The system is built upon the concept of integrity by the sworn law enforcement officials. I didn't take an oath in every hearing to tell the judge only "the truth", but I had that obligation every time I opened my mouth.
There is no question that individual federal agents -- in all agencies -- have betrayed their oaths in the manner in which they did their jobs, and manipulating the paperwork is one way that can happen. There are a dozen or more other ways it can happen as well.
But only an idiot - and I personalize that on purpose -- would argue that the non-recording policy was put in place 80 years ago by Hoover so Agents could write whatever they wanted and then testify to it in order to convict completely innocent people.
And recording has downfalls of its own. I tried a case in 2005 with a local detective as the lead investigator and he recorded an interview with the suspect. But he turned the recorder off at one point and forgot to turn it back on. No one was taking notes.
How much fun do you imagine that was for me to put 3 law enforcement officers on the stand to testify to the Defendant's statements when NONE of them had any record of anything they guy had said during the interview?

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with shipwreckedcrew

shipwreckedcrew Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @shipwreckedcrew

22 Sep
But more importantly Robert, you analysis is distorted and purposely misleading because you know better. The decision in Penn. is an outcome on the merits of a declaratory judgment action. It is not a motion for Prelim. Inj. as is the case in Chicago.
You understand the meaningful difference in the two, but you don't make that clear to the readers. In Pennyslvania the matter has been ongoing since May. The parties conducted discovery and briefed a series of orders. There was a trial by both affidavit and testimony.
With a COMPLETE FACTUAL record the District Judge was able to evaluate all the steps taken by the Penn. Gov., and his justification for doing so each step along the way. In doing so he was able to identify shortcomings and constitutional deficiencies in the procedures employed.
Read 9 tweets
22 Sep
Which theory in Chicago do you think the Panel was wrong on -- the First Amendment/Free Exercise theory, or the Selective Enforcement theory? Did the Plaintiffs argue Jacobsen?
It seems they did not:
"At this stage in the present litigation, no one is alleging that the Governor lacks the power to issue such orders as a matter of state law."
And they only challenged the order on 2 grounds.
Was the approach taken by the Plaintiffs different in Pennsylvania?
I'm guessing it was.
Thus my original claim -- bad lawyering produced the result here.
Read 4 tweets
21 Sep
Collins needs to vote "no" or "abstain" for her own survival in Maine. Her votes for Kavanaugh and against impeachment have shifted many independents in Maine against her. A third pro-Trump vote could sink her reelection.
Preservation of the GOP majority in the Senate is first and foremost on all GOP Senators minds -- they do not want to be in the minority under Chuck Schumer. Helping Collins win then is a paramount "Club" interest.
But for all but 4-5 members of the GOP Majority, getting a conservative in Ginsburg's seat is a huge victory for their base back home separate and apart for whether it helps Trump or not -- like Lindsay Graham. They could get primaried for not supporting the nominee.
Read 5 tweets
20 Sep
It is coming next week. Indictments and an interim report chronicling the actions of government officials not indicted.
This is getting a lot of traction so lets not let it linger without further exposition. My view is based on events, not inside info. Dannehy's resignation suggests Durham's probe is shifting away from investigation towards the Courtroom.
The abject panic from Dems in Congress subject to being exposed for having been behind-the-scenes participants as leakers and enablers is instructive. The idiotic letters to the IG is inexplicable unless there is a serious rumor floating around behind the scenes.
Read 5 tweets
20 Sep
The "nuclear option" to me is more accurately described as the "Reid Rule." And it's a bit misunderstood. The Senate passes "Rules" to start each session, and before Harry Reid the Senate never changed the rules mid-session. One of the rules was the "Cloture" rule.
Cloture is a process to end debate -- it is the process to close down a filibuster. It starts the clock ticking on the final hours of matter can be debated on the floor before a vote is taken. The practical effect is that it EXTENDS debate.
That is because the alternative to "cloture" was a "unanimous consent" to end debate and proceed to a vote. Dems have refused unanimous consent requests since the start of the Trump Admin., greatly slowing down the confirmation process of Exec. branch appointees and judges.
Read 9 tweets
18 Sep
Not sure I agree. Firing Wray and naming/confirming a new FBI Dir. are different. I think Trump gets mileage with the base by firing Wray. Could he replace him prior to the election? Absolutely not. If Dems control Senate after the election, who could he get confirmed?
So the question really is whether the Admin is better off with Wray at Dir. or Bowdich as Acting Director?
Wray has deep ties to many actors in the CH saga--and has a close personal connection to Sally Yates. He as Bush era contemporaries with Comey, Mueller, and several others.
He's a DOJ guy brought in and affixed to the top of the Bureau--again.
Bowdich is Agent. Albuquerque PD, San Diego FO, "drugs, guns and gangs", LA FO ADIC for CT -- they covered Pakistan. Seems to have no "politics" in his career. Never in NY, and only briefly at HQ.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!