IG Report: Contemporaneous Utterances Required To Prove Intent

 

“So, Mr. Horrorwitz,” I continued on cross-examination, “is the DOJ saying that the defendant must say something at the time he or she is committing the crime in order to prove the defendant’s intent?”

“Yes. That has been the DOJ standard since January 2009,” the IG said. “First applied in the investigation of the New Black Panthers voter intimidation case.”

“But the Panthers stood outside a voting precinct in Philadelphia in 2008 dressed in black military-type garb, brandishing billy clubs to intimidate white voters.”

“You can’t assume their intent merely by observing their actions,” the IG said.

“Says who?” I asked.

“Says Eric ‘The Red’ Holder, the Attorney General at the time.”

“What about the legal principle in criminal law that a person is assumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of his acts?” I said.

“AG ‘Red’ Holder said that standard was a vestige of white privilege, like much of the law of our despicable, cowardly country, citizens of which will not even discuss race.”

“That’s all we talked about from 2008 to 2016,” I said.

“Objection,” Assistant AG Hot Rod Rosenstein said from the gallery. “And, DOJ moves to dismiss the federal murder convictions and death penalty sentence against Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan for lack of proof of intent.”

“He yelled Allahu Akbar as he killed 13 and wounded 32 others!” I said.

“That is a statement of religious praise,” Hot Rod said with a sneer, “he did not say ‘I intend to murder you’ as he shot those people.”

Ad hoc trial judge Ruth “Baader Meinhof” Ginsburg, on loan from the U.S. Supreme Court, woke up in time to sustain Hot Rod’s objection.

“Judge Ginsburg,” I said, exasperated, “there has been testimony in the case at bar that the defendant bashed in the head of his wife’s lover with a sledgehammer, and stood over the victim afterward and said, “You deserved it, you bastard.”

“But at the time he converted the victim’s brain into Hamburger Helper, he did not say ‘I intend to kill you,’” Hot Rod said. “There’s no proof of intent at the time he was swinging the sledgehammer.”

“That’s correct your honor,” Horrorwitz said. “Just as in my recent report on the DOJ and FBI’s conduct in the Clinton investigation, where we found no evidence that the investigators intended to exonerate HRC and get Trump because none of them said contemporaneously with their actions that they were out to get Trump or cover up for HRC.”

“But in their texts and emails, they said they hated Trump and wanted HRC to win.”

“Not at the exact time they were doing each investigative act,” Horrorwitz said. “And there is no evidence that HRC said ‘I intend to destroy this evidence’ as she took BleachBit and a hammer to her 27 electronic devices. We just don’t know what was in her mind during her backswing and her follow through.”

“Motion to strike,” I said, and noticed that Judge Ginsburg was asleep again.

There are 12 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    It’s hard to do satire these days. They just see it as a challenge to find ways to exceed it.

    • #1
  2. WillowSpring Member
    WillowSpring
    @WillowSpring

    Nailed It!

    • #2
  3. Judge Mental Member
    Judge Mental
    @JudgeMental

    Arahant (View Comment):

    It’s hard to do satire these days. They just see it as a challenge to find ways to exceed it.

    Beat me to the punch.  If you want to do satire on this mess, you have to go way farther than that.

    • #3
  4. CarolJoy Coolidge
    CarolJoy
    @CarolJoy

    Across the nation that sound you can’t hear is that of  armed robbers  who are deaf mutes squeaking out their approval of   Mr Horrorwitz’s statements.

    • #4
  5. James Gawron Thatcher
    James Gawron
    @JamesGawron

    Michael,

    I ask you Michael but was it really an intentional intent or just the ordinary run of the mill intent? Also, was he leaning on his right side or his left as he did the act that may or may not be intended? Which way was the wind blowing when he did the possibly intended act? Could climate change be part of the answer?

    Felonious Pettifogger, Attorney at Law & Slightly Used Automobile Salesman

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #5
  6. Ontheleftcoast Member
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    If you’re on the Trump team or any non-protected group outside The (Intrinsically Virtuous) Resistance, contemporaneous utterances are superfluous. Sentence in the media first, trial later.

    • #6
  7. toggle Member
    toggle
    @toggle

    MichaelHenry:

    “Yes. That has been the DOJ standard since January 2009,”

    They do have the Master paradigm down pat. This includes using their masterdom abusively and arbitrarily to make sure we don’t forget who’s who.

    • #7
  8. CarolJoy Coolidge
    CarolJoy
    @CarolJoy

    toggle (View Comment):

    MichaelHenry:

    “Yes. That has been the DOJ standard since January 2009,”

    They do have the Master paradigm down pat. This includes using their masterdom abusively and arbitrarily to make sure we don’t forget who’s who.

    I keep asking myself why I can’t get it right… For years, as a young adult I was a “closet liberal” as bosses were Republicans. Then I finally become a Republican and I have to remain in the closet as now Calif “polite society” is all over the top progressive. .

    I am so sick of the closet I might go bonkers and declare myself gay and then I’d have to come out!

    • #8
  9. Whistle Pig Member
    Whistle Pig
    @

    Arahant (View Comment):

    It’s hard to do satire these days. They just see it as a challenge to find ways to exceed it.

    I expect to see a story one of these days that the Onion has gone out of business as it can’t complete with the government anymore.  I just hope the headline is in the Onion.

    • #9
  10. Randy Webster Member
    Randy Webster
    @RandyWebster

    James Gawron (View Comment):
    I ask you Michael but was it really an intentional intent or just the ordinary run of the mill intent?

    Is that like Whoopi Goldberg’s “It wasn’t really rape rape,” in regard to Roman Polanski?

    • #10
  11. James Gawron Thatcher
    James Gawron
    @JamesGawron

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    James Gawron (View Comment):
    I ask you Michael but was it really an intentional intent or just the ordinary run of the mill intent?

    Is that like Whoopi Goldberg’s “It wasn’t really rape rape,” in regard to Roman Polanski?

    Randy,

    Why, now that you mention it, yes very similar. Actually, Roman Polanski has asked me to join his legal team. I’d be honored. Well, assuming he gives me my exorbitant retainer.

    Felonious Pettifogger, Attorney at Law & Slightly Used Automobile Salesman

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #11
  12. PHCheese Member
    PHCheese
    @PHCheese

    The night is day and the day is night. This country needs an  enema to get rid of the left.

    • #12

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.