Posted on 02/02/2018 2:40:41 PM PST by Bigtigermike
Thanks for that. In summary, what’s the crime here (so far)?
It isn't that there wasn't a crime. It's that the perps have a perfect defense under the law.
Interesting. Much appreciated. Isn’t someone in the FBI prosecutable, as the sworn investigator?
Generally, yes, but not for a FISA violation.
I think your points are significant and reasonable.
As I read more this weekend, it seems universal that people on the right (and the left, given their hysteria) think there are legally punishable crimes.
Below is a point made in this article: https://www.trigtent.com/content/fisa-memo-means-fbi-and-doj-face-swarm-litigation
The point is their lies cause doubt in many previous or current investigations, enough to invalidate them all. Result: massive sh!tstorm.
(The author is not a legal expert, but foreign policy)
After laying out the facts of the Memo...
“That means that Comey, McCabe, Rosenstein, Yates, and Boente all perjured themselves by issuing their signatures. Now, the fact that they did so – assuming these charges are pursued and formally established – will be evidence of their own untrustworthiness. This means that the FBI and DOJ will likely face a mountain of re-trials and litigation pertaining to cases which were handled by or relied upon information provided by these individuals. That is primary the reason why the FBI was so adamant that the memo not be released. None of the information contained within it can be credibly argued as a threat to national security.”
Thoughts?
It’s the job of investigators to investigate. Hard to claim they can’t start investigating without ‘proof’. Seems more likely to be ethics violations rather than perjury, which still should be enough to end careers.
Agree with that part about the ethics and careers. To us on the right/libertarian, obviously, it seems more serious and abuse of power, which in a just world would entail punishment.
Bongino used the simple example to explain to us non-lawyers Thursday on Levin - about investigating with/without warrants: you can investigate someone like at their gym, but when someone has an expectation of privacy, like in their home or on their phone, you need to prove to a judge you should be able to violate the 4th. And the fact that none of the players, who knew about the lies and signed the warrant application, are legally accountable, is stunning.
Right. No punishment for Lerner, no punishment for Clapper, etc, is evidence of lack of will to prosecute anyone. I think that’s a huge mistake, but the President may believe it’s better to change things for the future rather than to extract retribution for the past.
Interesting legal issues here
that defense only applies to section a fisa violations not other violations 18 usc 1001 false statement, violation of rights 18 usc 242 ,18 usc 371 defrauding the govt, 18 usc 1623 false declaration to a court,obstruction of justice, misprision of a felony, etc
(a) Prohibited activities A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally—
(1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by this chapter, chapter 119, 121, or 206 of title 18, or any express statutory authorization that is an additional exclusive means for conducting electronic surveillance under section 1812 of this title;
(2) discloses or uses information obtained under color of law by electronic surveillance, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through electronic surveillance not authorized by this chapter, chapter 119, 121, or 206 of title 18, or any express statutory authorization that is an additional exclusive means for conducting electronic surveillance under section 1812 of this title.
(b) Defense
It is a defense to a prosecution under subsection (a) that the defendant was a law enforcement or investigative officer engaged in the course of his official duties and the electronic surveillance was authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order of a court of competent jurisdiction.
(c) Penalties
An offense described in this section is punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.
(d) Federal jurisdiction
There is Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section if the person committing the offense was an officer or employee of the United State
Very! Good thread, thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.