Pecker Problems (Mueller+ Investigation Thread v. 21)

[Fawlty]

oh sweetie

 

[Rational Poster]

And I think this is the problem.

the reply to Trump should not be to laugh and ignore him.

This should be brought to a head. Either he is right and maintains the confidence of the people and all the DoJ and other "corrupt" institutions should get cleaned out. Or he is wrong and does not have the confidence of the people and he should be removed. What should not happen is to just ignore him.

For example answer these question if this was anyone but Trump:

1 : A new Sheriff is sworn in and within a year claims he has found his entire department to be rife with corruption

2 : A new head Prosecutor is hired and within a year says he has found corruption in all the prosecutors working within his office

3 : A new Attorney General is sworn in and says within a year he has found systemic corruption at all levels through out the DoJ

Is there any case here where you or anyone would just suggest keep trucking along and the status quo should remain and we should just ignore the boss OR is that something we only say when its the POTUS making those accusations?

Trump only thinks they're corrupt because they're looking into his crimes.

 

[MikeMcMann]

The POTUS does not head the judicial branch, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court does. The President appoints judges but he does not control them, and cannot fire them. What you're describing, where a president could step in and take over the courts, is hellhole stuff that is rejected by America.

So if this was a President that was beloved saying his DoJ was corrupt you would be arguing he should have no powers to make changes because of separation of powers? I am lost by your arguments here which seem to counter the Check and Balance powers the system is supposed to have.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Trump only thinks they're corrupt because they're looking into his crimes.

I agree.

But that misses the point. Trump or any future POTUS should not be able to accuse the entire judiciary of corruption down to the deep state level without causing an instant crisis that should either DEMAND the Congress and Senate immediately start investigations to either substantiate his claims and clean them up or find against his claims and thus by default make a statement of a Lack of Confidence in the POTUS which should see him removed.

Again if I am a criminal in that system right now or a foreign country with adverse interests being accused of anything by the Institutions of the US I would not even waste a word in defense and instead would solely point at their lack of credibility. The very words gifted to them by the POTUS.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

Trump only thinks they're corrupt because they're looking into his crimes.

He knows all about flipping, he's seen flippers for forty years.

 

[ScottE]

So if this was a President that was beloved saying his DoJ was corrupt you would be arguing he should have no powers to make changes because of separation of powers? I am lost by your arguments here which seem to counter the Check and Balance powers the system is supposed to have.

Do you think the DoJ is part of the judiciary branch of the US Government? It's not. And neither is the President. The DoJ does not involve judges in the way you're implying either.

You seem to have a severe misunderstanding as to what the different branches of government are, who's apart of what, and what their powers are.

 

[Fawlty]

So if this was a President that was beloved saying his DoJ was corrupt you would be arguing he should have no powers to make changes because of separation of powers? I am lost by your arguments here which seem to counter the Check and Balance powers the system is supposed to have.

A president just red-assed decreeing "corruption" and upending a coequal branch of government is not 'checks and balances.'

 

[MikeMcMann]

Do you think the DoJ is part of the judiciary branch of the US Government? It's not. And neither is the President. The DoJ does not involve judges in the way you're implying either.

You seem to have a severe misunderstanding as to what the different branches of government are, who's apart of what, and what their powers are.

I simply do not think you understand what my arguments are.

If the POTUS as the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the US says ANY of the departments within the judiciary in the US are rife with corruption that should IMMEDIATELY create a crisis of confidence. At a minimum the Senate and Congress should be acting on it to either support the Presidents position or they find against him which establishes a lack of confidence in the POTUS and thus his needed removal.

What should not happen is that the comments simply stand that the Institutions are rife with corruption and incompetence.

His statements should NECESSITATE some action being taken IMMEDIATELY.

Is there any other instance where you would support this as per my examples above:

---------

For example answer these question if this was anyone but Trump:

1 : A new Sheriff is sworn in and within a year claims he has found his entire department to be rife with corruption

2 : A new head Prosecutor is hired and within a year says he has found corruption in all the prosecutors working within his office

3 : A new Attorney General is sworn in and says within a year he has found systemic corruption at all levels through out the DoJ

Is there any case here where you or anyone would just suggest keep trucking along and the status quo should remain and we should just ignore the boss OR is that something we only say when its the POTUS making those accusations?

 

[MikeMcMann]

A president just red-assed decreeing "corruption" and upending a coequal branch of government is not 'checks and balances.'

It should be.

And I am not saying he should have the power to unilateral act and wipe out other departments. I am saying it should instantly trigger those who do have the power to investigate and potentially shut down corrupt departments to act and to determine if they agree or not. Either a finding that the POTUS is correct and changes should be made happens or they fkind against him and in so doing show a lack of confidence in the POTUS that requires change.

The issue is here that there seems to be this thought that such comments by the POTUS are inconsequential. They are not. They should be immediately actionable.

 

[Fawlty]

It should be.

And I am not saying he should have the power to unilateral act and wipe out other departments. I am saying it should instantly trigger those who do have the power to investigate and potentially shut down corrupt departments to act and to determine if they agree or not. Either a finding that the POTUS is correct and changes should be made happens or they fkind against him and in so doing show a lack of confidence in the POTUS that requires change.

The issue is here that there seems to be this thought that such comments by the POTUS are inconsequential. They are not. They should be immediately actionable.

This is a hopeless conversation, and I have given up on you as a human being.

 

[ScottE]

His repeated comments illicit no response because they, like everything he asserts, are entirely unsubstantiated. That he is the President doesn't change that.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

His repeated comments illicit no response because they, like everything he asserts, are entirely unsubstantiated. That he is the President doesn't change that.

*elicit

 

[MikeMcMann]

This is a hopeless conversation, and I have given up on you as a human being.

If this was any other POTUS in history would you say no action should be taken? I think not.

His repeated comments illicit no response because they, like everything he asserts, are entirely unsubstantiated. That he is the President doesn't change that.

It should.

I will ask you the question I asked prior which is if you would simply say the Sheriff or the head Prosecutor or New AG should all just be ignored because them being boss does not mean what they assert is true or if you think such comments should immediate trigger complete investigations and either a finding that the new boss is correct or that new bosses removal if not.


---------

For example answer these question if this was anyone but Trump:

1 : A new Sheriff is sworn in and within a year claims he has found his entire department to be rife with corruption

2 : A new head Prosecutor is hired and within a year says he has found corruption in all the prosecutors working within his office

3 : A new Attorney General is sworn in and says within a year he has found systemic corruption at all levels through out the DoJ

Is there any case here where you or anyone would just suggest keep trucking along and the status quo should remain and we should just ignore the boss OR is that something we only say when its the POTUS making those accusations?

 

[Andy Capp]

You need to roll again to confirm the crit what kind of nerd are you even

Also +5 has bad synergy with vorpal

I'm DM, I can do whatever the fuck I want. Bam, festering genital warts.
I draw my magic wand of plentitude and your (Edit, wrong name:Nunes's) head is now a giant penis. I ain't rollin' no dice.

 

[ScottE]

For example answer these question if this was anyone but Trump:

1 : A new Sheriff is sworn in and within a year claims he has found his entire department to be rife with corruption

2 : A new head Prosecutor is hired and within a year says he has found corruption in all the prosecutors working within his office

3 : A new Attorney General is sworn in and says within a year he has found systemic corruption at all levels through out the DoJ

Is there any case here where you or anyone would just suggest keep trucking along and the status quo should remain and we should just ignore the boss OR is that something we only say when its the POTUS making those accusations?

Let's humor this.

1-3. By found you mean has actual evidence? Not just this new "sheriff/prosecutor/AG" yelling corruption into the sky right? If the "sheriff/prosecutor/AG" were to have actual evidence of corruption into his department odds are he's going to be able to fire/have those people arrested with minimal blow back, because again he has evidence to support his position.

Which is exactly what Trump lacks, his basis for screaming corruption is that his dealings are what are being investigated, not any actual factual basis. No President would be face value believed if they were, with no evidence to support their position, accusing the DoJ of mass corruption. Especially not if they were currently being investigated by the DoJ. Though I'd imagine no President would be dumb enough to make that statement with no basis except for Trump since that's his thing.

Trump could start firing people with in the DoJ tomorrow get new appointees in there that will purge the ranks. The only reason he doesn't do this is because he knows that even this Congress would be very likely to pushback in a major way, nevermind other political repercussions. If Trump could actually support his claims then he wouldn't have this issue, but he can't.

You keep bringing up investigations tainted or convictions overturned in instances where prosecutorial or law enforcement department misconduct or corruption are found, but by found you mean actually proven with evidence. Not just shouted at the sky which is what we have here.

 

[curryjunkie]

John Fugelsang‏Verified account @JohnFugelsang Aug 24
Trump is lashing out like a guy who just realized that orange really doesn't go well with orange.

 

[Quipling]

1. Wrong. Official gov't statements are not hearsay. No written official statements are. They are admissible as evidence just as other 'writings' are.

2 . Disagree. Those attributes are automatically conferred with the position. However you can prove otherwise and lose that confidence and faith.

3. you are factually wrong with regards to history. Many cases simply get dismissed BECAUSE the prosecutor or cops were found to be corrupt.

1. Nope. Its not clear, but I suspect that you're relying on either fre 803(8), the public record exception to hearsay, which is facially inapplicable, since it deals with records, not statements, or fre 902(5), which is inapplicable because it deals with authentication, not admisibility.

2. Lol, no. Credibility is not "automatically conferred" with the presidency.

3. I'm familiar with the applicable caselaw. Your application is wrong. An assertion of general corruption is insufficient. There are cases that have been tossed or vacated because of misconduct. But there was specific misconduct identified, and the defendants showed how it affected their case.

They couldn't just show, for example, that the Detroit police were corrupt and get out of prison. They had to show, for example, that the police officers hid evidence in their case (the misconduct), and that evidence would have proven that someone else did the crime instead (how it affected their case).

 

[MikeMcMann]

Let's humor this.

1-3. By found you mean has actual evidence? Not just this new "sheriff/prosecutor/AG" yelling corruption into the sky right? If the "sheriff/prosecutor/AG" were to have actual evidence of corruption into his department odds are he's going to be able to fire/have those people arrested with minimal blow back, because again he has evidence to support his position.

Which is exactly what Trump lacks, his basis for screaming corruption is that his dealings are what are being investigated, not any actual factual basis. No President would be face value believed if they were, with no evidence to support their position, accusing the DoJ of mass corruption. Especially not if they were currently being investigated by the DoJ. Though I'd imagine no President would be dumb enough to make that statement with no basis except for Trump since that's his thing.

Trump could start firing people with in the DoJ tomorrow get new appointees in there that will purge the ranks. The only reason he doesn't do this is because he knows that even this Congress would be very likely to pushback in a major way, nevermind other political repercussions. If Trump could actually support his claims then he wouldn't have this issue, but he can't.

You keep bringing up investigations tainted or convictions overturned in instances where prosecutorial or law enforcement department misconduct or corruption are found, but by found you mean actually proven with evidence. Not just shouted at the sky which is what we have here.

Sorry but if the new bosses make the allegations it should be serious enough that the powers that be should deal with it immediately.

This idea that the new Sheriff or Prosecutor or AG can simply stay on and not offer evidence (as Trump is not doing) and that it can just continue as business as usual within those departments is ridiculous.

That you would simply say 'nothing to see here, everyone just carry on in the Sheriff's, Prosecutors or AG's office as if nothing is happening' is simply facile.

What SHOULD happen is the powers that be should DEMAND evidence from the accuser to substantiate the claims (Sheriff, Prosecutor, AG or POTUS) and investigate it. They either find with the accuser and show confidence in the accuser or they find for the Offices and show a lack of confidence in the accuser.

One way or another it should be resolved and the accusation should just not be allowed to hang out there and under mine the offices.

There is a price being paid, in terms of credibility by those offices by just allowing such accusations to linger.

 

[MikeMcMann]

1. Nope. Its not clear, but I suspect that you're relying on either fre 803(8), the public record exception to hearsay, which is facially inapplicable, since it deals with records, not statements, or fre 902(5), which is inapplicable because it deals with authentication, not admisibility.

2. Lol, no. Credibility is not "automatically conferred" with the presidency.

3. I'm familiar with the applicable caselaw. Your application is wrong. An assertion of general corruption is insufficient. There are cases that have been tossed or vacated because of misconduct. But there was specific misconduct identified, and the defendants showed how it affected their case.

They couldn't just show, for example, that the Detroit police were corrupt and get out of prison. They had to show, for example, that the police officers hid evidence in their case (the misconduct), and that evidence would have proven that someone else did the crime instead (how it affected their case).

Emails, journal writings, documents written and found in a safe, are all admissible. Writings are admissible. If they search your office and find a written note, a confession or admission, it is admissible. They do not need to hear you say it first hand.

2. yes credibility is automatically conferred with the Presidency thus why he is AUTOMATICALLY given certain powers and security clearance and DOES NOT have to prove he deserves it over time.

3. Wrong. Wide Scale dismissal of cases being brought forth have occured when a prosecutor or certain cops have been proven to be corrupt. That, in and of itself can be seen as reasonable doubt and therefore the new powers that be would not want to pursue those cases until they could do so again with fresh eyes and not relying on the evidence gathered by the corrupt officials.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Lets consider this in another area.

The DoD is putting forth a case to Congress about why a war is needed (see Iraq).

At the same time the POTUS is stating that entire DoD is corrupt and incompetent and being run by a deep State that has adverse interests to the US at heart.

To simply ignore the POTUS and yet STILL suggest the DoD has the confidence of credibility to make that case would be foolish. It would be incumbent on Congress to get to the heart of the allegations and either prove them (confidence in the POTUS) or disprove them (lack of confidence in the POTUS). But simply letting them hang out there is not right.