Posted on 08/30/2019 6:04:43 PM PDT by bitt
Rep. Devin Nunes called the Justice Department inspector general's report on former FBI Director James Comey a "building block" for a criminal referral he delivered to the agency.
"For a long time I have been very hesitant to get too far out in front on the IG's capabilities. I believe what today is, is another example — it's a building block. It's important information," the California Republican said Thursday evening on Fox News.
Specifically, he said, Horowitz's findings contain "very important pieces of evidence that would build into the conspiracy complaint that we have sent to the Department of Justice."
Nunes, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, appeared on Sean Hannity's show, along with fellow Reps. Mark Meadows and John Ratcliffe, to react to Inspector General Michael Horowitz's 83-page scathing report on Comey released earlier in the day.
VIDEO
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
p
Why don’t we appoint a special prosecutor loaded with partisan republicans to investigate him. We can kick in the door at his lawyers office and confiscate everything they have to see if we can find a crime. If not we can lie and say he is guilty anyway like they have done for three years to PDJT
Conspiracy to commit sedition?
“You have to call me Dragon.”
Caught the replay of nunes.
Looks like he kinda let the cat outta the bag?
Building blocks for a bigger case of conspiracy
WTF ever....
Conspiracy to overthrow a Constitutional election.
https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3775521/posts?page=78#78
https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3775521/posts?page=82#82
Lol. A building block. In another 25 years perhaps another one will turn up. Nothing is going to happen to any FBI personnel. Nothing.
Building to what? Building for when?
Donald Trump’s potential two terms are about one-third over. Assuming he is re-elected, he will be a lame duck.
Does anyone really doubt that the RINOpublicans will then use that latest excuse to further block his agenda?
The pie-in-the-sky would-be eaters accuse people like me of impateince. That is sophistry. I am highly seasoned, and have been watching the Deep State deny justice for decades, especially since Ruby Ridge.
Speaking of which, no one will be more pleasantly surprised than I if Ruby Ridge Bill Barr does more than toss a fall guy or two at us rubes to placate our desire for some real justice.
That was my (hopeful) read on it...don’t prosecute for a handful of peanuts when you have a few bushels of other related data coming up...IOW, don’t just cite a drunk who ran a stoplight and killed someone for running the light....prosecute for the manslaughter charge and use the running the light as a bit of extra icing on the cake...
Signed,
Ever Hopeful...
The cover up continues and no one will get charged with squat.
ALL of D,C. is horse crap.
DOJ? get real
Exactly that. And that is not a crime. The legal process is being used to subvert the political process. Using law and bureaucratic process to deny the public political power is the fundamental issue.
People lose sight of this, maybe because they view "the law" as the cure for all ills. The law is weak, and as a tool it can be used for good or for bad.
The law is supposed to be hands off the political process. when it steps out of bounds, it is not going to fix itself.
I think the better outcome is to gin up public outrage by not prosecuting. The government will have brought whatever follows on itself.
I also think that "not prosecuting" is proper application of the law itself. The design of the system is such that dishonest operators get awy with it. It is very important to have honest operators. My guess is 80% of the federal government is dishonest.
On the "conspiracy" accusation, I think that is conspiracy to illegally snoop on Carter Page. That's it? Yep, that's it. The legal system is not set up to remedy a situation when the government rejects the will of the people.
I am not so sure of that. I am not a law type, but conspiracy seems to apply differently. For example, collusion is not a crime, but it seem to me that it was said that Mueller hoped to prove conspiracy to collude against Trump. That never really developed, so I really am not sure.
I have heard it said that conspiracy is difficult to prove, so if that is the crime that AG Barr has in mind it would make sense to get the perps to turn evidence against each other. In order to accomplish that, individual crimes must be used to threaten individual targets, so perhaps that is the ploy of 'decline to prosecute'... I am really not sure about that - once the govt 'declines to prosecute', does it still have leverage?
- - - - -
I think I am a bit too tired prepping this morning for this hurricane. I sure hope it does turn north tomorrow - maybe at least 100 miles off shore east.
Collusion and conspiracy are synonymous. One can collude to commit a crime, or conspire to commit a crime, same thing. Conspire to conspire is nonsense.
What Mueller was charged with finding was evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with or worked with Russians to break election law - could be as little as taking a $5 donation or coordinating a $10 ad on facebook.
DOJ declination to prosecute Comey for leaking his notes is the right decision. Most leaks of classified material are not crimes. Criminal leaking involves defense information, cryptography, or identity of covert spies in foreign countries. Not to defend leaking, just to emphasize that criminal leaking of classified information is a tiny subset of leaking classified information.
To answer your question about the ongoing effect of "decline to prosecute," it has no legal effect. A prosecutor has until the statute of limitations runs to change his mind. As a practical matter, decline to prosecute is (maybe one or two exceptions out of tens of thousands) always a final decision. Looked at it, made a decision, moved on to more important things.
Prayers that you and those around you make it through the hurricane with no significant harm. Somebody is going to get it for sure, this is a big storm.
If govt bureaucrats conspiring to overthrow a Constitutional presidential election and/or to unseat a duly elected president - a conspiracy to commit a coup d'etat - is not prosecutable... and the perps can only be embarrassed, then the Republic is already finished! Hillary probably should have won, because this will continue to happen until it succeeds.
Whether or not a crime is involved depends on the actions taken to affect or undo the election.
Say, for example, fake intelligence reports are put out, like "Iraq has WMD," only the fake report is that a candidate is a foreign agent. There is no law against the government promulgating a lie to the public. The remedy there is defamation to the candidate, and nothing else. It is LEGAL to lie to the public. It is up to the public to deal with it, not the courts.
If, however, the method used is ballot tampering, ballot tampering is a crime, so there will be prosecution for conspiracy to commit ballot tampering.
Here's another one. DACA, allowing illegals into the country, that is not a crime. Ignoring the border security as our government has done for 30 or so years is not a crime.
....Here’s another one. DACA, allowing illegals into the country, that is not a crime.....
I disagree
Encouraging/Inducing — Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) makes it an offense for any person who — encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law.
https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1907-title-8-usc-1324a-offenses
there are plenty of laws to cover bad conduct by conspirators in the coup attempt and in many cases conspiracy is easier to prove..I would not be surprised to see the charge of defrauding the government either
https://www.fletc.gov/audio/federal-conspiracy-law-mp3
.........................
The general conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371, creates an offense “[i]f two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose. (emphasis added). See Project, Tenth Annual Survey of White Collar Crime, 32 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 137, 379-406 (1995)(generally discussing § 371).
The operative language is the so-called “defraud clause,” that prohibits conspiracies to defraud the United States. This clause creates a separate offense from the “offense clause” in Section 371. Both offenses require the traditional elements of Section 371 conspiracy, including an illegal agreement, criminal intent, and proof of an overt act.
Although this language is very broad, cases rely heavily on the definition of “defraud” provided by the Supreme Court in two early cases, Hass v. Henkel, 216 U.S. 462 (1910), and Hammerschmidt v. United States, 265 U.S. 182 (1924). In Hass the Court stated:
The statute is broad enough in its terms to include any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of government . . . (A)ny conspiracy which is calculated to obstruct or impair its efficiency and destroy the value of its operation and reports as fair, impartial and reasonably accurate, would be to defraud the United States by depriving it of its lawful right and duty of promulgating or diffusing the information so officially acquired in the way and at the time required by law or departmental regulation.
Hass, 216 U.S. at 479-480. In Hammerschmidt, Chief Justice Taft, defined “defraud” as follows:
To conspire to defraud the United States means primarily to cheat the Government out of property or money, but it also means to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful governmental functions by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest. It is not necessary that the Government shall be subjected to property or pecuniary loss by the fraud, but only that its legitimate official action and purpose shall be defeated by misrepresentation, chicane or the overreaching of those charged with carrying out the governmental intention.
Hammerschmidt, 265 U.S. at 188.
https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-resource-manual-923-18-usc-371-conspiracy-defraud-us
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.