Sarge 91 said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

Let's just say Comey (or even Hillary) is indicted, how would you ever impanel a jury that would convict these folks. I have lost so much faith in the justice system, I don't think it would ever happen. I know the eagles on here have thought about this.

---

Would have to be outside of D.C. or any major city.

---

Collin County, Texas should do just fine.

---

I second it....

Well McCabe was railroaded when he was fired. He is a good man. He got screwed. Oh wait. Let's forget I defended McCabe let's talk about Comey being a great person/ media.

receptive...

Comey is supposed to appear on Bret Baier soon, curious if Bret pitches him a few heaters, or did they agree to canned Q&A


Edit: Bret Baier has booked Comey for April 26. With the OIG referral on McCabe Comey may rethink that

This is really a "10, 9, ignition sequence starts" or "drivers start your engines" moment.

It's about to get fun!

Trying to follow along the breaking news this week

GCP12 said:

---

---

Nadler always rattling off nonsense

Contempt of Congress? Congress has no document control at the DOJ, if they did they'd have all the evidense a year ago. Nadler is a joke...

To be fair, the Nadler story he cited is from yesterday with a story Goodlatte was considering a subpoena. The reasoning isthat a subpoena will let Republicans hold Rosenstein in contempt, remove him and undermine Mueller.

Which has its own validity problems (we're back to the "removal of Mueller is immient, prepare to #RESIST" stories), but is misleading in how it relates to the other tweet by Savedra.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/comey-memos-could-land-rod-rosenstein-in-contempt-of-congress-top-democrat

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/19/doj-expected-to-deliver-comey-memos-to-congress-537825

Quote:

---

The Department of Justice is expected to send to Congress on Thursday afternoon copies of former FBI Director James Comey's memos documenting his interactions with President Donald Trump, according to a[n unnamed] source

---

He's still a subject though.

tallgrant said:

---

To be fair, the Nadler story he cited is from yesterday with a story Goodlatte was considering a subpoena. The reasoning isthat a subpoena will let Republicans hold Rosenstein in contempt, remove him and undermine Mueller.

Which has its own validity problems (we're back to the "removal of Mueller is immient, prepare to #RESIST" stories), but is misleading in how it relates to the other tweet by Savedra.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/comey-memos-could-land-rod-rosenstein-in-contempt-of-congress-top-democrat

---

To be more fair and see if it matches what Nadler is saying

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) says releasing Comey's memos puts Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in jeopardy of being placed in contempt of Congress and the special counsel investigation of being shut down.

When in fact it's not releasing them is what would hold him in contempt, they are subpoenaed and he has a choice to comply or be held in contempt.

Mueller is having a bad week. The Cohen mess didn't quite work out (although he might yet turn), Comey's book tour has been a disaster, his boss, Rosenstein is about to hand over Comey's memos and Rosenstein is telling Trump details of his investigation, who is and who isn't a target.

Not that big of a difference between a target and a subject in a DOJ investigation. Now if he gets downgraded to witness, that is news

Maybe this is why Rosensteins name wasn't on that letter of who's who the other day.

ArcticPenguin said:

---

Not that big of a difference between a target and a subject in a DOJ investigation. Now if he gets downgraded to witness, that is news

---

This is the same kind of thinking that led millions of liberals to not believing that Hillary really lost the election.

FriscoKid said:

---

ArcticPenguin said:

---

Not that big of a difference between a target and a subject in a DOJ investigation. Now if he gets downgraded to witness, that is news

---

This is the same kind of thinking that led millions of liberals to not believing that Hillary really lost the election.

---

On Cue....

This statement is false.

Quote:

---

Subject of an Investigation: The term "subject of an investigation" has a particular meaning within the United States Department of Justice (DOJ). According to the DOJ Handbook, a "subject" is: "a person whose conduct is within the scope of a Grand Jury's investigation." A subject is somewhere between a target and a witness. A subject has engaged in conduct that may look suspicious or unethical, but the prosecutor isn't certain that a provable crime has been committed and wants to do more investigating in order to be sure.

Target: The term "target of an investigation" is also specifically defined by the DOJ. A person is a target where the prosecutor or Grand Jury has substantial evidence linking him to the commission of a crime. Designation as a target provides a clear warning of a person's criminal exposure.

Even though your status as a witness, subject or target may be important in guiding your strategy during a particular phase of a federal white collar crime investigation, the key thing to remember about these categories is that they are ultimately meaningless and offer you no protection. Why? Because even if you are currently a witness or subject, there is no guarantee that your status will remain unchanged. It is necessary, therefore, from the outset of a white collar crime investigation, to base any strategy on a realistic assessment of your potential criminal exposure after consulting with an experienced federal crime defense lawyer.

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

---

Dear Roscoe.

Hmmm. I don't think you believe that. I don't.

Mueller's job is to take down Trump. He is not going to waste all those Clinton Hall of Fame attorneys chasing down parking tickets.

Unfortunately, Mr. Mueller may find himself a target in the Uranium One racketeering investigation, along with Rod R.

I bet the libs now wish they had not started the Trump Russia collusion lies. When Nolan Ryan was on the mound the other team was on their best behavior because payback was very painful.

Sincerely,

Coyote

coyote68 said:

---

RoscoePColtrane said:

---

---

Dear Roscoe.

Hmmm. I don't think you believe that. I don't.

Mueller's job is to take down Trump. He is not going to waste all those Clinton Hall of Fame attorneys chasing down parking tickets.

Unfortunately, Mr. Mueller may find himself a target in the Uranium One racketeering investigation, along with Rod R.

I bet the libs now wish they had not started the Trump Russia collusion lies. When Nolan Ryan was on the mound the other team was on their best behavior because payback was very painful.

Sincerely,

Coyote

---

They are mincing words

FriscoKid said:

---

ArcticPenguin said:

---

Not that big of a difference between a target and a subject in a DOJ investigation. Now if he gets downgraded to witness, that is news

---

This is the same kind of thinking that led millions of liberals to not believing that Hillary really lost the election.

---

sigh. I deal with DOJ investigations every single day. I know exactly what the different categories are and mean. But, believe what you want

Mueller's day is getting worse.

Quote:

---

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson questioned whether Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's order to appoint Mueller granted him more authority than DOJ regulations appear to permit, after Manafort's counsel pointed out how Rosenstein's order in May said the special counsel can look into anything of consequence that "arose or may arise" in his investigation.

"That's a fair point," Jackson reportedly replied.

---

Quote:

---

A top DOJ attorney working with Mueller's office, Michael Dreeben, argued in response that an investigation "naturally moves forward" and can morph as new information is uncovered.

Manafort's team, Dreeben noted, wants to restrict Mueller to such a degree that it would "intrude" on the special counsel's ability to carry out an independent investigation without constant DOJ oversight. He specifically argued that examining Manafort's ties to Ukrainian officials are relevant to the probe because it may be somehow connected with his ties alleged to Russia.

Dreeben went one step further and said that Manafort may have served as a back-channel to Russia.
Jackson, who said she will continue to consider Manafort's case, grilled both sides for more than two hours about Manafort's efforts to dismiss the superseding indictment against him as well as three other motions. The exchanges at times waded into nuanced analysis of legal text and past court precedents.

---

LINK

No it isn't. As I have said repeatedly. This is literally what I do for a living and have for over 15 years. But again, believe what you want

I am sure Google know better, lol

ArcticPenguin said:

---

No it isn't. As I have said repeatedly. This is literally what I do for a living and have for over 15 years. But again, believe what you want

I am sure Google know better, lol

---

You're calling the DoJ handbook a liar?

Pretty much, I don't care what that books says. I know what happens in actual practice. I can't be the only white collar crime lawyer on this site. I bet there is a DOJ prosecutor who would tell you the same thing.

numetalbizkitaggie said:

---

ArcticPenguin said:

---

No it isn't. As I have said repeatedly. This is literally what I do for a living and have for over 15 years. But again, believe what you want

I am sure Google know better, lol

---

You're calling the DoJ handbook a liar?

---

DoJ handbook likely addresses lying to a FISC Judge as well

The CRM does.

Quote:

---

The prohibition of 18 U.S.C. 1001 requires that the false statement, concealment or cover up be "knowingly and willfully" done, which means that "The statement must have been made with an intent to deceive, a design to induce belief in the falsity or to mislead, but 1001 does not require an intent to defraud -- that is, the intent to deprive someone of something by means of deceit." United States v. Lichenstein, 610 F.2d 1272, 1276-77 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 907 (1980). The government may prove that a false statement was made "knowingly and willfully" by offering evidence that defendants acted deliberately and with knowledge that the representation was false. See United States v. Hopkins, 916 F.2d 207, 214 (5th Cir. 1990). The jury may conclude from a plan of elaborate lies and half-truths that defendants deliberately conveyed information they knew to be false to the government. Id. at 214-15.

https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-910-knowingly-and-willfully

---

I think it's time for a little offense, guys

'I know what happens in actual practice,' and 'I bet there is a DOJ prosecutor who would tell you the same thing,' are contradictory statements.

I am so lost.

But I'll stand by all my earlier predictions, that nothing of real consequence happens to any of these inbred abusers of power.

Meet Trump's newest counsel, Ms. Ruby Giuliano.