More Comey: It’s “totally normal” to use undercover agents on presidential campaigns

[Fishking]

Trumpists are going to join me in campaigning to end the use of undercover police operations and informants, right? Right? I mean, think about all those drug dealers who were illegally spied on! All the child trafficking organizations taken down. Horrible, horrible.

Ah...don't think you can sneak that word in there without it getting noticed.

 

[lwf]

That isn't what happened.

No, but it was Trump's intention. That's all that's required for an obstruction of justice charge. If a police commissioner fires an internal affairs investigator in order to protect himself from corruption charges, the commissioner at that moment is still guilty of obstruction of justice, even if another investigator continues the investigation and even if that investigator clears him of all corruption charges. That's how obstruction works. Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice by any rational understanding of the charge. His position as president of the United States is the sole reason the DOJ is declining to charge him.

 

[Fishking]

Yes, that part certainly is normal. But that is not what your thread title says.

That's exactly what the title says. You're just playing a failed and debunked game of semantics. Spying...covert surveillance….totally hugely different things right? :roll:

 

[lwf]

Right! So firing him did nothing to hinder the investigation.

Irrelevant. "Obstruction of Justice" requires only corrupt motive and attempt. It doesn't have to have been successful.

 

[Airyaman]

That's exactly what the title says. You're just playing a failed and debunked game of semantics. Spying...covert surveillance….totally hugely different things right? :roll:

No, Comey did not say what the thread title says.

 

[Trump]

Irrelevant. "Obstruction of Justice" requires only corrupt motive and attempt. It doesn't have to have been successful.

How could it be "corrupt motive" when it's allowed by law and no crime was ever committed?

 

[lwf]

How could it be "corrupt motive" when it's allowed by law and no crime was ever committed?

Lying to the police when you're not under arrest or being investigated is covered under freedom of speech and not illegal. Lying to hamper another investigation is obstruction of justice, even if the police don't believe you, and even if the other investigation you were trying to undermine determines that no crime was committed. By attempting and failing to obstruct a lawful investigation into something that turned out to not be a crime, you committed a crime.

 

[GDViking]

How many undercovers were used to infiltrate the Clinton Campaign?

Well since nothing was found to justify more investigation ( unlike the trump campaign) we may never know...

 

[apdst]

Well since nothing was found to justify more investigation ( unlike the trump campaign) we may never know...

There was nothing found that justified investigatinh the Trump Campaign.

But wait, since it was a counter-intelligence operation (so y'all say) wouldn't it make sense to see if there was any infiltration of the Clinton Campaign?

 

[Fishking]

No, Comey did not say what the thread title says.

Lol...worst attempt at semantics ever.

 

[Trump]

Lying to the police when you're not under arrest or being investigated is covered under freedom of speech and not illegal. Lying to hamper another investigation is obstruction of justice, even if the police don't believe you.

sorry thought we were talking about the firing of Comey.

What lie are you referencing?

 

[apdst]

Irrelevant. "Obstruction of Justice" requires only corrupt motive and attempt. It doesn't have to have been successful.

No intent was proven.

 

[Airyaman]

Lol...worst attempt at semantics ever.

No semantics at all. He did not say what the thread or article title says. At all. So "semantics" is not even applicable.

 

[lwf]

No intent was proven.

It is public record. Trump admitted to it. And McGahn admitted to a second attempt by Trump.

 

[apdst]

It is public record. Trump admitted to it.

Nope.

 

[lwf]

sorry thought we were talking about the firing of Comey.

What lie are you referencing?

It is a hypothetical to show that no crime is necessary to obstruct justice. All that is required is a lawful investigation, corrupt intent to obstruct said investigation, and taking an action to further this intent.

 

[lwf]

Nope.

 

[apdst]

Nothing there that's evidences intent.

 

[Trump]

It is a hypothetical to show that no crime is necessary to obstruct justice. All that is required is a lawful investigation, corrupt intent to obstruct said investigation, and taking an action to further this intent.

First off how can we be sure this was "lawful investigation"?

OK but what was the "corrupt intent" of which you allude?

 

[lwf]

First off how can we be sure this was "lawful investigation"?

Doesn't matter. The obstructor does not get to decide whether or not it was a lawful investigation. By attempting to obstruct it, he is automatically guilty regardless of the outcome of the investigation. And investigations by appropriate authorities are lawful until proven otherwise.

OK but what was the "corrupt intent" of which you allude?

Trump fired James Comey because he wanted an FBI Director what was more favorable to him and who would shut a lawful investigation down. He ordered McGahn to fire Robert Mueller in order to put an end to a lawful investigation, and then tried to cover this fact up.

 

[Fishking]

No semantics at all. He did not say what the thread or article title says. At all. So "semantics" is not even applicable.

He did...you're failing here.

 

[GDViking]

There was nothing found that justified investigatinh the Trump Campaign.

But wait, since it was a counter-intelligence operation (so y'all say) wouldn't it make sense to see if there was any infiltration of the Clinton Campaign?

There were all kinds of collusion discovered that very well showed that conspiracy and coordination most likely occurred.

There was more than enough to continue the investigation.

 

[apdst]

There were all kinds of collusion discovered that very well showed that conspiracy and coordination most likely occurred.

There was more than enough to continue the investigation.

Except there was nothing illegal taking place. The FBI can't legally investigate someone for not breaking the law.

 

[GDViking]

That isn't what happened.

That's exactly what happened...

 

[Airyaman]

He did...you're failing here.

Nope. Not even close. What he said is that following up with an investigator when someone says they have information from foreign adversaries is normal. Has nothing to do with political campaigns, and everything to do with someone saying he had information from Russians.