Russia Collusion Scandal (aka A Leftist fantasy)

Julio3000 said:
Ok, so you'll take a pass on a slam dunk immediate prosecution? Because surely there's something in there? Like, what provisions of the Privacy Act?
Click to expand...

Uh, well, the Privacy Act is incredibly broad. To answer your question, conditions of disclosure would be the easiest place to start.

Or are you going contend that no personal information related to the case or any of its subjects was disclosed by Page or Strozak?

It's trivial, but that was kind of my point.

I could dig around in the Code of Federal Regulations and find something more politically inciting.
 
In the case of "criminal violations" of the Act (Section 3 of the Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552a(i) limits these so-called penalties to misdemeanors), an officer or employee of an agency may be fined up to $5,000 for:

Knowingly and willfully disclosing individually identifiable information which is prohibited from such disclosure by the Act or by agency regulations; or

Willfully maintaining a system of records without having published a notice in the Federal Register of the existence of that system of records.
 
I mean, you could snag them on "willfully maintaining a system of records" without even having reviewed a single text.
 
But I can't help but wonder if something privileged or even classified was incidentally disclosed. Obviously that would elevate things.
 
Hawk said:
I gave you the slam dunk.

:eusa_naughty:

And you can't even show me where the President obviously obstructed justice.

This game is no fun.
Click to expand...

If I said obviously, I apologize but I have much more basis to believe he did than didn't. The lies, shifting explanations and willingness to use bogus or misrepresented information to wage a discrediting campaign are very telling.
 
So we're at maybe, prospective misdemeanors, if we look further at stuff we haven't admittedly looked at. That's not gonna win the dunk contest.
 
I've also got to note that encouraging obstruction of justice and suborning perjury may or may not be a winning strategy, but it's got a mixed record in presidential politics.
 
Julio3000 said:
So we're at maybe, prospective misdemeanors, if we look further at stuff we haven't admittedly looked at. That's not gonna win the dunk contest.
Click to expand...

A conviction is a conviction. You didn't discern between felonies and misdemeanors.
 
bravesnumberone said:
If I said obviously, I apologize but I have much more basis to believe he did than didn't. The lies, shifting explanations and willingness to use bogus or misrepresented information to wage a discrediting campaign are very telling.
Click to expand...

Sure, I can appreciate this perspective.
 
Hawk said:
It's trivial, but that was kind of my point.
Click to expand...

Your point, when you said "come off it," was that the entirely hypothetical parking tickets that you think could write on the FBI texts is equal in its triviality to the indictments and plea agreements that already exist in the Mueller investigation.

That's a profound exercise in silliness.
 
Julio3000 said:
Your point, when you said "come off it," was that the entirely hypothetical parking tickets that you think could write on the FBI texts is equal in its triviality to the indictments and plea agreements that already exist in the Mueller investigation.

That's a profound exercise in silliness.
Click to expand...

How is preferential treatment towards a suspect in a federal investigation not a big deal? Is it on the scale of something like the Manafort issue? No, but I'm not sure it's much further behind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top