A warrant will reduce the likelihood of suppression of evidence later. In this case its likely to be a battle for each and every step. If the Clinton Foundation can be tied into illegal activity, a monumental seizure could be in play. In any event the Clinton attorneys will make the O.J. legal bill laughable.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
The spousal privilege question is interesting. I’m no expert, but I believe it applies only to testimony per se, and not something like reporting or handing over physical evidence. If my wife found a chopped up body in our freezer, reported it to the police, and let them in to seize the evidence, I don’t believe that would be a violation. What she couldn’t do would be testify in court that I came home one night covered in blood and said, “I killed that bastard.”

I would be interested, though, in real legal opinions.

The privileges can be more complicated but that's the essence of it.

There are two kinds:
Spousal testimonial privilege, barring testimony against a spouse in a criminal trial, and
Marital communications privilege, barring testimony about confidential communications between spouses.

Neither is absolute. One can waive theprivilege, and there are a number of exceptions.

Great commercial!

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
A 208 year old quote seems fitting.

"Oh, what a tangled web we weave..."

Looking for signs of an even older quote (dating to the play Antigone) - "Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad"

Checking in next week for signs of speaking in tongues or general foaming at the mouth..

quote:

Originally posted by indigoss:
A warrant will reduce the likelihood of suppression of evidence later. In this case its likely to be a battle for each and every step. If the Clinton Foundation can be tied into illegal activity, a monumental seizure could be in play. In any event the Clinton attorneys will make the O.J. legal bill laughable.

The Clintons can afford what I've always referred to as the "Kenny Stabler approach," just don't let the clock run out. Maybe something good will happen.

I can't tell you how many times I watched that black and silver bastard starting in about the 4th quarter, run up and down the field, fumbling, stumbling, passing, scrambling, from as much as a 28 point deficit to winning the game.

I watched this Holy Roller in person.




Link to original video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGffYc5eXnA

It will be interesting to see if the FBI goes after Huma for classified info on a non-secure device / network (if in fact they find such on that laptop), when they just let HRC skate.

Such is the dilemma Comey created by excusing the many crimes HRC committed.

Showtime has been running the Weiner movie.
Love the timing, Huma and Hillary are now probably regreting the decision to make that movie.

Question: Given they are still working out legal access, and there are tens of thousands of emails, isn't it likely we will hear nothing more about email details over the next 8 days ??

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
Question: Given they are still working out legal access, and there are tens of thousands of emails, isn't it likely we will hear nothing more about email details over the next 8 days ??

All it takes is one e-mail with the right content...

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
Question: Given they are still working out legal access, and there are tens of thousands of emails, isn't it likely we will hear nothing more about email details over the next 8 days ??

That seems to be the consensus. We won't hear anything about what's in the emails for at least weeks, probably months.

I'm wondering though if Comey may actually give a statement sometime next week.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
What she couldn’t do would be testify in court that I came home one night covered in blood and said, “I killed that bastard.”

She could if she wanted to. She just can't be compelled to do so. Think how every domestic violence case that makes it to court would play out if it were otherwise.

As for testimony, that'll depend on the relevant body of law (of course), but there's always an argument to be made that providing evidence "is basically like" testimony, especially if the evidence can only be admitted with supporting testimony.

This whole event needs a catchy 'gate'..."Travel-gate" is already taken...

How about "Weiner-gate"...

"Huma-gate" (rhymes with "fumigate")...

"Lying Corrupt Evil Piece Of Shit Harpy-gate" has a nice ring to it (but may be to much for mixed company especially around the 'chirren)

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
What she couldn’t do would be testify in court that I came home one night covered in blood and said, “I killed that bastard.”

She could if she wanted to. She just can't be compelled to do so. Think how every domestic violence case that makes it to court would play out if it were otherwise.

As for testimony, that'll depend on the relevant body of law (of course), but there's always an argument to be made that providing evidence "is basically like" testimony, especially if the evidence can only be admitted with supporting testimony.

Domestic violence is an exception. The privilege belongs to the defendant to prevent the spouse from testifying to confidential communications. The defendant/accused can waive it, but it's not up to the spouse.

I know there are exceptions to the spousal privilege, but at least long ago “Because she wants to talk” wasn’t a general reason for an exception.

The fundamental basis of the spousal privilege was to protect the “institution” of marriage. That depends in part on spouses’ being able to share any secret with each other in the confident belief that it won’t be disclosed. If we believed that we couldn’t do that, it would have a corrosive effect on marriages in general. And it’s important to understand that the privilege doesn’t (didn’t, anyway) rely on what my spouse wants; it’s what I want: To not be compromised by something I told the one person that I was supposed to be able to freely confide in.

Now, of course, someone will immediately point out all the reasons not to share secrets with his/her spouse, and like many legal principles the idea includes some fictions, but that’s the idea. Further, as pointed out, there are exceptions to the privilege such as when the spouse is a victim of a crime. The spousal privilege also applies only to court testimony. There’s nothing to keep a spouse from blabbing our secrets everywhere else.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
The spousal privilege question is interesting. I’m no expert, but I believe it applies only to testimony per se, and not something like reporting or handing over physical evidence. If my wife found a chopped up body in our freezer, reported it to the police, and let them in to seize the evidence, I don’t believe that would be a violation. What she couldn’t do would be testify in court that I came home one night covered in blood and said, “I killed that bastard.”

I would be interested, though, in real legal opinions.

Is it that your wife couldn't do that, or that she couldn't be compelled to do that?

IANAL, but I thought spousal privilege meant that one could not be compelled to testify against their spouse, not that they couldn't testify against their spouses. Almost like an extension of the fifth - "you can't make me incriminate myself and you can't make me incriminate my spouse."

If an individual couldn't testify against their spouse, I would think that would make prosecuting Domestic Violence cases really tough...

That being said, IANAL and I don't know.

quote:

"Lying Corrupt Evil Piece Of Shit Harpy-gate"

This one.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
The spousal privilege also applies only to court testimony. There’s nothing to keep a spouse from blabbing our secrets everywhere else.

Yes, but then it is likely inadmissible hearsay. Of course, there are exceptions to that, too.

quote:

Originally posted by slosig:
If an individual couldn't testify against their spouse, I would think that would make prosecuting Domestic Violence cases really tough...

Yes, and that’s been addressed here several times (RTT).

But except for things like being the victim of a crime, the spousal privilege is indeed designed to protect the defendant. I can object to my wife’s testifying to something like my statement that I killed someone despite what she wants to do. If my angry wife could reveal our marriage secrets whenever she wanted, the concept of marriage confidentiality would be meaningless.

Added: The “priest/penitent” privilege isn’t observed quite as much as the spousal privilege, especially these days, but the principle is the same. If I confess a murder* to my priest and he is later compelled to testify as to what I told him, what does that do to the idea that religious confessions are confidential and between me and him and a deity? Would other people bare their souls to the extent that they’re expected to? The idea that one should be able to tell a cleric anything to obtain absolution and without its being repeated outside the confessional is a fundamental religious belief of many people.

* A statement “against self-interest” such as a confession to a crime is a common exception to the hearsay rule. The basis for the exception is that it’s reasonable to believe that people don’t lie when incriminating themselves.

quote:

Originally posted by slosig:

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
The spousal privilege question is interesting. I’m no expert, but I believe it applies only to testimony per se, and not something like reporting or handing over physical evidence. If my wife found a chopped up body in our freezer, reported it to the police, and let them in to seize the evidence, I don’t believe that would be a violation. What she couldn’t do would be testify in court that I came home one night covered in blood and said, “I killed that bastard.”

I would be interested, though, in real legal opinions.

Is it that your wife couldn't do that, or that she couldn't be compelled to do that?

IANAL, but I thought spousal privilege meant that one could not be compelled to testify against their spouse, not that they couldn't testify against their spouses. Almost like an extension of the fifth - "you can't make me incriminate myself and you can't make me incriminate my spouse."

If an individual couldn't testify against their spouse, I would think that would make prosecuting Domestic Violence cases really tough...

That being said, IANAL and I don't know.

Read my responses above and you will know more.

It would be icing on the cake if they found that some of them were forwarded out of the country.