Many thanks. I see he was convicted of terrorism related charges (arising out of 2012 Benghazi consulate attack) in U.S. fed ct. in 2017. So that is, indeed, a precedent (and, as you say, there are others).+
-
-
Replying to @RickPetree @robertcaruso and
I think the larger issue here is it's an indictment designed not to be prosecuted. While the info comes from a range of sources (people are vastly underestimating how much comes from partners) to prosecute it would put intel at risk.
3 replies 5 retweets 18 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel @RickPetree and
I blv the reason why prosecutors name as defendants foreign conspirators whom they have no hope of prosecuting in court is that w/a prima facie showing of conspiracy, their out-of-court statements can be used against those defendants in court, as an exception to the hearsay rule.
2 replies 3 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @kevin_snapp @emptywheel and
Sounds right to me. Also easier to get an obstruction of justice conviction when there is an actual crime, no?
3 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @SpyTalker @kevin_snapp and
People really really really need to drop the obsession with obstruction.
2 replies 2 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel @kevin_snapp and
Personal note: I’m not obsessed with obstruction. ;-)
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @SpyTalker @kevin_snapp and
Sure. But why raise it here? It's actually not relevant to what is probably going on.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel @kevin_snapp and
Sigh. It’s ‘relevant’ because Mueller has filed such add-on charges. Otherwise, I agree, not very noteworthy. And with that, I am returning to my regularly scheduled programming — a baseball game
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @SpyTalker @kevin_snapp and
No. He has not filed "add-on charges." He has used such charges to get people to flip to get to the "collusion."
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel @kevin_snapp and
I thought you said they were irrelevant. Anyway, what I meant was you said more precisely.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Fair. I just think given that we've got clear evidence Mueller is aggressively investigating Trump FOR collusion, the focus on obstruction is odd. There's no one Trump could flip on.
-
-
Replying to @emptywheel @kevin_snapp and
I’m back. (
#Nationals imploded again, this time v. lowly#Mets .) Fyi, 1st article of impeachment voted against Nixon by House Judiciary was obstruction of justice. Just saying. Maybe Mueller has that in his longview calculus? http://watergate.info/impeachment/articles-of-impeachment …1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes - 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.