- 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
re: Question for the Lawyers
Posted on 4/9/18 at 8:36 pm to IrishTiger89
Posted on 4/9/18 at 8:36 pm to IrishTiger89
Fbi and Mueller's team leak like a boat with a 20ft hole in the hull.
Cnn, wapo, nyt, msnbc.. will be talking about what was in the files related to trump.
Cnn, wapo, nyt, msnbc.. will be talking about what was in the files related to trump.
Posted on 4/9/18 at 8:38 pm to McChowder
quote:
That doesn't meet the standard of probable cause. Imagine if PC consisted of "could". That would be a very scary world to live in.
I'm using could in the vernacular sense here, not trying to convey any particular level of certainty of a violation or lack of a violation.
In any event, probably cause is not a particularly high standard. To quote the Supreme Court, probable cause exists "where the facts and circumstances within the officers' knowledge, and of which they have reasonably trustworthy information, are sufficient in themselves to warrant a belief by a man of reasonable caution that a crime is being committed."
It doesn't mean that there needs to be a 50% chance or greater that there is a crime being committed.
Posted on 4/9/18 at 8:39 pm to Chili
quote:
FEC violations? There have been very few criminal prosecutions historically for violations of FECA and BCRA. To think, some clients with FEC reports due this week are concerned about reporting credit card processing fees as administrative or fundraising expenses! This would take violations of FECA and the regs to a whole new level. Seems like a stretch to me.
Yes, this may not actually turn into a prosecution for those reasons. Doesn't invalidate the warrant though.
Posted on 4/9/18 at 8:44 pm to CorporateTiger
quote:
I'm using could in the vernacular sense here, not trying to convey any particular level of certainty of a violation or lack of a violation.
In any event, probably cause is not a particularly high standard. To quote the Supreme Court, probable cause exists "where the facts and circumstances within the officers' knowledge, and of which they have reasonably trustworthy information, are sufficient in themselves to warrant a belief by a man of reasonable caution that a crime is being committed."
It doesn't mean that there needs to be a 50% chance or greater that there is a crime being committed.
Correct, the judge doesn't have to be convinced that anyone violated the law, or in the case of a search warrant, they don't have to be convinced that evidence will definitely be found. They only have to be convinced that a reasonable LEO would believe the warrant would result in evidence.
Posted on 4/9/18 at 8:45 pm to CorporateTiger
quote:
Yes, this may not actually turn into a prosecution for those reasons. Doesn't invalidate the warrant though.
Mueller has lost sight here, he's no longer looking for justice. He merely wants Trump implicated in SOMETHING regardless of whether it results in a criminal charge or not.
I'm as pro law enforcement as a person can get, I would arrest my own mom if she committed a crime, but this investigation needs to be shut down.
Posted on 4/9/18 at 8:59 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
Perhaps the Republicans running the raid wanted to make certain Trumps team wasn’t accused of wrongdoing like Clintons team was when her attorneys were allowed to determine what was privileged. After all Trumps teams chanted “lock her up” in part because of the special treatment she received......they are protecting Trumps credibility here.....so he isn’t compared to Clinton and special treatment.....he should feel honored to be subjected to real legal treatment and not the king Clinton recieved
Posted on 4/9/18 at 9:37 pm to CapperVin
quote:
extremely rare. What this tells you is that they have fool proof evidence of crimes being committed and everyone should be extremely scared
This is the naiveté and ignorance that they count on from the American public.
Posted on 4/10/18 at 1:45 am to Terry the Tiger
I'm confused by this thread.
Is the legal standand under the 4/A "Probable Cause"
Or not?
Is the legal standand under the 4/A "Probable Cause"
Or not?
Popular
Back to top


0




