Seems to be a dispute between investigators and pr
Post# of 65629
Posted On: 11/03/2016 12:22:59 PM
Seems to be a dispute between investigators and prosecutors.
Shit, watching a few episode of "Law and Order", the original version, would've taught you about the tension between
detectives and prosecutors.
The latter just harp and harp on that pesky thing called evidence, evidence sufficient to successfully prosecute a case.
Again, if any of you rightys stepped afoul the law you would damned well insist on the same protections, the same standards of evidence, and the best lawyer you could afford.
But when it comes to political differences you bastards are the first to leap to criminalizing the opposition, hearsay and innuendo your default 'standards' for guilt.
Well, what goes around comes around.
There will be little sympathy for Trump in the suit against his eponymously named U. or if any of the sexual assault accusations make it to court.
Refresh your memory with a fundamental principle:
Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man's laws, not God's — and if you cut them down — and you're just the man to do it — d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?
Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDBiLT3LASk
Shit, watching a few episode of "Law and Order", the original version, would've taught you about the tension between
detectives and prosecutors.
The latter just harp and harp on that pesky thing called evidence, evidence sufficient to successfully prosecute a case.
Again, if any of you rightys stepped afoul the law you would damned well insist on the same protections, the same standards of evidence, and the best lawyer you could afford.
But when it comes to political differences you bastards are the first to leap to criminalizing the opposition, hearsay and innuendo your default 'standards' for guilt.
Well, what goes around comes around.
There will be little sympathy for Trump in the suit against his eponymously named U. or if any of the sexual assault accusations make it to court.
Refresh your memory with a fundamental principle:
Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man's laws, not God's — and if you cut them down — and you're just the man to do it — d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?
Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDBiLT3LASk
Quote:
As 2015 came to a close, the FBI and Justice Department had a general understanding that neither side would take major action on Clinton Foundation matters without meeting and discussing it first.
In February, a meeting was held in Washington among FBI officials, public-integrity prosecutors and Leslie Caldwell, the head of the Justice Department’s criminal division. Prosecutors from the Eastern District of New York—Mr. Capers’ office—didn’t attend, these people said.
The public-integrity prosecutors weren’t impressed with the FBI presentation, people familiar with the discussion said. “The message was, ‘We’re done here,’ ” a person familiar with the matter said.
Justice Department officials became increasingly frustrated that the agents seemed to be disregarding or disobeying their instructions.
Following the February meeting, officials at Justice Department headquarters sent a message to all the offices involved to “stand down,’’ a person familiar with the matter said.
Within the FBI, some felt they had moved well beyond the allegations made in the anti-Clinton book. At least two confidential informants from other public-corruption investigations had provided details about the Clinton Foundation to the FBI, these people said.
The FBI had secretly recorded conversations of a suspect in a public-corruption case talking about alleged deals the Clintons made, these people said. The agents listening to the recordings couldn’t tell from the conversations if what the suspect was describing was accurate, but it was, they thought, worth checking out.
Prosecutors thought the talk was hearsay and a weak basis to warrant aggressive tactics, like presenting evidence to a grand jury, because the person who was secretly recorded wasn’t inside the Clinton Foundation.
(1)
(0)