Darth Omar
Russian asset
Wrong lol?
It would only be ‘right’ to spy on political campaigns [for any old reason] in places I don’t care to live in.
F.B.I. Sent Investigator Posing as Assistant to Meet With Trump Aide in 2016
- Thread starter volsrock
- Start date
Wrong lol?
It would only be ‘right’ to spy on political campaigns [for any old reason] in places I don’t care to live in.
Hmm. William Barr is United States Attorney General, and BRAD isn't. Is that an accurate statement to the best of your knowledge, Mr. Omar?
Darth Omar
Russian asset
It’s a fair statement.
Barr told senators that “I think spying did occur” in the Trump-Russia investigation conducted by (among others) the Justice Department and the FBI during the 2016 presidential campaign.
“The question,” Barr elaborated, “is whether it was adequately predicated.” Because “spying on a political campaign is a big deal,” he explained that he would undertake an internal review, focusing on what the original rationale was for the spying.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/andrew-mccarthy-barr-is-right-to-review-why-trump-russia-investigation-began
Thank you. Mr. Omar. You may step down, subject to recall.
1) You have posted ABA guidelines, not rules, laws or even policy.
2) Nothing you have posted says any basis is required to initiate an investigation.
You are DUMB.
No wonder you could not get a job as a prosecutor.
We were talking about investigating....
Can you show me a law that prohibits it? Can you show me a law that says you must have a predicate to launch an investigation?
I have posted a portion of the ABA Standards for Prosecutorial Investigations, BRAD. They have been part of the practice of criminal law since February 2008, a fact that you are apparently unaware of.
Weren't you dismissed for cause around that time?
Do ABA standards have the effect of law, policy, or any type of requirement?
I figure you won’t answer.
When deciding whether to initiate or continue an investigation, the prosecutor should consider:
(i) whether there is evidence of the existence of criminal conduct;
(ii) the nature and seriousness of the problem or alleged offense, including the risk or degree of harm from ongoing criminal conduct;
(iii) a history of prior violations of the same or similar laws and whether those violations have previously been addressed through law enforcement or other means;
(iv) the motive, interest, bias or other improper factors that may influence those seeking to initiate or cause the initiation of a criminal investigation;
(v) the need for, and expected impact of, criminal enforcement to:
(A) punish blameworthy behavior;
(B) provide specific and/or general deterrence;
(C) provide protection to the community;
(D) reinforce norms embodied in the criminal law;
(E) prevent unauthorized private action to enforce the law;
(F) preserve the credibility of the criminal justice system; and
(G) other legitimate public interests.
(vi) whether the costs and benefits of the investigation and of particular investigative tools and techniques are justified in consideration of, among other things, the nature of the criminal activity as well as the impact of conducting the investigation on other enforcement priorities and resources
(vii) the collateral effects of the investigation on witnesses, subjects, targets and non-culpable third parties, including financial damage and harm to reputation
(viii) the probability of obtaining sufficient evidence for a successful prosecution of the matter in question, including, if there is a trial, the probability of obtaining a conviction and having the conviction upheld upon appellate review; and
(ix) whether society’s interest in the matter might be better or equally vindicated by available civil, regulatory, administrative, or private remedies.
(d) When deciding whether to initiate or continue an investigation, the prosecutor should not be influenced by:
(i) partisan or other improper political or personal considerations, or by the race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, political beliefs or affiliations, age, or social or economic status of the potential subject or victim, unless they are elements of the crime or are relevant to the motive of the perpetrator; or
(ii) hostility or personal animus towards a potential subject, or any other improper motive of the prosecutor.
(e) The prosecutor’s office should have an internal procedure to document the reason(s) for declining to pursue prosecution following a criminal investigation.
So u would be OK if Trump sent in spy's to investigate Biden or Beto, Harris
This question further demonstrates your unfamiliarity with said Standards.
Why do you keep posting this, no requirements for a predicate to a criminal investigation.... Is this a law? Is this a policy? Is this some sort of obligation? Or is this simply the ABA pontificating?
Are you under the mistaken idea that a person can be prosecuted for disobeying a pontification of the ABA?
I notice you won’t answer…
Entrapment is a complete defense to a criminal charge, on the theory that "Government agents may not originate a criminal design, implant in an innocent person's mind the disposition to commit a criminal act, and then induce commission of the crime so that the Government may prosecute." Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540, 548 (1992).
A valid entrapment defense has two related elements: (1) government inducement of the crime, and (2) the defendant's lack of predisposition to engage in the criminal conduct. Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 63 (1988). Of the two elements, predisposition is by far the more important.
Inducement is the threshold issue in the entrapment defense. Mere solicitation to commit a crime is not inducement. Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435, 451 (1932). Nor does the government's use of artifice, stratagem, pretense, or deceit establish inducement. Id. at 441. Rather, inducement requires a showing of at least persuasion or mild coercion, United States v. Nations, 764 F.2d 1073, 1080 (5th Cir. 1985); pleas based on need, sympathy, or friendship, ibid.; or extraordinary promises of the sort "that would blind the ordinary person to his legal duties," United States v. Evans, 924 F.2d 714, 717 (7th Cir. 1991). See also United States v. Kelly, 748 F.2d 691, 698 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (inducement shown only if government's behavior was such that "a law-abiding citizen's will to obey the law could have been overborne"); United States v. Johnson, 872 F.2d 612, 620 (5th Cir. 1989) (inducement shown if government created "a substantial risk that an offense would be committed by a person other than one ready to commit it").
Even if inducement has been shown, a finding of predisposition is fatal to an entrapment defense. The predisposition inquiry focuses upon whether the defendant "was an unwary innocent or, instead, an unwary criminal who readily availed himself of the opportunity to perpetrate the crime." Mathews, 485 U.S. at 63. Thus, predisposition should not be confused with intent or mens rea: a person may have the requisite intent to commit the crime, yet be entrapped. Also, predisposition may exist even in the absence of prior criminal involvement: "the ready commission of the criminal act," such as where a defendant promptly accepts an undercover agent's offer of an opportunity to buy or sell drugs, may itself establish predisposition. Jacobson, 503 U.S. at 550.
A valid entrapment defense has two related elements: (1) government inducement of the crime, and (2) the defendant's lack of predisposition to engage in the criminal conduct. Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 63 (1988). Of the two elements, predisposition is by far the more important.
Inducement is the threshold issue in the entrapment defense. Mere solicitation to commit a crime is not inducement. Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435, 451 (1932). Nor does the government's use of artifice, stratagem, pretense, or deceit establish inducement. Id. at 441. Rather, inducement requires a showing of at least persuasion or mild coercion, United States v. Nations, 764 F.2d 1073, 1080 (5th Cir. 1985); pleas based on need, sympathy, or friendship, ibid.; or extraordinary promises of the sort "that would blind the ordinary person to his legal duties," United States v. Evans, 924 F.2d 714, 717 (7th Cir. 1991). See also United States v. Kelly, 748 F.2d 691, 698 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (inducement shown only if government's behavior was such that "a law-abiding citizen's will to obey the law could have been overborne"); United States v. Johnson, 872 F.2d 612, 620 (5th Cir. 1989) (inducement shown if government created "a substantial risk that an offense would be committed by a person other than one ready to commit it").
Even if inducement has been shown, a finding of predisposition is fatal to an entrapment defense. The predisposition inquiry focuses upon whether the defendant "was an unwary innocent or, instead, an unwary criminal who readily availed himself of the opportunity to perpetrate the crime." Mathews, 485 U.S. at 63. Thus, predisposition should not be confused with intent or mens rea: a person may have the requisite intent to commit the crime, yet be entrapped. Also, predisposition may exist even in the absence of prior criminal involvement: "the ready commission of the criminal act," such as where a defendant promptly accepts an undercover agent's offer of an opportunity to buy or sell drugs, may itself establish predisposition. Jacobson, 503 U.S. at 550.
No dumb fuck, do you have any evidence that a president sent someone to spy on the Trump campaign?
Entrapment is a complete defense to a criminal charge, on the theory that "Government agents may not originate a criminal design, implant in an innocent person's mind the disposition to commit a criminal act, and then induce commission of the crime so that the Government may prosecute." Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540, 548 (1992).
A valid entrapment defense has two related elements: (1) government inducement of the crime, and (2) the defendant's lack of predisposition to engage in the criminal conduct. Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 63 (1988). Of the two elements, predisposition is by far the more important.
Inducement is the threshold issue in the entrapment defense. Mere solicitation to commit a crime is not inducement. Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435, 451 (1932). Nor does the government's use of artifice, stratagem, pretense, or deceit establish inducement. Id. at 441. Rather, inducement requires a showing of at least persuasion or mild coercion, United States v. Nations, 764 F.2d 1073, 1080 (5th Cir. 1985); pleas based on need, sympathy, or friendship, ibid.; or extraordinary promises of the sort "that would blind the ordinary person to his legal duties," United States v. Evans, 924 F.2d 714, 717 (7th Cir. 1991). See also United States v. Kelly, 748 F.2d 691, 698 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (inducement shown only if government's behavior was such that "a law-abiding citizen's will to obey the law could have been overborne"); United States v. Johnson, 872 F.2d 612, 620 (5th Cir. 1989) (inducement shown if government created "a substantial risk that an offense would be committed by a person other than one ready to commit it").
Even if inducement has been shown, a finding of predisposition is fatal to an entrapment defense. The predisposition inquiry focuses upon whether the defendant "was an unwary innocent or, instead, an unwary criminal who readily availed himself of the opportunity to perpetrate the crime." Mathews, 485 U.S. at 63. Thus, predisposition should not be confused with intent or mens rea: a person may have the requisite intent to commit the crime, yet be entrapped. Also, predisposition may exist even in the absence of prior criminal involvement: "the ready commission of the criminal act," such as where a defendant promptly accepts an undercover agent's offer of an opportunity to buy or sell drugs, may itself establish predisposition. Jacobson, 503 U.S. at 550.
Wow, you can Google! I’m proud of you you’re learning. Now back to the ABA, is there some sort of obligation that ABA guidelines must be followed? Can someone be prosecuted for not following the pontifications of the ABA?
The forum notes that you are unfamiliar with basic and widely-disseminated prosecutorial standards and ethics which have been known to practicing legal professionals since at least February 2008. It is the opinion of this Forum that you therefore have no standing to represent yourself before the Forum as an "expert" on the matter under review.
So you still won’t answer the question, you have posted a pontification of the ABA and somehow think that violation of it can be prosecuted. You are a fucking idiot. You also don’t represent “the board”.