It wasn’t a complaint, it was an affidavit. In the FBIs affidavit it quotes specific criminal violations that were allegedly committed. And it won’t be the US Atty of NO or that district who will dismiss the case because one of the suspects was his son.
A rose by any name is still a rose...
A CRITIC OF THE FBI AFFIDAVIT RELATES:
1. The ‘physically and verbally represented’ themselves part is the conclusion of the agent and basis for arrest- not what necessarily occurred nor necessarily a crime.
2. Item 5 indicates they ‘represented’ themselves to the employee as phone repairers. Nothing defines ‘representation’ other than their wardrobe. Is dressing like a Village Person a crime?
3. Item six states they requested access to a phone and manipulated it. Well, if they touched it, they manipulated it. I’ve asked for use of a phone in various places. Is that illegal? It continues to go on that he tried to call the number with his cell. So?
4. Item seven states they indicated they needed to do repair work. What exactly did they say? Was it a ‘must access’ or ‘could we access’ or merely ‘there is repair work to be done’ [he might need to repair his truck] followed by a query to the phone room location. Asking where a room is isn’t illegal.
5. The conclusion states that they admitted to entering a Fed property under false pretenses. Goodness. Many folks sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution and do just the opposite have misrepresented themselves...and they swore something. Where are their arrest warrants?
6. Reading the final summary, it appears that entering under false pretenses isn’t the crime; it is the horrid offense of ‘attempting to manipulate’ a phone. When is it against the law to touch a phone?
While I may sound like an ACLU partisan, it seems to me that this case is not well fleshed out and they were held on the most tenuous claims.
In fact, if they were found guilty, would it be illegal to enter a Federal building if you disagreed with a policy, but lied in fact or by omission so you could get in to speak to a Senator? ‘I wanted to thank Sen. Reed for all of his great work...’ then ‘Sen. Reid, you sir, are a despicable louse and unworthy of your Senatorial seat!’ That certainly would be a false pretense.
If you manipulated or touched a piece of office equipment or fixtures in a Federal office, should you be arrested? So much for using the toilet!
There was NO information that ANYTHING was destroyed, maliciously tampered with, made inoperable or operable in a manner different from it’s prior function. So what is the crime of ‘manipulation’?
If someone goes into a Federal office for benefits and leads someone to think they are ‘qualified’ but don’t actually lie nor sign a form swearing they are representing the truth, should they be carted off to jail? To me the person doing the screening would be the guilty party as they would or should have some sort of fiduciary accountability as part of their job description if they can determine benefits eligibility or lead others to do so. If not, the agency or NGO which receives tax-payer funds and hands them out willie-nillie is likely operating outside of their charter or their charter needs a revision pronto-quick.
I realize this may seem way off base from the original complaint, but I find it a perfect nexus from a legal standpoint.
—FreeStateYank at Free Republic
Affidavit!!! EVERY time I hear the word “Affidavit”, I think LIE, since this was the Clinton’s MO...to get people to give false affidavits!!