Roger Stone Indictment

[rainbow]

I have my doubts about the seriousness of the "witness tampering" crap, given the fact that it's hard to get to the "context" of the statements they cite -- but he may well get whacked on that. Who knows.

In most of the civilised world, it is considered 'defeating the ends of justice', or similar phrasing.

...so in the US, can you knowingly mislead investigators and it isn't a crime?

I didn't know that.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Maybe the Trump stooges 'I never said there was no collusion' Giuliani and 'lying to the FBI isn't a crime' Dershowitz have tried to claim that there's no underlying crime, or perhaps that comes from some other highly reliable source. The indictments of 25 (so far) Russians speak of conspiracy to defraud the US, and it's likely Mueller's team views that as an underlying crime.

[Animavore]

Some interesting changes. In the past, US conservatives would hold law enforcement as virtually sacred - the police and the FBI could do no wrong. Shoot a few long-haired demonstrators? Hell, they had it coming...

Now, it seems, law enforcement is the enemy. Perhaps it's because conservatives have edged so far into corruption that law enforcement is indeed their enemy...

Yeah, bollocks. See a black kid get killed because he was wielding a water pistol and watch them line up to take turns defending and making excuses for the cops and slander the victim.

It's selective.

[Forty Two]

I have my doubts about the seriousness of the "witness tampering" crap, given the fact that it's hard to get to the "context" of the statements they cite -- but he may well get whacked on that. Who knows.

In most of the civilised world, it is considered 'defeating the ends of justice', or similar phrasing.

...so in the US, can you knowingly mislead investigators and it isn't a crime?

I didn't know that.

Sure, it is a crime to knowingly mislead investigators. But, not every misstatement or error is that. Also, there is a difference when there is not "there" there. I.e., if you're looking for buried treasure, and I say, "go look under the porch" and you look under the porch and there isn't any buried treasure there, because there isn't any buried treasure anywhere, have I "misled" you?

And, there is a fine line of nuance in the US. People generally have no obligation to help or even talk to investigators. And, Hillary Clinton is an example of lying to the FBI during an investigation and not getting prosecuted for it, so all lies are not treated the same, obviously.

[Forty Two]

I always recommend never talking to the police.

Personally, I recommend being extremely polite to our wonderful boys and girls in blue...

Both things.

[Forty Two]

well, talking to people is legal, it's up to Mueller to establish that the talks were actually a conspiration to meddle (successfully as it appears) with the electoral process.

...and to prove that the conspiracy to meddle was a violation of the law.

It's hard to imagine how one person talking to another in order to try to get "dirt" on political opponents is criminal meddling.

[rainbow]

And, Hillary Clinton is an example of lying to the FBI during an investigation and not getting prosecuted for it, so all lies are not treated the same, obviously.

"...yes, but Hillary"argument is rather pathetic.

Obviously.

[rainbow]

Sure, it is a crime to knowingly mislead investigators. But, not every misstatement or error is that. Also, there is a difference when there is not "there" there. I.e., if you're looking for buried treasure, and I say, "go look under the porch" and you look under the porch and there isn't any buried treasure there, because there isn't any buried treasure anywhere, have I "misled" you?

Drivel. We are talking about misleading an investigation, nothing else. buried treasure, my arse

...so you're admitting that it is in fact a crime in the US?

[Joe]

I have my doubts about the seriousness of the "witness tampering" crap, given the fact that it's hard to get to the "context" of the statements they cite -- but he may well get whacked on that. Who knows.

In most of the civilised world, it is considered 'defeating the ends of justice', or similar phrasing.

...so in the US, can you knowingly mislead investigators and it isn't a crime?

I didn't know that.

Sure, it is a crime to knowingly mislead investigators. But, not every misstatement or error is that. Also, there is a difference when there is not "there" there. I.e., if you're looking for buried treasure, and I say, "go look under the porch" and you look under the porch and there isn't any buried treasure there, because there isn't any buried treasure anywhere, have I "misled" you?

And, there is a fine line of nuance in the US. People generally have no obligation to help or even talk to investigators. And, Hillary Clinton is an example of lying to the FBI during an investigation and not getting prosecuted for it, so all lies are not treated the same, obviously.

Hillary Clinton lied to the FBI? Do you have any evidence of this?

[Forty Two]

James Comey's sworn testimony to Congress saying specifying several false statements Hillary Clinton made.

[Forty Two]

Destruction of devices with hammers: https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing ... hones-with

[Sean Hayden]

Jesus

[Sean Hayden]

He must get paid to say Clinton, right?

[Forty Two]

Sure, it is a crime to knowingly mislead investigators. But, not every misstatement or error is that. Also, there is a difference when there is not "there" there. I.e., if you're looking for buried treasure, and I say, "go look under the porch" and you look under the porch and there isn't any buried treasure there, because there isn't any buried treasure anywhere, have I "misled" you?

Drivel. We are talking about misleading an investigation, nothing else. buried treasure, my arse

...so you're admitting that it is in fact a crime in the US?

If it's within the purview of 18 USC Section 1001, yes. In any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States - a knowingly and willfully false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations, could be a crime. It doesn't apply to "volunteered" information (provided not in response to an inquiry), and doesn't apply to denials of guilt. The knowing and willful falsity requirement involves intent - so, not all false statements are "lies" and violations of the law. If you believe you are telling the truth, but you're mistaken, then it's not a "lie," but as we can see over years of cases, the FBI likes to characterize untruths as wilfully made. That's a real issue with talking to the police or the FBI -- as we all know - witness testimony is notoriously unreliable - one person may think red is green and the other green is red and both believe their stories. Which is "lying?" The FBI could charge whoever is wrong with misleading them. If there wasn't an underlying crime, and someone mad e a false statement about when or where or with whom some conversations 2 years ago occurred, is that really something that should itself be prosecuted as a crime?

[Joe]

James Comey's sworn testimony to Congress saying specifying several false statements Hillary Clinton made.

This does not specify that Clinton lied to the FBI. In the same hearing the question was specifically asked, and Comey said she did not lie to the FBI.

https://www.cbsnews.com/video/rep-jason ... inton-lie/

Now did she lie to the public? Comey's answer is priceless.