Jump to content

Biff Tannen

Burnt Ends
  • Posts

    36091
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Posts posted by Biff Tannen

  1. 1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

    The questions, as written, are very broad and, most likely, nothing like the actual questions that will be asked.  As written, they are very unlawyerlike.  With one caveat.  With this particular witness, there may be advantage to broad, open ended questions inviting the witness to narrate and hoist himself on his own petard.

     

    That said, to prove obstruction of justice, the unlawful motive or intention to obstruct must be the single most reasonable inference from the evidence, usually circumstantial.  So, typically, in a criminal prosecution with the burden of proof being beyond reasonable doubt, this is tough to prove and would likely require some pointed questions and some ludicrous, non-credible answers to convince a fact-finder (jury) that the intention to obstruct is there.  Trump has said a bunch of shit about why he fired Comey.  Rosenstein evidently wrote a memo justifying the firing.  There is a bunch of circumstantial evidence.  A good criminal lawyer could muck up the intent scenario to a fare the well, so that a jury has a really tough time finding that single most reasonable inference.

     

    In the usual case, an open ended question like "what were you thinking?" would be an invitation to "well there was this Russia investigation, and what Rosenstein said, and he refused to pledge loyalty, and this, and that, and the other thing, and when you put em all together, I decided he had to go."  Which is an invitation to a jury to acquit unless you have something else.

    I doubt Trump has much trouble backing off whatever he said in public inasmuch as he runs his mouth like diarrhea on a daily basis.

     

    Thanks.  Maybe I misunderstood the intent of the "too broad" analysis from the beginning.  To me it came across as, "the question is too broad for the scope of the investigation and isn't fair."

  2. On 4/25/2018 at 1:52 PM, miguelito said:

    Felix needs to throw about 30 more pitches in warmups.  He seems to give up a lot of 1st inning runs.

    First inning homer tonight.  God dammit.  Then strikes out the side at least.

  3. Can a lawyer explain to me the idea that the questions involving obstruction of justice in the release are "too broad" for the investigation?  This was said by some guy on NPR as well as Dershowitz.  

    If I recall correctly, the president himself said on national television that the reason he fired Comey was because of Russia.  Almost word for word.  How on god's green earth then would a question about what he was thinking when he fired Comey be "too broad"?

     

  4. Also, dammit, I'm actually laughing at the Space Force thing.  

    Quote

    After a short pause he continued: “And we’re actually thinking of a sixth, and that would be the Space Force. Does that make sense? 

    I find that objectively funny. 

  5. 1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

    Trump out of power isn’t great either. He will continue his assault on everything decent with his followers out of office.

     

    Fine, but I'd rather him do that on some inane cable network than from the fucking white house.

  6. 1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

    Um, Don?  It's entirely possible to obstruct justice by interfering with an investigation.  Guilt doesn't have to exist for the obstruction to occur.

    Like anyone could even know that.

  7. 48 minutes ago, Tuco said:

    If Dowd leaked this he should lose his license. He's not going to risk his license to protect a former client and current dipshit. 

    The explanation makes sense, but replace Dowd with non-lawyer staffer. 

    Or a batshit crazy one like Giuliani.

×
×
  • Create New...