Author Topic: One shot at the queen  (Read 2512 times)

Fly320s

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,415
  • Formerly, Arthur, King of the Britons
One shot at the queen
« on: March 31, 2016, 03:31:26 PM »
Sounds like the FBI and US Attorney General are going to press charges on Hillary.

That makes me very happy.   =D

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/31/one-shot-at-queen-fbi-ag-intensify-focus-on-clinton-email-probe.html?intcmp=hpbt1
Islamic sex dolls.  Do they blow themselves up?

AJ Dual

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 16,162
  • Shoe Ballistics Inc.
Re: One shot at the queen
« Reply #1 on: March 31, 2016, 03:53:26 PM »
Sounds like the FBI and US Attorney General are going to press charges on Hillary.

That makes me very happy.   =D

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/31/one-shot-at-queen-fbi-ag-intensify-focus-on-clinton-email-probe.html?intcmp=hpbt1

Nobody would be happier than I if an indictment came down, but nothing is going to happen to Hillary, unless we get lucky on the slim chance that the political calculus determines that Comey or the FBI would raise such a stink, that it would be worse than whatever dirty laundry is in the Clinton burner/mutually-assured-destruction-file coming out.

And perhaps included in that calculus would be the non-Clinton wing of the DNC, plus Clinton defectors jumping-ship, collectively decides that having her win the Presidency, then immediately going down Nixon/Watergate style in her first term over this would do more long-term damage to the DNC than losing the election to Trump/Cruz would.

I'm not going to hold my breath.

I want so badly to be wrong.  =(
I promise not to duck.

brimic

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,270
Re: One shot at the queen
« Reply #2 on: March 31, 2016, 06:47:04 PM »
They had better hold some serious crimes in reserve in case she gets pardoned by obama.
"now you see that evil will always triumph, because good is dumb" -Dark Helmet

"AK47's belong in the hands of soldiers mexican drug cartels"-
Barack Obama

charby

  • Necromancer
  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 29,295
  • APS's Resident Sikh/Muslim
Re: One shot at the queen
« Reply #3 on: March 31, 2016, 07:35:40 PM »
How I read the article is that they are going to interview people and the interviewee are not to be sworn under oath and can refuse.

So don't order the pig for the hog roast yet.
Iowa- 88% more livable that the rest of the US

Uranus is a gas giant.

Team 444: Member# 536

HeroHog

  • Technical Site Pig
  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,042
  • It can ALWAYS get worse!
    • FaceButt Profile
Re: One shot at the queen
« Reply #4 on: March 31, 2016, 07:36:11 PM »
If her crimes are swept under the rug, I pray the people do what the Constitution provides for and "lawfully" right the direction our country has taken.
I might not last very long or be very effective but I'll be a real pain in the ass for a minute!
MOLON LABE!

RocketMan

  • Mad Rocket Scientist
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,625
  • Semper Fidelis
Re: One shot at the queen
« Reply #5 on: March 31, 2016, 08:54:19 PM »
Doesn't matter a whit as far as the general election goes.  Most polls show the Dem candidate handily beating any Republican regardless of the matchup.
And the coattail effects on the Senate look really crappy.
If there really was intelligent life on other planets, we'd be sending them foreign aid.

Conservatives see George Orwell's "1984" as a cautionary tale.  Progressives view it as a "how to" manual.

My wife often says to me, "You are evil and must be destroyed." She may be right.

Liberals believe one should never let reason, logic and facts get in the way of a good emotional argument.

Unisaw

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,417
Re: One shot at the queen
« Reply #6 on: March 31, 2016, 09:17:21 PM »
IANAL, but I have read that lying to a federal agent is a felony even if you aren't under oath.  Perhaps one of the legal beagles can weigh in...
Well, if you have the sudden urge to lick your balls you'll know you got the veterinary version... K Frame

AJ Dual

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 16,162
  • Shoe Ballistics Inc.
Re: One shot at the queen
« Reply #7 on: March 31, 2016, 10:26:35 PM »
How I read the article is that they are going to interview people and the interviewee are not to be sworn under oath and can refuse.

So don't order the pig for the hog roast yet.

Unless it's Congressional hearings/inquiries, a Grand Jury, or off site depositions for an upcoming or ongoing trial, I don't think someone merely being interviewed by "law enforcement" can give "sworn testimony".
I promise not to duck.

HankB

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 16,640
Re: One shot at the queen
« Reply #8 on: April 01, 2016, 12:40:14 AM »
IANAL, but I have read that lying to a federal agent is a felony even if you aren't under oath.  Perhaps one of the legal beagles can weigh in...
Ask Martha Stewart about that.
Trump won in 2016. Democrats haven't been so offended since Republicans came along and freed their slaves.
Sometimes I wonder if the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it. - Mark Twain
Government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advance auction in stolen goods. - H.L. Mencken
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it. - Mark Twain

230RN

  • saw it coming.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 18,890
  • ...shall not be allowed.
Re: One shot at the queen
« Reply #9 on: April 01, 2016, 01:28:40 AM »
Quote
Sounds like the FBI and US Attorney General are going to press charges on Hillary.

Sounds to me, with their repetitive over-emphasis on requiring absolute proof, like they're setting up a situation where they will never prosecute.

"We're 99.99999% sure she violated the law, but that's not absolute proof so we had to let it go."

 [barf]

That's what it sounds like to me.  Pardon my skepticism.

Terry
WHATEVER YOUR DEFINITION OF "INFRINGE " IS, YOU SHOULDN'T BE DOING IT.

RevDisk

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,633
    • RevDisk.net
Re: One shot at the queen
« Reply #10 on: April 01, 2016, 05:46:09 AM »
IANAL, but I have read that lying to a federal agent is a felony even if you aren't under oath.  Perhaps one of the legal beagles can weigh in...

I am not a lawyer. Lying about identification is definitely obstruction of justice. Other lying to police may or may not be obstruction of justice. You do have Fifth Amendment protection, but in general, it's a bad idea. It's different than perjury, obviously, but it can be pretty grey. On the other hand, cops absolutely can lie to you. To a point, if they want the results to be used in court. They can lie about anything up to the imaginary line of "coercion", which is essentially but not inclusive to death or immediate harm. There's also some minor formatting they can use to threaten death or harm, and it'd likely be usable in court. "I'll kill you" or "You will get the death penalty" is no-go. "You know, it's sad, but X percent of prisoners die in prison. Do you want to play those odds?" is a legal quasi death threat that could pass, depending on your lawyer.

Lying or telling the truth to local, state or federal LEO should never be an issue anyways because you should never speak to an officer about any significant or serious matter without a lawyer present.   =D


One concrete and interesting bit. You must specifically invoke your right to remain silent and right to counsel. If you remain physically silent, it can be used against you. If you're not physically silent and verbally request your right to remain metaphorically silent, it can't be.

 :laugh:
"Rev, your picture is in my King James Bible, where Paul talks about "inventors of evil."  Yes, I know you'll take that as a compliment."  - Fistful, possibly highest compliment I've ever received.

Unisaw

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,417
Re: One shot at the queen
« Reply #11 on: April 01, 2016, 02:10:20 PM »
Here's something I found on the internet, so it must be true:

http://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/how-to-avoid-going-to-jail-under-18-u-s-c-section-1001-for-lying.html

If this is correct, the law is even broader than I had thought.  The only thing that can save Hillary is blatant politics.
Well, if you have the sudden urge to lick your balls you'll know you got the veterinary version... K Frame

charby

  • Necromancer
  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 29,295
  • APS's Resident Sikh/Muslim
Re: One shot at the queen
« Reply #12 on: April 01, 2016, 07:03:18 PM »
Unless it's Congressional hearings/inquiries, a Grand Jury, or off site depositions for an upcoming or ongoing trial, I don't think someone merely being interviewed by "law enforcement" can give "sworn testimony".

I think they are determining if there is actual laws being broken or a violation of rules/standards/ethics. Looking at it, could go either way.
Iowa- 88% more livable that the rest of the US

Uranus is a gas giant.

Team 444: Member# 536

MechAg94

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 33,764
Re: One shot at the queen
« Reply #13 on: April 01, 2016, 08:43:58 PM »
Sounds to me, with their repetitive over-emphasis on requiring absolute proof, like they're setting up a situation where they will never prosecute.

"We're 99.99999% sure she violated the law, but that's not absolute proof so we had to let it go."

 [barf]

That's what it sounds like to me.  Pardon my skepticism.

Terry

Refer it to the same people that pressed charges on Trump's campaign manager.  They shouldn't have any problem with it.   =)
“It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.”  ― Calvin Coolidge

230RN

  • saw it coming.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 18,890
  • ...shall not be allowed.
Re: One shot at the queen
« Reply #14 on: April 05, 2016, 06:29:33 PM »
Quote
Refer it to the same people that pressed charges on Trump's campaign manager.  They shouldn't have any problem with it.   smiley

Yeah, what's sauce for the goose is sauce only for the goose.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2016, 06:23:32 PM by 230RN »
WHATEVER YOUR DEFINITION OF "INFRINGE " IS, YOU SHOULDN'T BE DOING IT.