Anybody following the FBI scandal ?

[cordex]

Does that apply to all LE, or just the Feds?

Just the feds, although there are state laws that criminalize certain lies to other LE.

[Blakenzy]

IIRC, it's illegal to lie to law enforcement, even if you're not under oath. (Martha Stewart got tripped up on this.)

... and law enforcement's No. 1 technique during interviews/interrogation is to lie about everything. Much double standard?

[French G.]

... and law enforcement's No. 1 technique during interviews/interrogation is to lie about everything. Much double standard?

Been there once with NCIS, not only for something I didn't do, but something I reported. Easiest way to mark it case closed was get  me to admit to it. Twenty years on and I am still hostile about it, guy was willing to destroy my life just for kicks.

[Jamisjockey]

Been there once with NCIS, not only for something I didn't do, but something I reported. Easiest way to mark it case closed was get  me to admit to it. Twenty years on and I am still hostile about it, guy was willing to destroy my life just for kicks.

Worse, it was probably either laziness as an investigator or hubris, because he believed you did it.

It disgusts me listening to cops and prosecutors after real good evidence comes out exonerating someone they believed was guilty dig in their heels.  DNA? Nope, he still musta did it because I believe it to be.

[Ben]

It disgusts me listening to cops and prosecutors after real good evidence comes out exonerating someone they believed was guilty dig in their heels.  DNA? Nope, he still musta did it because I believe it to be.

DNA exoneration, more than anything else, pretty much changed my perspective on the death penalty. If there are not multiple independent witnesses, video evidence, and/or happily confessing to the crime without coercion, I'm no longer for the death penalty and am fine with taxpayer dollars housing a life inmate.

If any of my conditions hold true, I'm still in the "fry them" camp. There are probably some exception examples for and against, but in general, that's my current philosophy.

[MechAg94]

DNA exoneration, more than anything else, pretty much changed my perspective on the death penalty. If there are not multiple independent witnesses, video evidence, and/or happily confessing to the crime without coercion, I'm no longer for the death penalty and am fine with taxpayer dollars housing a life inmate.

If any of my conditions hold true, I'm still in the "fry them" camp. There are probably some exception examples for and against, but in general, that's my current philosophy.

What I always found amazing was the complete lack of evidence upon which juries were willing to convict in some of those cases.  One case I am reminded of appeared to consist of police picking up someone who was within a few miles of the incident and talking the witness (who didn't get a clear ID) into testifying that he was the one who did it.  That was all the evidence they had. 

IMO, it underscores the importance of good people serving jury duty and taking it seriously.  And getting competent representation if I find myself on the wrong side of the law.

[Hawkmoon]

DNA exoneration, more than anything else, pretty much changed my perspective on the death penalty. If there are not multiple independent witnesses, video evidence, and/or happily confessing to the crime without coercion, I'm no longer for the death penalty and am fine with taxpayer dollars housing a life inmate.

If any of my conditions hold true, I'm still in the "fry them" camp. There are probably some exception examples for and against, but in general, that's my current philosophy.

I am in the same situation. I think if we know someone has committed murder, they should fry. The problem is in "knowing" as opposed to "being pretty sure."

Many many years ago (1973, in fact), in Connecticut, a young woman was murdered in a parking garage. The police were certain they knew who did it -- and they basically ruined the guy's life but were never able to come up with enough evidence to make a case.

Fast forward to 1997 (24 years later), when a state police technician did some work on the cold case file and eventually came up with a DNA match. And it wasn't to Anthony Golino, the guy the police had hounded for decades because they "knew" he was the killer.

http://articles.courant.com/2002-09-28/news/0209280153_1_serra-case-courtroom-grant-s-arrest

[Blakenzy]

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/371280-house-intel-votes-to-make-nunes-memo-public

Fasten your seatbelts.. 

[RoadKingLarry]

I am in the same situation. I think if we know someone has committed murder, they should fry. The problem is in "knowing" as opposed to "being pretty sure."

Many many years ago (1973, in fact), in Connecticut, a young woman was murdered in a parking garage. The police were certain they knew who did it -- and they basically ruined the guy's life but were never able to come up with enough evidence to make a case.

Fast forward to 1997 (24 years later), when a state police technician did some work on the cold case file and eventually came up with a DNA match. And it wasn't to Anthony Golino, the guy the police had hounded for decades because they "knew" he was the killer.

http://articles.courant.com/2002-09-28/news/0209280153_1_serra-case-courtroom-grant-s-arrest

Plenty of cases where we know for an absolute certainty who did the deed. Ft. Hood, Aurora theater... Cases like that should be pretty cut and dried. Cross all the Ts, dot all the Is and take 'em out back and bury them ( no wasteful intermediate steps like an actual execution needed). Just dig a big hole with an excavator, throw them in and fill in the hole.
As to proprietorial misconduct, in my perfect world, anytime a cop, prosecutor, DA, judge, witness or any person involved in the prosecution gets caught falsifying evidence, withholding exculpatory evidence, perjury or anything that could intentionally or negligently lead to a false conviction they are then subject to the same penalty that they would have falsely imposed on their intended victim, up to and especially including the death penalty.   

[RoadKingLarry]

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/371280-house-intel-votes-to-make-nunes-memo-public

Fasten your seatbelts.. 

Nothing will come of any of it.
The Dems will pander to their base, the mainstream press will either ignore it or label it fake news. The Repubs will grandstand about how damning it is and Mueller will continue his witch hunt.
 

[Hawkmoon]

As to proprietorial misconduct, in my perfect world, anytime a cop, prosecutor, DA, judge, witness or any person involved in the prosecution gets caught falsifying evidence, withholding exculpatory evidence, perjury or anything that could intentionally or negligently lead to a false conviction they are then subject to the same penalty that they would have falsely imposed on their intended victim, up to and especially including the death penalty.   

I appreciate your insights and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

[Blakenzy]

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-01-30/fbi-director-wray-shocked-his-core-fisa-memo-mccabe-removed-next-day-more-heads

 

[makattak]

Victor Davis Hanson (one of the smartest writers alive) has analysis on why it happened:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/455885/expected-clinton-victory-explains-federal-employee-wrongdoing

Everyone thought Clinton would win, so they broke the law to favor her. (I just distilled the article for you.)

[RocketMan]

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-01-30/fbi-director-wray-shocked-his-core-fisa-memo-mccabe-removed-next-day-more-heads

 

Pardon my cynicism, but McCabe is just the fall guy.  There may be one or two more underlings selected for a ride under the bus, and then this whole thing will be over.  The real criminals will never face any consequences.

[Blakenzy]

If Trump wants to stay 'till the end of his term he will HAVE to go deeper than just a few FBI agents. I think that in the end, not all the bad guys will bite the dust, and many will remain among Republican files. The Democrats, especially the Clintons, are being lined up be the fall guys of this corrupt system, sparing turds of the Republican flavor.

BTW isn't today the State of the Union Address? It will be interesting to see what happens there. I think it will be gloves-off after that.

[RocketMan]

If Trump wants to stay 'till the end of his term he will HAVE to go deeper than just a few FBI agents.

In my opinion, Trump is unlikely to finish his first term.  Historically, the party of the sitting President does not fare well in mid-term elections.  Add to that, this go around the Democrat party is especially energized, and Republicans have not done well in recent special elections.
The Democrat party will likely sweep the upcoming mid-terms and regain strong control of both the House and Senate, making the successful impeachment of Trump (for specious reasons) probable.

[MechAg94]

In my opinion, Trump is unlikely to finish his first term.  Historically, the party of the sitting President does not fare well in mid-term elections.  Add to that, this go around the Democrat party is especially energized, and Republicans have not done well in recent special elections.
The Democrat party will likely sweep the upcoming mid-terms and regain strong control of both the House and Senate, making the successful impeachment of Trump (for specious reasons) probable.

Impeachment requires more than a simple majority in the Senate so it would take a pretty big swing.  Also, most Presidents see very little accomplished and very little change in the economy after 2 years.  I think Trump is doing fine on both.  The question is whether any of that translates to getting people to vote for the R's in Congress.  If they manage to pass one or two other major bills in 2018, they may look a lot better.

In addition, I keep hearing pundits say Democrats are motivated to vote in the midterms.  Is that really true?  Outside of the looney leftists, why are they motivated?  Their leadership has been putting their feet in the mouths, generally losing to Trump, and getting caught with their corrupt hands in the cookie jar.  I guess we will see what the primary turnout looks like in the coming months.  

I just get the feeling a lot of the predictions coming from the media are partly wishful thinking.  Historically you are correct though.

[RoadKingLarry]

The pundiots telling us the Dems are gonna make big gains in the midterms are the same ones that told us Clinton was going to win by a landslide aren't they?
However, I can see the establishment GOP rolling over to give the dems back the majority just to spite Trump.

And if anyone thinks Wray learned anything new from the Nunes memo, come see me, I can make you a hell of a deal on a bridge.

[Blakenzy]

Of course everyone "in the know" knew about the filth and corruption, the thing is now it's part of the public discourse. They can do damage control but they can't bury it.

If there are any decent patriots left to prosecute this, quite seriously, certain public officials should go through a military tribunal and be hung (literally) for treason. You can't have a "deep state" plotting to thwart elections or unseat a duly elected American President and still have a semblance of a Republic. Talk about enemies foreign and domestic... it's right about go time 

[Hawkmoon]

Victor Davis Hanson (one of the smartest writers alive) has analysis on why it happened:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/455885/expected-clinton-victory-explains-federal-employee-wrongdoing

Everyone thought Clinton would win, so they broke the law to favor her. (I just distilled the article for you.)

Good article, and it makes perfect sense (from a totally amoral perspective). That said, the mere fact that there so many totally amoral actors in the .gov is very disheartening.

[makattak]

Good article, and it makes perfect sense (from a totally amoral perspective). That said, the mere fact that there so many totally amoral actors in the .gov is very disheartening.

Selection bias.

[Scout26]

To piggy back off Mr. Hanson, the WSJ had a great opinion piece and Op-ed piece the other day:
 
Opinion: https://www.wsj.com/articles/fusions-russian-dirty-work-1517181776

Op-Ed:  https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-steele-dossier-fits-the-kremlin-playbook-1517175564

What's amazing to me (and I keep pointing out to a certain individual on FB), is that the Russians want the disunity and discord that is the current "Resist" movement.  What benefits them more ??  A fairly unified country that more or less gets along (baring the usual political squabbles) or a country that is threatening to tear itself apart ??



Finally, here's 9:14 of Nancy Pelosi sputtering and stammering her way through trying to stop the FISA memo.  This thing must be devastating.   And before you get on the "CLASSIFIED" bandwagon, remember that Obama released everything on the enhanced interrogation techniques at Gitmo, just about day one.  Plus, if there's been wrongdoing, then it needs to brought to light.

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/pelosi-clashes-with-chris-cuomo-on-nunes-memo-you-really-dont-know-what-youre-talking-about/ 

[Hawkmoon]

Since when is the DOJ a part of the intelligence community?

Ms. Pelosi says the memo is not "factual," but Fox News reports that the FBI has reviewed it and did not find any factual inaccuracies.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/01/30/fbi-officials-review-surveillance-memo-could-not-cite-any-factual-inaccuracies-source.html

[Blakenzy]

Apparently there is a counter-memo in the works:
http://impeachtrump.net/release-the-second-memo

Oh wow:
http://img.4plebs.org/boards/pol/image/1516/84/1516843918090.jpg

 

[Hawkmoon]

Who would ever expect that the FBI might object to the public release of a memo documenting that the FBI is politically biased and got hoodwinked?

[Vizzini voice]Inconceivable[/Vizzini voice]