(04-17-2018 03:35 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I'll just leave this here:

Quote:ACLU: The risks of wrongful privacy invasions are too great to leave to the prosecutors when the government seizes digital data. Such files should be reviewed in the first instance by a neutral party, or “special master,” appointed by and answerable to the court, to ensure that the prosecutors and investigators get the evidence they are authorized to look for. They should not be allowed to roam widely through digital files that may contain terrabytes of private information.

Who Should Review Michael Cohen’s Files Under the Fourth Amendment?

Your move Dersh.

?

(04-17-2018 10:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-12-2018 09:22 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Can you explain why we did not need to find out exactly what Russia did? If you don't think they did anything or that we should not try to determine what they did and how to prevent it in the future, I would have to sincerely question your respect for our electoral process.

I thought that was the purpose of the special counsel investigation. I haven't seen any indication that they are pursuing that objective in months.

Because their role isn't to keep you informed, it's to get to the end of their investigation. Patience.

(04-19-2018 08:32 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-17-2018 10:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-12-2018 09:22 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Can you explain why we did not need to find out exactly what Russia did? If you don't think they did anything or that we should not try to determine what they did and how to prevent it in the future, I would have to sincerely question your respect for our electoral process.

I thought that was the purpose of the special counsel investigation. I haven't seen any indication that they are pursuing that objective in months.

Because their role isn't to keep you informed, it's to get to the end of their investigation. Patience.

So we're going to ignore that NOTHING that is being investigated has anything to do with Russians?

The only people being investigated are Americans. In fact, the FBI wouldn't have jurisdiction over investigating what Russia did.

(04-19-2018 03:39 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-19-2018 08:32 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-17-2018 10:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-12-2018 09:22 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Can you explain why we did not need to find out exactly what Russia did? If you don't think they did anything or that we should not try to determine what they did and how to prevent it in the future, I would have to sincerely question your respect for our electoral process.

I thought that was the purpose of the special counsel investigation. I haven't seen any indication that they are pursuing that objective in months.

Because their role isn't to keep you informed, it's to get to the end of their investigation. Patience.

So we're going to ignore that NOTHING that is being investigated has anything to do with Russians?

The only people being investigated are Americans. In fact, the FBI wouldn't have jurisdiction over investigating what Russia did.

We don't know this at all. This thread is not about Russia, it's about Cohen and separate issues reportedly related to things like Daniels, bank fraud, etc. That's why it was referred to the proper folks by Mueller.

(04-20-2018 09:45 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-19-2018 03:39 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-19-2018 08:32 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-17-2018 10:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-12-2018 09:22 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Can you explain why we did not need to find out exactly what Russia did? If you don't think they did anything or that we should not try to determine what they did and how to prevent it in the future, I would have to sincerely question your respect for our electoral process.

I thought that was the purpose of the special counsel investigation. I haven't seen any indication that they are pursuing that objective in months.

Because their role isn't to keep you informed, it's to get to the end of their investigation. Patience.

So we're going to ignore that NOTHING that is being investigated has anything to do with Russians?

The only people being investigated are Americans. In fact, the FBI wouldn't have jurisdiction over investigating what Russia did.

We don't know this at all. This thread is not about Russia, it's about Cohen and separate issues reportedly related to things like Daniels, bank fraud, etc. That's why it was referred to the proper folks by Mueller.

So you can pick your nose and you can pick your friends, but you can't pick your friends nose? There is nose reason why Comey can't hire whoever he wants as a lawyer. Conversations before representation vs Conversations after representation. Same with HRC. Who was named a lawyer and when? When does the lawyer/client relationship begin?

(04-20-2018 09:45 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-19-2018 03:39 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-19-2018 08:32 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-17-2018 10:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-12-2018 09:22 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Can you explain why we did not need to find out exactly what Russia did? If you don't think they did anything or that we should not try to determine what they did and how to prevent it in the future, I would have to sincerely question your respect for our electoral process.

I thought that was the purpose of the special counsel investigation. I haven't seen any indication that they are pursuing that objective in months.

Because their role isn't to keep you informed, it's to get to the end of their investigation. Patience.

So we're going to ignore that NOTHING that is being investigated has anything to do with Russians?

The only people being investigated are Americans. In fact, the FBI wouldn't have jurisdiction over investigating what Russia did.

We don't know this at all. This thread is not about Russia, it's about Cohen and separate issues reportedly related to things like Daniels, bank fraud, etc. That's why it was referred to the proper folks by Mueller.

This thread wasn't about Russia until YOU (quoted above) claimed that what we're doing... what this is all the result of... is investigating what Russia did.

I'd like to think that in order to restore faith in our electoral process, that if we'd discovered that we'd been hacked/had an election hacked... that there would be announcements/statements about steps that had been taken to correct any flaws in our security and/or statements about 'why' such hacks were not a real danger... JUST as there were in response to the half a dozen states whose voter databases were 'hacked'.

The collusion your side alleges doesn't have to do with the hacks... It has to do with what happened to the information once it was stolen. They didn't supposedly meet with Trump in order to get DNC passwords. They SUPPOSEDLY met with Trump to coordinate the release of the information to change the outcome.

a) if the emails had been lies, there would be no issue. This has never once been alleged by anyone.
b) if the emails hadn't contained damning truths, there would be no issue. The left has routinely said there was nothing 'wrong' in what was released
therefore even if they DID conspire to release the truth, why is that a problem?

If Russia had evidence that young Hillary was a co-conspirator in the Russian plan to assassinate Kennedy, wouldn't we want that released? even though it might change the outcome of the election, its STILL the truth. Maybe you can't prosecute her for it, but you can certainly 'not elect her' for it. Of course that's an extreme, but it's on point.

Somebody help me, there's something I don't understand. Maybe someone who has practiced criminal law (not me, I had only brief encounters with criminal matters, and was never a prosecutor, so I don't know) can help.

It seems to me that step one of any criminal investigation should be to determine whether a crime was committed, and if so what crime. It would seem that in such effort the logical place to start would be the servers. So why are we approaching two years into this and nobody on Mueller's team, nor any other law enforcement agency, has gotten his/her hands on the servers? Why do we seem to have come everywhere BUT there? Shouldn't that have been the starting point? If the objective is truly the stated one of preventing (or minimizing) future efforts by "the Russians" (or anyone else) to "hijack our democracy," shouldn't the starting point be where the alleged hijacking occurred?

(04-21-2018 09:57 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Somebody help me, there's something I don't understand. Maybe someone who has practiced criminal law (not me, I had only brief encounters with criminal matters, and was never a prosecutor, so I don't know) can help.

It seems to me that step one of any criminal investigation should be to determine whether a crime was committed, and if so what crime. It would seem that in such effort the logical place to start would be the servers. So why are we approaching two years into this and nobody on Mueller's team, nor any other law enforcement agency, has gotten his/her hands on the servers? Why do we seem to have come everywhere BUT there? Shouldn't that have been the starting point? If the objective is truly the stated one of preventing (or minimizing) future efforts by "the Russians" (or anyone else) to "hijack our democracy," shouldn't the starting point be where the alleged hijacking occurred?

You're correct Owl, if they were interested in investigating whether or not Russia had hacked the DNC server, they would start there with computer forensics. The fact that they haven't seized the servers indicates to me that they are not investigating that issue. I find it extremely out of the norm, which leads me to believe this whole thing is a sham witch hunt/political theater.

(04-21-2018 09:57 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Somebody help me, there's something I don't understand. Maybe someone who has practiced criminal law (not me, I had only brief encounters with criminal matters, and was never a prosecutor, so I don't know) can help.

It seems to me that step one of any criminal investigation should be to determine whether a crime was committed, and if so what crime. It would seem that in such effort the logical place to start would be the servers. So why are we approaching two years into this and nobody on Mueller's team, nor any other law enforcement agency, has gotten his/her hands on the servers? Why do we seem to have come everywhere BUT there? Shouldn't that have been the starting point? If the objective is truly the stated one of preventing (or minimizing) future efforts by "the Russians" (or anyone else) to "hijack our democracy," shouldn't the starting point be where the alleged hijacking occurred?

Depends on what SUSPECTED crime you are investigating. Example: murder investigation-usually pretty obvious a crime was committed because usually there is a body (corpus). The question may be who did it. In a fraud investigation, you may know who did it, just not sure if it's a crime or not. That is after all, why we have trials with lawyers, judges and juries. The jury is the ultimate decider.
Prosecutors only believe there is enough evidence to believe a crime was committed, not to actually say what was done was a crime (fraud) or who is responsible (murder).

(04-21-2018 11:05 AM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(04-21-2018 09:57 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Somebody help me, there's something I don't understand. Maybe someone who has practiced criminal law (not me, I had only brief encounters with criminal matters, and was never a prosecutor, so I don't know) can help.
It seems to me that step one of any criminal investigation should be to determine whether a crime was committed, and if so what crime. It would seem that in such effort the logical place to start would be the servers. So why are we approaching two years into this and nobody on Mueller's team, nor any other law enforcement agency, has gotten his/her hands on the servers? Why do we seem to have come everywhere BUT there? Shouldn't that have been the starting point? If the objective is truly the stated one of preventing (or minimizing) future efforts by "the Russians" (or anyone else) to "hijack our democracy," shouldn't the starting point be where the alleged hijacking occurred?

Depends on what SUSPECTED crime you are investigating. Example: murder investigation-usually pretty obvious a crime was committed because usually there is a body (corpus). The question may be who did it. In a fraud investigation, you may know who did it, just not sure if it's a crime or not. That is after all, why we have trials with lawyers, judges and juries. The jury is the ultimate decider.
Prosecutors only believe there is enough evidence to believe a crime was committed, not to actually say what was done was a crime (fraud) or who is responsible (murder).

But here there is still no evidence that a crime was committed. That's how this is so different from Watergate. There the crime was obvious, and the investigation was to determine who was responsible and how far it extended. Here we have spent two years investigating, but have not yet stablished what the crime was.

(04-21-2018 11:44 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-21-2018 11:05 AM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(04-21-2018 09:57 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Somebody help me, there's something I don't understand. Maybe someone who has practiced criminal law (not me, I had only brief encounters with criminal matters, and was never a prosecutor, so I don't know) can help.
It seems to me that step one of any criminal investigation should be to determine whether a crime was committed, and if so what crime. It would seem that in such effort the logical place to start would be the servers. So why are we approaching two years into this and nobody on Mueller's team, nor any other law enforcement agency, has gotten his/her hands on the servers? Why do we seem to have come everywhere BUT there? Shouldn't that have been the starting point? If the objective is truly the stated one of preventing (or minimizing) future efforts by "the Russians" (or anyone else) to "hijack our democracy," shouldn't the starting point be where the alleged hijacking occurred?

Depends on what SUSPECTED crime you are investigating. Example: murder investigation-usually pretty obvious a crime was committed because usually there is a body (corpus). The question may be who did it. In a fraud investigation, you may know who did it, just not sure if it's a crime or not. That is after all, why we have trials with lawyers, judges and juries. The jury is the ultimate decider.
Prosecutors only believe there is enough evidence to believe a crime was committed, not to actually say what was done was a crime (fraud) or who is responsible (murder).

But here there is still no evidence that a crime was committed. That's how this is so different from Watergate. There the crime was obvious, and the investigation was to determine who was responsible and how far it extended. Here we have spent two years investigating, but have not yet stablished what the crime was.

Please please please try to keep up. Trump was elected, Cankles was not. That was not supposed to happen therefore a crime must have been committed, Trump is obviously guilty of something, he is not legitimate, and he will be investigated until a crime is found and he can be removed from office.

This is really not hard to understand at all.

(04-21-2018 11:05 AM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(04-21-2018 09:57 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Somebody help me, there's something I don't understand. Maybe someone who has practiced criminal law (not me, I had only brief encounters with criminal matters, and was never a prosecutor, so I don't know) can help.

It seems to me that step one of any criminal investigation should be to determine whether a crime was committed, and if so what crime. It would seem that in such effort the logical place to start would be the servers. So why are we approaching two years into this and nobody on Mueller's team, nor any other law enforcement agency, has gotten his/her hands on the servers? Why do we seem to have come everywhere BUT there? Shouldn't that have been the starting point? If the objective is truly the stated one of preventing (or minimizing) future efforts by "the Russians" (or anyone else) to "hijack our democracy," shouldn't the starting point be where the alleged hijacking occurred?

Depends on what SUSPECTED crime you are investigating. Example: murder investigation-usually pretty obvious a crime was committed because usually there is a body (corpus). The question may be who did it.

Police walks into a room with a dead body does not mean its a murder. Not even if half a persons head is blown off. The evidence will lead them to what happen.

If anyone is ever charged and taken to court over hacking into the DNC's servers there's a huge hurdled the government will need to get past....

no one from any law enforcement had their hands on the servers so how do you even prove a crime was committed? Do you go off a 3rd party with a vested interest in the case? Then you have cross a bridge on why the offended party refused to turn the servers over to the FBI. Then can the servers or the report even be put into evidence....

Not unless the DNC is willing to let the defended do their own investigation. If they are welling to do that you need to wonder why they refused the FBI

(04-21-2018 12:01 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(04-21-2018 11:05 AM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(04-21-2018 09:57 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Somebody help me, there's something I don't understand. Maybe someone who has practiced criminal law (not me, I had only brief encounters with criminal matters, and was never a prosecutor, so I don't know) can help.

It seems to me that step one of any criminal investigation should be to determine whether a crime was committed, and if so what crime. It would seem that in such effort the logical place to start would be the servers. So why are we approaching two years into this and nobody on Mueller's team, nor any other law enforcement agency, has gotten his/her hands on the servers? Why do we seem to have come everywhere BUT there? Shouldn't that have been the starting point? If the objective is truly the stated one of preventing (or minimizing) future efforts by "the Russians" (or anyone else) to "hijack our democracy," shouldn't the starting point be where the alleged hijacking occurred?

Depends on what SUSPECTED crime you are investigating. Example: murder investigation-usually pretty obvious a crime was committed because usually there is a body (corpus). The question may be who did it.

Police walks into a room with a dead body does not mean its a murder. Not even if half a persons head is blown off. The evidence will lead them to what happen.

If anyone is ever charged and taken to court over hacking into the DNC's servers there's a huge hurdled the government will need to get past....

no one from any law enforcement had their hands on the servers so how do you even prove a crime was committed? Do you go off a 3rd party with a vested interest in the case? Then you have cross a bridge on why the offended party refused to turn the servers over to the FBI. Then can the servers or the report even be put into evidence....

Not unless the DNC is willing to let the defended do their own investigation. If they are welling to do that you need to wonder why they refused the FBI

Yeah, this is akin to the police walking into the room and guy is lying there with half his head blown off and his wife says, "he just shot himself in the head, twice".

The police say, "okay, thanks", rule it a suicide, and help the wife file charges against the manufacturer of the weapon.

(04-21-2018 12:07 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  Yeah, this is akin to the police walking into the room and guy is lying there with half his head blown off and his wife says, "he just shot himself in the head, twice".

The police say, "okay, thanks", rule it a suicide, and help the wife file charges against the manufacturer of the weapon.

Actually it's more like the wife blamed the neighbor, so the cops spend the next year looking into every action of the neighbor and everyone he ever spoke to, without ever looking at the body for evidence,