- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
New interview: barr goes after the wet rags “mouthing off about why nothing is happening”
Posted on 9/14/20 at 2:40 pm
Posted on 9/14/20 at 2:40 pm
quote:
"You need strong evidence of intent, it seems to me, before you can charge that kind of crime so developing that evidence is a time consuming process. Most of the people who are mouthing off about 'well why aren't these people already indicted,' they don't understand the criminal justice process. People get lawyers, sometimes they won't talk to you. Even if they talk to you they'll say they'll take the fifth and you have to get documents and frequently fight over documents and fight over things in court so the investigation is a cumbersome process. It's not something that can be done quickly," he continued.
LINK
This post was edited on 9/14/20 at 2:46 pm
32
Posted on 9/14/20 at 2:41 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
"You need strong evidence of intent,
There's that word again
Posted on 9/14/20 at 2:44 pm to CoachChappy
Intent my arse.
Posted on 9/14/20 at 2:44 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Intent. There's that word again.
The intent defense only works for one side in the Just-US system.
I bet this guy would've liked Barr (or Comey) as his prosecutor:
The intent defense only works for one side in the Just-US system.
I bet this guy would've liked Barr (or Comey) as his prosecutor:
Posted on 9/14/20 at 2:45 pm to CoachChappy
Great minds. ;)
Posted on 9/14/20 at 2:47 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Well we didn't really all get together and say "Let's have a coup", we were just sort of doing our thing and it almost happened.
I would think given the history of Weissmann you could have a default of "he intended to" and try to find instances where he didn't.
I would think given the history of Weissmann you could have a default of "he intended to" and try to find instances where he didn't.
Posted on 9/14/20 at 2:48 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
"You need strong evidence of intent, it seems to me, before you can charge that kind of crime so developing that evidence is a time consuming process. Most of the people who are mouthing off about 'well why aren't these people already indicted,' they don't understand the criminal justice process. People get lawyers, sometimes they won't talk to you. Even if they talk to you they'll say they'll take the fifth and you have to get documents and frequently fight over documents and fight over things in court so the investigation is a cumbersome process. It's not something that can be done quickly," he continued
cough bullshite cough
Didn't see any of this bullshite applying to Manafort or Stone or, especially, Mike Flynn.
They indicted, then bankrupted them in defense, and have fought to punish then after sentencing.
The DOJ making Jim Comey's life hell or bankrupting John Brennan is, frankly, more important than an airtight case on some bs process charge that may not result in a conviction in the DC jury pool regardless of proof.
Because the illusion of the "scandal free" Obama admin still carries water among many voters. Perp walk half his DOJ and IC, and no one will remember that all the cases were dropped 2 years later. Make FBI agents think twice before falsifying evidence if theyre gonna lose their house and livelihood for 3 years and carry the stink of indictment for their whole life.
Posted on 9/14/20 at 2:49 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Nobody big is going down that much is clear. I hope Barr and Durham delay that result until after the election to not deflate trump and his base.
Posted on 9/14/20 at 2:49 pm to AuburnTigers
I think wiping phones clean, which contain needed evidence in an investigation, doesn't require intent. If intent is allowed as a valid excuse for one's behavior, no one will ever be convicted of anything. Seems to me there is plenty to charge these traitors with today, while evidence for more serious crimes can continue to be collected.
Posted on 9/14/20 at 2:51 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Developing evidence takes 4+ years on anyone who tries to overthrow a president but far less time for anyone who supports him.
Posted on 9/14/20 at 2:51 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Like many of us have been saying....NOTHING WILL BE DONE...EVER!
Posted on 9/14/20 at 2:52 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Barr is playing y’all like a fiddle
Posted on 9/14/20 at 2:52 pm to CoachChappy
quote:
quote:
"You need strong evidence of intent,
There's that word again
Intent can be inferred by conduct. Intent can also be established by demonstrating that the actions/outcome could NOT have been accidental or error.
Posted on 9/14/20 at 2:53 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Barr is completely full of bullshite - ALL TALK and NO ACTION
Posted on 9/14/20 at 2:56 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
well, when I got drunk and plowed into a vehicle killing 4 people, that wasn't my intent.
I didn't intend on killing this family while they were sleeping in their beds. I thought no one was home when I broke into the house.
See how this works?
I didn't intend on killing this family while they were sleeping in their beds. I thought no one was home when I broke into the house.
See how this works?
Posted on 9/14/20 at 2:58 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Then why is it only republicans getting indicted?
Posted on 9/14/20 at 2:58 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
But Q promised...
Posted on 9/14/20 at 3:01 pm to udtiger
Intent can also be evidenced by AOL chat logs laying out the conspiracy amongst the conspirators.
Posted on 9/14/20 at 3:09 pm to boosiebadazz
"Intent" to break the law is not the same as "intent" to commit the act that is illegal.
No one can honestly assert that Hillary did not intend to set up that private server or that she did not use it to conduct her business as SecState. These acts were illegal (i.e., a violation of federal law). Whether she "intended" to violate a specific section of the US Code is irrelevant. However, this is how it was applied.
"Ignorance of the law is no defense (unless you are a Democrat)"
No one can honestly assert that Hillary did not intend to set up that private server or that she did not use it to conduct her business as SecState. These acts were illegal (i.e., a violation of federal law). Whether she "intended" to violate a specific section of the US Code is irrelevant. However, this is how it was applied.
"Ignorance of the law is no defense (unless you are a Democrat)"
Posted on 9/14/20 at 3:09 pm to Muthsera
Total bullshite. Did Hillary do anything that showed she was upfront about the use of her private server to prove it was an honest mistake?
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News