Lots of ways in which "I hope" can convey a threat. "Nice store you have here. I hope nobody burns it down."https://twitter.com/danepps/status/872828838409113600 …
-
Amazing—
@adamliptak found an example of obstruction of justice based on “I hope”!https://twitter.com/adamliptak/status/872835418194157568 …
Here's another: 5th Circuit affirms obstruction of justice conviction based in part on "I'm just hoping" comment (US v. Bedoy, 827 F.3d 495)pic.twitter.com/9SFPT5MTkC
-
-
Picture your boss beginning any sentence with "I hope..." you do x. Do you do it? I thought so.
#itwasadirective -
The power differential matters: it's the basis of sexual harassment law, statutory rape law, also child sexual abuse. Intimidation IMPLIED.
-
Exactly, I was remarking how similar it was during the hearing. It's the imbalance of power that creates the coercion, not the language.
-
I'm sure that Mueller's lawyers have access to plenty of Fed court cases sighting that factor.
- 他1件の返信
新しい会話 -
-
-
The "just...don't" at the end changes it in this example
-
Judge Prado also mentions "I'm just hoping" sentence in factual background section (w/o "just don't"). Signal that it's not a throwaway linepic.twitter.com/Vl1tMqaUfx
会話の終了
新しい会話 -
-
Are we tweeting that at senators? Lordy I hope so.
#ComeyDay今後は興味のあるツイートがもっと表示されるようになります。 取り消す -
-
Ha. "in part". Both examples are accompanied by explicit statements. "just don't" and don't say anything about knife. So not based on hope
-
Yes, in part. Like, could be part "hoping," part "fired if you don't," part "stay strong" message to witness. That's what in part means.
-
hope part is irrelevant due to the directive in the cited cases. Those cases werent brought based on "hope" which would have to be case here
-
Going out on a limb and guessing you are not a lawyer.
-
Don't you know? Every Trump apologist becomes Clarence fucking Darrow when it comes to defending allegations of executive abuses of power.
-
I didn't vote for trump. Don't care what happens to him. Those cases were based on more than "hope" and don't prove the authors point
-
They do prove the author's point which is that "hope" can be relevant and admissible evidence to support an obstruction finding.
会話の終了
新しい会話 -
-
Best part is that if we can find/know this, Mueller DEFINITELY does
今後は興味のあるツイートがもっと表示されるようになります。 取り消す -
Let's hear it for legal research, another useful law school course.
今後は興味のあるツイートがもっと表示されるようになります。 取り消す -
-
That case was about a cop shaking down a witness who was a prostitute. While I think Comey is a political whore, facts are completely inapt.
-
Also in that case the cop wanted to learn whether he was being investigated.Trump already knew he wasn't, so the "intent" doesn't work here.
会話の終了
新しい会話 -
-
Not the same sorry folks.
今後は興味のあるツイートがもっと表示されるようになります。 取り消す
読み込みに時間がかかっているようです。
Twitterの処理能力の限界を超えているか、一時的な不具合が発生しています。やりなおすか、Twitterステータスで詳細をご確認ください。