(12-13-2019 07:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 07:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 06:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 05:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-13-2019 04:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I guess my confusion is with the initial claim comparing the email editing to planting a gun, and asking if it was any different.

There is zero difference between 'making evidence that tends to show a crime' and 'making evidence that tends to delete exculpatory behavior'.

Quote:The FBI did not plant evidence suggesting Page or Trump committed a crime. They did edit an email to hide that Page had previously been an informant (I'm understanding the finding correctly, right?).

They deleted the reference and affirmatively stated that Page was not a source. There was a deletion *and* a manufacturing. Both of which removed exculpatory evidence.

Think of it this way. Assume the cops find a gun of the same caliber (say a .45 caliber) that was used in a crime, and also find a video timestamped the time of the crime of the user using the gun at a gun range in a different city.

The 'cops' (in this case the Feebs) simply changed the timestamp on the film to remove exculpatory evidence. You are saying that the cops changing that timestamp is A-OK because they 'changed' the evidence. Or alternatively, it is okey dokey to change tthe timestamp and put an innocent person under a miscroscope becuase it is 'only' for purposes of surveillance.

What parts of the 4th Amendment shouldnt apply here? You are literally advocating for a situational specific exemption of one of the three biggies in our parcel of freedoms in this case, mind you.

Quote:So in my mind, there is a big difference because of the obvious intent.

Good lord. We are talking about putting into place literally the most intrusive form of electronic surveillance on an individual. So it is okey-dokey for the government to do that and falsify evidence to do that?

Good fing grief. Do you actually understand what you are advocating/parsing hairs about here?

So manufacturing evidence, or deleting evidence, to get surveillance is okey dokey. Jeezus Krist this sounds like 1984....

On top of it, the intent is to illegally alter evidence, no matter how many dance steps you put on it. So in some cases it is okay to intentionally deceive a court, and others it is not. This sounds like an awesome world you are trying to put forward. Sounds fun.

Quote:But like I said, let's make sure we're discussing the same things here. I think Ham's equivalent, which would have been manufacturing communications between the Trump campaign and Russian assets, would be about a million times worse.

I think the FBI altering or making evidence for any fing reason is equally as bad. I seriously cannot believe you are attempting to discern a 'level of badness' here.

Tanq, why don'y you take a break from making leaping assumptions for once?

I've been pretty clear in saying the email editing was not OK and that the overall report from the IG is damning for the FBI. Yet for some reason you feel compelled to say things like "So manufacturing evidence, or deleting evidence, to get surveillance is okey dokey. Jeezus Krist this sounds like 1984.... "

Please, where in the **** did I say it was OK?

This is like those conversations about DB back in the day, where people would make statements about him that were overly negative and factually incorrect - why do that when there's already enough damning evidence in front of you?

There should be an obvious difference between planting a gun, and not informing someone of information when requesting to put them under surveillance. That is NOT in anyway, shape, or form, saying that one of those two is right.

Is that clear enough for you? Or are you going to try and say I think what the FBI did was OK in two more posts?

Then tell me what the fk the 'obvious difference' is on 'planting a gun' and LYING to court to support a warrant to issue?

A governmental intrusion into my liberty based on an intentional falsity is no different than an attempted governmental intrusion into my liberty based on an intentional falsity. But you have this weird, dumb*** line you keep dancing a jig on that you have set up between 'evidence for a trial' and 'evidence for a warrant'.

The reason I state the issue in the manner I do is because your weird as **** fascination with one act being somehow worse than the other.

You’re suggesting planting a gun on someone is solely a government intrusion into your liberty? I would call it an attempt to deny you of your liberty by trying to frame and imprison you.

Lolz. Let's break your response down, shall we?

Quote:I would call it an attempt to deny you of your liberty

Correct.

And an investigation is also "an attempt by the government to deny you of your liberty." That is kind of a bedrock definition.

Quote:by trying to frame ... you

Two for two.

And the "trying to frame" is the exact same whether it is planting evidence, or suppressing exculpatory evidence.

Quote:by trying to ... imprison you

Three for three.

Again, the government cannot, and should not, open a criminal investigation for mere '***** and giggles'. The underlying action of an investigation is the first step in "trying to .... imprison you". If the underlying investigation is for '***** and giggles' and not having the intent to bring justice, that is another whole arena of wrong we can talk about. But not germane here.

And, if the authorities have no predicate to believe an individual has committed a crime, then any surveillance is absolutely unwarranted (legal pun.... haha... perhaps there is a reason for the term "warrant" in the criminal system when you think about it).

Again, what is the fking difference? If the authorities lie, or created evidence, or suppress evidence in the course of any phase of an investigation, and present that to a court as the truth, whether it be at trial or in the course of 'aww all we want is an excuse to search and wiretap', it is the same act. All in the course of 'an attempt to .... imprison you'. Funny that.

The only hole not covered is when they want the surveillance on someone not associated or implicated in criminal activity. That doesnt lessen the culpability if they proffer that to the court -- in order to justify such measures, there has to be a nexus between the surveillance and an actual criminal activity. Simply saying 'well Joe Blow knows the perps, we dont think he did it but can we search his house' doesnt cut it, nor should it, in our view of justice.

Apparently one of those does, or, at least is 'less bad', for you. They are *all* governmental intrusions that violate basic Constitutional rights. And all government intrusions with the intent to infringe a right to one's liberty. The fact that it is, well, I am sorry. Not my problem.

They are *all* improper government intrusions using *the most* potent power a government yields over citizens. But somehow the use of that power is situationally more or less culpable for you. That someone who is not a Stalinist could actually believe that, lad, is actually really scary to me.