The Irrational, Unshakable Faith of the Collusion Conspiracists

[TreeFrogTrader]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think non-profit charitable agencies and organization are required under U.S. law to disclose their donors names; i've got no clue about New York Law, but why would it be different? My guess is that the rule is similar for charitable foundations. However I note that one of your headlines mentions a "promises". You might want to check out the accuracy of that headline, but let's just assume it is accurate. Promises should be kept, don't you think? I do. By the way it is not illegal for non-U.S.-citizens to donate to U.S. founded charitable Foundations. In fact it's both welcome and encouraged. And I would guess it is common when the Foundation in question supports mostly projects abroad, as the Clinton Foundation does. But shame on them if they "promised" and then didn't. That must have been a yuge disappointment for you bigly.

Hillary was bound by a memorandum of understanding/agreement rather than a requirement of u.s. law. She did not have to sign it if she did not want to be Secretary of State but it was her way and the governments way to overcome perceived or actual conflicts of interest where her husband and her foundation were receiving foreign donations. And it enabled her to get through senate confirmations knowing that it would be a major source of questioning and a hurdle if she had no plan to address it. Naturally- as is her way- she just totally ignored it once she was confirmed. A lot of the interaction between the foundation and the state department would have been covered in the missing 35,000 emails. That's why she moved immediately to delete and bleach bit them within a few days of being ordered to preserve them.

 

[UsualName]

comey investigate turned up crimes... he just did not want to prosecute.

Yes and no.

Her infractions were as minor as could possibly be in regard to confidential material and there was no intent.

 

[jem]

she committed violations of national security laws.
comey created an intent standard which the laws themselves did not require.
his findings turned over to zealous prosecutor like Mueller would be more than enough to lock her up for a long time.

Yes and no.

Her infractions were as minor as could possibly be in regard to confidential material and there was no intent.

 

[piezoe]

comey investigate turned up crimes... he just did not want to prosecute.

jem baby, you know i agree with you. Hillary did J-walk and damned if that ain't a crime. But you've been around the block a few times and you know prosecutors don't want to waste time on cases not likely to end in a conviction. They've got better fish to fry. In the case of our buddy, Hillary C., Comey would have a hell of a time showing intent, and showing substantial damage would have been equally difficult. Your a legal Geek, so you know how difficult it is when there is no intent and no damage, and the legal trespass is not that outrageous. I mean Colin Powell did the same thing we are told, and he's our hero! So let's move on. This is Monday, Dec 4, 2017.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

well I wanted to know if you were correct about probable cause.

apparently the standard is much lower...


http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...mueller-might-already-have-trumps-tax-returns
First, the prosecutor has to show "there is reasonable cause to believe" that a specific criminal act has been committed. That's where the recent news of the Manafort search warrant comes in. We know that Mueller had enough evidence to establish "reasonable cause" that a crime was committed because he got a search warrant.

Mueller would also have to establish that he could not "reasonably" obtain the tax return from another source, like the person's accountant. Generally speaking, that is an easy thing for a prosecutor to prove. If they can't prove that, it means they will just get the tax return elsewhere.

Finally, Mueller would have to establish that "there is reasonable cause to believe" the return "may be relevant" to his investigation. That is a very low bar, much lower than what Mueller had to establish to obtain a search warrant for Manafort's home. To obtain the search warrant, Mueller had to establish that there was probable cause to believe there was specific evidence of a crime at a specific location — Manafort's home.

All that he has to show is that the tax return might help him in his investigation. That means that even the tax return of someone other than Manafort would be helpful to Mueller as he conduct his investigation. At this point, we don't know what other evidence Mueller has and exactly whom he is focusing his investigation upon. But given that all he has to show is that the tax return "may be relevant" to his investigation, which has a very broad mandate, he could have tax return information for many individuals.

It is more than I want to get into in posts and I don't disagree with what you said but I do want to add that a prosecutor may get an indictment by showing certain reasonable/probable cause evidence and upon getting that indictment the prosecutor is empowered with more subpoena and warrant powers.

HOWEVER, all of this is often a chain of events where prosecutors acquire certain info and then use that as a basis for further search warrants BUT EVERYTHING IN THAT CHAIN MUST BE LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL OR THE WHOLE THING COLLAPSES LIKE A HOUSE OF CARDS. What I am getting at is that- yes- Mueller got an indictment and a warrant from a regular Article 3 court and raided mannafort's home. BUT WHERE DID HE GET THE INFO THAT HE PRESENTED TO GRAND JURY TO JUSTIFY THE INDICTMENT? WHAT SET THAT IN MOTION?
Well, there are people along with me- let's just call them the House Intelligence Committee- believe or want to know whether he was illegally surveilled under a FISA warrant and then the products of that surveillance were used as evidence to present to grand jury for an indictment. If that should turn out to be the case then the entire chain of evidence becomes inadmissible.

It would also mean that someone like Flynn was forced to plead to a charge which he might have been able to beat if he were able to hold on see the information that has been subpoenaed from the FBI and the house. Mueller and the FBI have lots of power. I am not going to argue against that but there are also some real shaky areas that they are trying their damnest to conceal. We shall see.

 

[jem]

I was wondering if conservative politicians should not sign their taxes since we know US Attorneys cane easily get the returns. And we know the IRS targets conservatives.

One mistake on your taxes and you could get destroyed.

It turns out that there may be times taking the fifth might work if you read between the lines and see the sup ct refuses to hear this issue.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/robert...-self-incrimination-rules-court/#473203df3056


In the recent case of Lee v. United States, Theodore Lee argued that he couldn't file his 2006 tax return because it would incriminate him. After all, he claimed, when his tax return was due, he was deep in an audit with the IRS over returns he had filed for 1999 through 2005. What's more, he was fearful that the IRS would prosecute him. So he took the Fifth. The court had an easy time with his argument, and rejected the claim. The Fifth Amendment does grant a privilege against self-incrimination. However, that doesn't mean you can just refuse to file taxes.

The mere act of filing an annual income tax return has little real and appreciable tendency to incriminate the filer, said the court. In fact, merely invoking the Fifth in a tax case can invite penalties or get the IRS looking more harshly at you. Let’s start with tax returns themselves. You have to file them and you have to report your income. Way back in 1927, the Supreme Court considered a man who refused to file a tax return, claiming that to do so would incriminate him. InU.S. v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court said that it was too bad if disclosing illegal income opened him up to prosecution.

Even a criminal must file tax returns and pay taxes. And you have to do it accurately. What if the IRS asks you questions you are afraid to answer? Answering IRS questions in an audit or investigation can be nerve-wracking. Do not speak up without your lawyer present, and ask your lawyer what to is fair to discuss. But claimingFifth Amendment protection in taxes cases can be a mistake. The issue can also come up with books and records. You have to keep them to fulfill your tax filing obligations. You even have to keep bank account records for accounts outside the U.S. Undisclosed offshore bank accounts can qualify as money laundering.





So, if the IRS asks you if you have any foreign bank accounts, can you take the Fifth? You can, but it probably won’t help. Even if you claim the Fifth, the IRS can hand you an “information document request” to produce your records. If you refuse, the IRS will issue a summons. Then, if you refuse to answer that, the IRS will take you to court, which will probably order you to comply. But, doesn’t your constitutional right to take the Fifth trump the IRS? After all, even in court, you can say, “I refuse to answer on the grounds that I may incriminate myself.”

Does this work with taxes and the IRS? Not always. Ironically, you can refuse totalk, but youcannotrefuse to produce most documents. Your own private papers are personal records. If they might incriminate you, they are protected by the Fifth Amendment. But the Required Records doctrine says you musthand over some documents no matter how incriminating they are. The government requires you to keep certain records, and the government has a right to inspect them. The IRS and prosecutors have exploited this rule.


It can mean that pleading the Fifth in response to a subpoena for foreign account records can cause even more trouble than claiming it on your tax returns. Required records are those where the reporting has a regulatory purpose, where a person must customarily keep the records the record-keeping scheme requires him to keep, and the records have public aspects. In the case of foreign bank records, the courts uniformly deny Fifth Amendment protection. Numerous courts haveallgiven the IRS a free pass, ruling that no Fifth Amendment protection applies.

Despite repeated requests, the U.S. Supreme Court has been unwilling to hear this issue. So, is it likely that the Fifth Amendment will be much help on your taxes? Not really. In most cases, a tax audit is civil and there is little risk that it will become otherwise. Still, a majority of criminal tax cases come directly out of civil tax cases. The IRS civil auditors ‘refer’ a case to the IRS Criminal Investigation Division. The IRS civil auditor will not tell you this is occurring, so the first time you hear about it, your case may have gone from bad to worse.

 

[piezoe]

well I wanted to know if you were correct about probable cause.

apparently the standard is much lower...


http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...mueller-might-already-have-trumps-tax-returns
First, the prosecutor has to show "there is reasonable cause to believe" that a specific criminal act has been committed. That's where the recent news of the Manafort search warrant comes in. We know that Mueller had enough evidence to establish "reasonable cause" that a crime was committed because he got a search warrant.

Mueller would also have to establish that he could not "reasonably" obtain the tax return from another source, like the person's accountant. Generally speaking, that is an easy thing for a prosecutor to prove. If they can't prove that, it means they will just get the tax return elsewhere.

Finally, Mueller would have to establish that "there is reasonable cause to believe" the return "may be relevant" to his investigation. That is a very low bar, much lower than what Mueller had to establish to obtain a search warrant for Manafort's home. To obtain the search warrant, Mueller had to establish that there was probable cause to believe there was specific evidence of a crime at a specific location — Manafort's home.

All that he has to show is that the tax return might help him in his investigation. That means that even the tax return of someone other than Manafort would be helpful to Mueller as he conduct his investigation. At this point, we don't know what other evidence Mueller has and exactly whom he is focusing his investigation upon. But given that all he has to show is that the tax return "may be relevant" to his investigation, which has a very broad mandate, he could have tax return information for many individuals.

Not only do I Like It!, I really really like it!!! thanks for,posting this!

 

[jem]

I was focusing on the standard for getting tax returns.
I have always felt that forcing Americans to sign their tax returns violates your rights.
its seems like slavery and a fifth amendment violation all rolled up into one juicy treat.

Now, I work for myself and have tons of writes offs. My wife wife works for a hospital and have virtually none.... so I don't have any reason to take a stand.

But, involved in complicated international business... man I would hesitate to sign my return if I thought the IRS or the US attorney had a reason to target me.

It is more than I want to get into in posts and I don't disagree with what you said but I do want to add that a prosecutor may get an indictment by showing certain reasonable/probable cause evidence and upon getting that indictment the prosecutor is empowered with more subpoena and warrant powers.

HOWEVER, all of this is often a chain of events where prosecutors acquire certain info and then use that as a basis for further search warrants BUT EVERYTHING IN THAT CHAIN MUST BE LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL OR THE WHOLE THING COLLAPSES LIKE A HOUSE OF CARDS. What I am getting at is that- yes- Mueller got an indictment and a warrant from a regular Article 3 court and raided mannafort's home. BUT WHERE DID HE GET THE INFO THAT HE PRESENTED TO GRAND JURY TO JUSTIFY THE INDICTMENT? WHAT SET THAT IN MOTION?
Well, there are people along with me- let's just call them the House Intelligence Committee- believe or want to know whether he was illegally surveilled under a FISA warrant and then the products of that surveillance were used as evidence to present to grand jury for an indictment. If that should turn out to be the case then the entire chain of evidence becomes inadmissible.

It would also mean that someone like Flynn was forced to plead to a charge which he might have been able to beat if he were able to hold on see the information that has been subpoenaed from the FBI and the house. Mueller and the FBI have lots of power. I am not going to argue against that but there are also some real shaky areas that they are trying their damnest to conceal. We shall see.

 

[jem]

you all don't seem to understand the difference between intent and recklessness.
recklessness can involve conduct which does not require intent.
Some national security laws are purposely written to remove the need for a prosecutor to show intent.

As a non lawyer, non criminal there is no reason for you to understand those differences.

But if you are going to engage in discussion regarding criminal statutes and matters of jurisprudence.

Please educate yourself.
Its getting tiring always correctly you..
I know you are a bright guy. Its not hard. just spend a few minutes getting your arguments down before you make legal arguments.

jem baby, you know i agree with you. Hillary did J-walk and damned if that ain't a crime. But you've been around the block a few times and you know prosecutors don't want to waste time on cases not likely to end in a conviction. They've got better fish to fry. In the case of our buddy, Hillary C., Comey would have a hell of a time showing intent, and showing substantial damage would have been equally difficult. Your a legal Geek, so you know how difficult it is when there is no intent and no damage, and the legal trespass is not that outrageous. I mean Colin Powell did the same thing we are told, and he's our hero! So let's move on. This is Monday, Dec 4, 2017.

 

[piezoe]

A lot of the interaction between the foundation and the state department would have been covered in the missing 35,000 emails.

You're cheating again. You obviously are on a first name basis with Oscar Meyer Weener's wife, or you wouldn't know this, you clever devil , you.