Advanced Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,061 Excellent

About WaywardWind

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 03/10/1950

Profile Information

  • Location

Previous Fields

  • Location
  1. Let's be clearer then. You posted a comment that appeared to be based on ignorance of the law. I responded by suggesting you educate yourself on the rules of evidence so that you could clearly see just how wrong your statement was, and based this suggestion on having been involved as a lawyer in more than a hundred trials in various courts in the US. So I stand by my advice. Educate yourself and then come back here if you want to continue the discussion.
  2. Go to law school..take a few courses on the rules of evidence...then come back and we can discuss this intelligently....
  3. It is not just one man's word against another. Two points: first, in any comparison, Comey will be given far more credibility than Trump ever would by any unbiased individuals. Second, Comey prepared a record of the discussion immediately after returning to the FBI; such records are admissible under Federal law in certain circumstances and generally given great weight by a trier of fact.
  4. Don't leave out Trump's very own six year witch hunt to prove that Obama was born in Kenya...
  5. Not at all...you're the one bragging about an impressive legal background, plus a plethora of legal minds in your family to assist when needed...surely reading and comprehending the Espionage Act should be a cake walk for you...or perhaps you missed the classes on legal research in law school. I can read it just fine, given my undergraduate degree in Criminal Justice, my JD, and many decades of legal experience. You want the information? Read the damn statute...
  6. Yes, but that is not what is at issue here. The information is still highly classified to this day - Trump never declassified it, which he had the authority to do. Instead he simply relayed some of the information to Russian government officials, and that is where he may well have stepped over the line into illegal behavior.
  7. Not all of us old white guys....
  8. Apparently not a crime - if the meeting took place in the WH or elsewhere in DC: Who must give permission to record a telephone or in-person conversation? Federal law permits recording telephone calls and in-person conversations with the consent of at least one of the parties. See 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d). This is called a "one-party consent" law. Under a one-party consent law, you can record a phone call or conversation so long as you are a party to the conversation. Furthermore, if you are not a party to the conversation, a "one-party consent" law will allow you to record the conversation or phone call so long as your source consents and has full knowledge that the communication will be recorded. The District of Columbia's wiretapping law is a "one-party consent" law. DC makes it a crime to record a phone call or conversation unless one party to the conversation consents. See D.C. Code § 23-542. Thus, if you operate in DC, you may record a conversation or phone call if you are a party to the conversation or you get permission from one party to the conversation in advance. That said, if you intend to record conversations involving people located in more than one state, you should play it safe and get the consent of all parties. Possibly a different result if it happened at Mar-a-Largo: Florida's wiretapping law is a "two-party consent" law. Florida makes it a crime to intercept or record a "wire, oral, or electronic communication" in Florida, unless all parties to the communication consent. See Fla. Stat. ch. 934.03. Florida law makes an exception for in-person communications when the parties do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the conversation, such as when they are engaged in conversation in a public place where they might reasonably be overheard. If you are operating in Florida, you may record these kinds of in-person conversations without breaking the law. However, you should always get the consent of all parties before recording any telephone conversation and any in-person that common sense tells you is private. http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/recording-phone-calls-and-conversations
  9. Not one of your "facts" is true...not one.... Many Democrats, and Republicans and Independents, have pointed to verifiable evidence that Trump and his team coordinated with Russia to damage Clinton and boost Trump; Comey never said that Trump was not under investigation. That is a fabrication pushed by Trump and many others in the White House; There are two independent grand juries currently empaneled to investigate Trump-Russia coordination, and they have issued subpoenas to witnesses. Grand Juries are empaneled by a judge of the District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia, and their sole purpose is to determine if criminal laws were violated and if so, indict the perpetrators. Sounds like a criminal investigation to me.
  10. Obama endorsed Macron - how in the world does that reach the level of "interference?' And yes, I am fully aware that the US has interfered in elections in other countries. What exactly does that have to do with Obama's endorsement?
  11. You said he "interfered" in the election, while your link merely indicates that he endorsed Macron. They are not the same - just ask Putin if you need guidance on the difference.
  12. The FBI investigated the emails to death, and did not find a violation of the statute. You can equate "extremely careless" with "gross negligence" but the law does not.
  13. Links to the statute and Comey's statement?
  14. You have a link to this?