Quote (Santara @ Mar 7 2019 03:22am)

Quote (InsaneBobb @ Mar 7 2019 06:13am)

So you're defending the investigation by pointing out that it had the right to pursue process crimes, such as perjury?

You do realize that the reason for calling the Russia Investigation a "witchhunt" is that any investigation that doesn't start with a crime, and seeks to create them via process crimes is, literally, called a witchhunt, right?

"Prior to this investigation, person X had committed no crimes. They are now guilty of perjury, for falsely testifying something, with or without intent. Therefore, this investigation has been successful because it has indicted somebody for a crime."

Seriously mate, try harder.

Quote (Handcuffs @ Mar 7 2019 12:08pm)

All I'm saying that is I don't think Mueller went after process crimes as a result of not finding anything related to Russia and feeling subsequently empty-handed. He's merely following instructions and operating within the guidance he was provided.

Code

Quote (InsaneBobb @ Mar 7 2019 11:16am)

He had the option, under that guidance, to not indict over process crimes though.



"Necessary and appropriate". Tell me how many of those process crimes were "necessary and appropriate" please. Justify them. Once again, "You committed no actual crimes outside of false testimony, and your false testimony was not given with the intent to hamper the investigation" seems like a great reason NOT to indict, if you ask me.

Quote (Handcuffs @ Mar 7 2019 12:23pm)

I'm confused about how lying to the FBI about ones contact with Russian foreign nationals, in an investigation about Russian influence in the 2016 election, wouldn't "hamper the investigation"?

Quote (InsaneBobb @ Mar 7 2019 12:25pm)

Quite simply because the information brought to light regarding that contact did nothing to prove any collusion. AKA it was not relevant to the investigation.

Further, you should probably go through the list of names for the indictments, find those who gave false testimony, and discover whether they actually lied prior to making that accusation.

Point blank, if you remember every single person you've ever had a discussion with about anything then you're quite unique.

Quote (Handcuffs @ Mar 7 2019 02:34pm)

I disagree. I think the instances of lying in regards to meeting with Russian foreign nationals for "dirt" on Hillary Clinton is potentially a violation of campaign laws under the prohibition from accepting a "thing of value" from a foreign national that has intent to influence an election. To my knowledge, it exists in legal limbo in so far as precedent is concerned, as a ruling regarding the meaning and scope of "thing of value" has not been established.

Quote (InsaneBobb @ Mar 7 2019 07:57pm)

There was no lie, and no indictment over that. It was an omission, not false testimony. There was no dirt, and the meeting was about the potential for working together to enable Americans to be able to adopt Russian Orphans again, which was banned by Russia because they claimed Americans abused those children.

And there is no crime against speaking to foreign nationals in an attempt to get dirt on a political adversary. Not a single statute against it. Indeed, if there were a law against it, then the Clinton campaign is guilty of criminal action in regards to the dossier.