutors.