LogFAQs > #907314458

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, Database 4 ( 07.23.2018-12.31.2018 ), DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Fed. jury finds Paul Manafort guilty on 8/18 charges. Michael Cohen pled guilty.
Zeus 08/21/18 9:12:34 PM #47:	Andromicus posted... Zeus posted... Scrutinizing individuals up and down just to see if they committed any crimes is wrong on so many levels it's not even funny. If either one of you was being investigated for robbery and, when the cops can't find anything, they decide to turn around to investigate whether you've been selling drugs, paying your taxes, looking into what your friends are doing, search your computers just in case you have child porn, etc, you might understandably cry foul. And that's the fundamental issue with fishing expeditions, you keep digging until you something -- anything -- and sooner or later you're going to find that somebody has broken a law of some kind. This investigation has increasingly become clear that it's just to find anything rather than things pertaining to allegations of Russian interference, especially given that the biggest claims of Russian interference -- including rigging polls -- have been debunked, which is why the goalposts have been moved to things like ad buys. So are you saying they shouldn't be prosecuted for crimes they committed just because they weren't apparent from the outset? No, I'm saying that justice departments investigations aren't there simply to see what shakes loose, which is increasingly the form that this investigation is taking. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fishing_expedition Fishing Expedition Definition from Nolos Plain-English Law Dictionary Legal grasping at straws; the use of pretrial investigation discovery or witness questioning in an unfocused attempt to uncover damaging evidence to be used against an adversary. The problem isn't whether or not something happened, but the broad scope in hopes of just find anything they can use. Which again comes back to my previous remarks because it's an unethical method of discovery. And, if you're arguing, "Who cares? Guilt is guilt," you might as well toss out Fruit of the Poisonous Tree arguments because if you have a detective decide to break into somebody's home and he discovers a body, your argument would justify the break-in because he later found something. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist. <cite>Zeus posted [p:907314458] in Fed. jury ... [t:76924618]...</cite> <quote><cite>Andromicus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Zeus posted...</cite> <quote>Scrutinizing individuals up and down just to see if they committed any crimes is wrong on so many levels it's not even funny. If either one of you was being investigated for robbery and, when the cops can't find anything, they decide to turn around to investigate whether you've been selling drugs, paying your taxes, looking into what your friends are doing, search your computers just in case you have child porn, etc, you might understandably cry foul. And that's the fundamental issue with fishing expeditions, you keep digging until you something -- anything -- and sooner or later you're going to find that somebody has broken a law of some kind. This investigation has increasingly become clear that it's just to find anything rather than things pertaining to allegations of Russian interference, especially given that the biggest claims of Russian interference -- including rigging polls -- have been debunked, which is why the goalposts have been moved to things like ad buys.</quote> So are you saying they shouldn't be prosecuted for crimes they committed just because they weren't apparent from the outset?</quote> No, I'm saying that justice departments investigations aren't there simply to see what shakes loose, which is increasingly the form that this investigation is taking. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fishing_expedition <quote>Fishing Expedition Definition from Nolos Plain-English Law Dictionary Legal grasping at straws; the use of pretrial investigation discovery or witness questioning in an unfocused attempt to uncover damaging evidence to be used against an adversary.</quote> The problem isn't whether or not something happened, but the broad scope in hopes of just find anything they can use. Which again comes back to my previous remarks because it's an unethical method of discovery. And, if you're arguing, "Who cares? Guilt is guilt," you might as well toss out Fruit of the Poisonous Tree arguments because if you have a detective decide to break into somebody's home and he discovers a body, your argument would justify the break-in because he later found something. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1