re: Newly Released Peter Strzok Doc

On that I agree. No one will get Obama, but Strozk, Clapper, Brennan etc al seem possible.

quote:

---

But not for Trump

---

I don't think he'll be successfully prosecuted for this "witch hunt" (however the DEMs phrase it once they regain power), either. Or pardoning the J6ers, or pushing illegal EOs, etc.

The only specific thing he was prosecuted for that was in any way tangentially related to his role as President was the DC federal case, which died due to the immunity ruling. That's what started the "recent rulings from last year" timeline.

The NY stuff, GA stuff, Florida stuff, and AZ stuff weren't related to his role as President, so they don't really fit as comparisons.

If I file a false police report, I committed a crime. It is called obstruction of justice.

Obama basically accepted a knowingly false police report from Hillary, instructed people in the government to “investigate” this fake crime, and did so, with malice and wrongful intent.

I think calling it seditious conspiracy is a step too far, not bc I don’t believe these assholes are seditious traitors, but instead bc I don’t want to see any of these assholes prosecuted on novel legal theories. While Obama’s intent may have been to control the White House beyond the presidential grave - if Obama gets charged, I want him charged with a crime that other ppl have been charged and convicted of committing.

Once he submitted and pushed a fake allegations, his underlings took steps to conceal the wrongful conduct, up to and including the Mar-a-Lago raid.

I think someone from the FBI flipped on that raid, and that’s why (hopefully) Law Barbie has initiated a grand jury in Florida as a result of that act in furtherance of the conspiracy formed on December 9, 2016 provides jurisdiction and venue outside of DC.

quote:

---

If I file a false police report, I committed a crime. It is called obstruction of justice.

---

You're not the President

quote:

---

Obama basically accepted a knowingly false police report from Hillary,

---

This is where the mind reader/smoking gun comes into play.

quote:

---

and did so, with malice and wrongful intent.

---

This as well.

quote:

---

his underlings took steps to conceal the wrongful conduct, up to and including the Mar-a-Lago raid.

---

Which, specifically? The MAL raid involved a completely different group of people years later.

It's going to be very difficult, if not impossible, to show a continuous conspiracy remained from July 2016 to August 2022, especially with the change in personnel involved and with so many being removed from government roles inbetween.

Could be "run it to ground" means along the lines of run it out.....just like abstractors do in a court house.

We talked about the absurd potentialities of this when the immunity ruling was being argued.

Navy Seals, assassinations, etc.

Same sort of arguments with the more recent AEA cases, too, though. These rulings post-Jan 2025 are likely going to be more weighty in the discussion than immunity.

Remember not that long ago we had people arguing in the AEA cases that the President could legally detain/deport anyone, including citizens, and that decision wasn't even reviewable by a court and the only remedy was impeachment. And that was just pure Separation of Powers stuff, not specifically immunity.

Could be "run it to ground" means along the lines of run it out.....just like abstractors do in a court house.

quote:

---

And when his subjective, opinion-based analysis differs and he orders them to craft that analysis, as head of the agency, it's their job to do this, correct?

---

Not if it violates law. 18 U.S. Code § 371 states:

quote:

---

If 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, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.

---

In this scenario we have to ask what it legally means to "defraud the United States". Fortunately, Hammerschmidt v. United States tells us that defrauding the United States under § 371 is defined as "any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing, or defeating the lawful function of any department of government" through fraudulent means.

Is the President covered under immunity for something like this? I don't know.

Would subordinates be covered if it can be reasonably shown that they knew the information was being purposefully manipulated and presented so as to harm the incoming administration (especially with a nod to the attempt to bury contradicting/exonerating information)? I hope not as it would represent a dangerously large expansion of Presidential Immunity.

quote:

---

Effectively. If it's not a crime for the President to do this

---

It is a crime - but the president has immunity.