Pecker Problems (Mueller+ Investigation Thread v. 21)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joe said:
Love how Republicans know trump is crooked/incompetent but too afraid to even investigate since they should be investigating this.
Click to expand...
The word of Trump is the word of god and he will be speaking at Gary Glitters funeral not the "captured" John McCain's.
 
40053563_10204894864327383_4854800567748263936_n.jpg
 
tonni said:
I see that he asks for a rebuttal to his Dred Scott point, but I can't find his original argument considering Dred Scott. @waiguoren Why did you bring up Dred Scott?
Click to expand...

Thank you for asking.

@BKMMAFAN is one of the few posters here who appears to possess actual legal knowledge. I first encountered him a few months back in a SCOTUS thread. I believe (I might be misremembering this small part) that @BKMMAFAN alleged that Dred Scott v Sanford was a good example of texualist-originalism gone awry. I countered that Taney's opinion in that case was the opposite: a case of "living constitutionalism" gone awry, and presented a (in my opinion) high-quality analysis demonstrating that. Because I respect him, I was hoping for a response.

Then I didn't hear from him until he popped into this thread to correct an error that I committed regarding the use of the term "find" in the context of a plea agreement. I acknowledged my error and thanked him, and then noted that I was still hoping for a response on Dred Scott.
 
waiguoren said:
Thank you for asking.

@BKMMAFAN is one of the few posters here who appears to possess actual legal knowledge. I first encountered him a few months back in a SCOTUS thread. I believe (I might be misremembering this small part) that @BKMMAFAN alleged that Dred Scott v Sanford was a good example of texualist-originalism gone awry. I countered that Taney's opinion in that case was the opposite: a case of "living constitutionalism" gone awry, and presented a (in my opinion) high-quality analysis demonstrating that. Because I respect him, I was hoping for a response.

Then I didn't hear from him until he popped into this thread to correct an error that I committed regarding the use of the term "find" in the context of a plea agreement. I acknowledged my error and thanked him, and then noted that I was still hoping for a response on Dred Scott.
Click to expand...
<{Fergie}>
 
Quipling said:
1. No. You are still incorrect. Documents, emails, etc are not automatically admissible to establish the truth of the matters asserted in them. They still run against the hearsay problem unless they fit within one of the hearsay exceptions. A written confession fits under 804(3), and is still subject to further restrictions outlined in that rule.
(3) Statement Against Interest. A statement that:

(A) a reasonable person in the declarant’s position would have made only if the person believed it to be true because, when made, it was so contrary to the declarant’s proprietary or pecuniary interest or had so great a tendency to invalidate the declarant’s claim against someone else or to expose the declarant to civil or criminal liability; and

(B) is supported by corroborating circumstances that clearly indicate its trustworthiness, if it is offered in a criminal case as one that tends to expose the declarant to criminal liability.

2. There is a difference between being given presidential powers pursuant to Article II and being deemed credible for the purpose of court proceedings. Presumably you can distinguish the two.

3. No, you're still wrong. Repeating your incorrect belief does not change that. Again, its not enough to show that the officials are corrupt in a general sense - you must show a specific violation that tainted your case. For example, that specific evidence was unlawfully obtained. I do not know where you obtained your belief, but it is not correct.
Click to expand...
1. No you are still incorrect. I never said automatically admissible so take that strawman crap elsewhere. Nothing in a court is automatically admissible. But yes typically all public writings that are not subject to some type of privilege will be admissible whether emails, documents found in a safe or other.

2. Again more strawman shit from you which tells me you know you cannot argue on the merits of this discussion and therefore need to change it. We are not talking about his credibility in a court proceeding, we are saying does the POTUS have any credibility when speaking about the departments that report to them. So if Clinton or Obama said ' The DoJ is corrupt' should their statements simply be dismissed as if coming from someone not credible or should they be taken serious as if from a credible person.

3. No you are wrong and you repeating you are not won't change that. A cop found to plant evidence in a large number of cases will have other cases dismissed where they cannot even prove specifically that he planted evidence in THAT case. Prosecutors realize how that can give a jury reasonable doubt even if there is no specific proof that he did it in THIS case.
 
MikeMcMann said:
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.
Click to expand...

The Department of Defense is under the Executive Branch. The Secretary of Defense is a cabinet official directly under POTUS. The DoD cannot not "put forth a case" to Congress without the president's approval.
 
glenwo2 said:
I nominate myself because....reasons. <Moves><Moves><Moves><Moves>


Then again, I might wind up retroactively getting rid of all the "idiots" in our government which basically means.....well....EVERYBODY. <Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo>
Click to expand...
It will just be filled with new idiots.
 
waiguoren said:
Thank you for asking.

@BKMMAFAN is one of the few posters here who appears to possess actual legal knowledge. I first encountered him a few months back in a SCOTUS thread. I believe (I might be misremembering this small part) that @BKMMAFAN alleged that Dred Scott v Sanford was a good example of texualist-originalism gone awry. I countered that Taney's opinion in that case was the opposite: a case of "living constitutionalism" gone awry, and presented a (in my opinion) high-quality analysis demonstrating that. Because I respect him, I was hoping for a response.

Then I didn't hear from him until he popped into this thread to correct an error that I committed regarding the use of the term "find" in the context of a plea agreement. I acknowledged my error and thanked him, and then noted that I was still hoping for a response on Dred Scott.
Click to expand...

I'll just keep this in a spoiler since it's not germane to the thread topic.

The largest question in front of Taney was whether Scott was a citizen. Taney, and the Court, found that he was not a citizen. The Court concluded that no person descended from any African slave could be considered a 'citizen' for constitutional purposes. He reached this conclusion, very clearly, using originalism. It's crystal clear from his language in the opinion. See:

"A free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is not a "citizen" within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States.

5. When the Constitution was adopted, they were not regarded in any of the States as members of the community which constituted the State, and were not numbered among its "people or citizens." Consequently, the special rights and immunities guarantied to citizens do not apply to them. And not being "citizens" within the meaning of the Constitution, they are not entitled to sue in that character in a court of the United States, and the Circuit Court has not jurisdiction in such a suit.

9. The change in public opinion and feeling in relation to the African race which has taken place since the adoption of the Constitution cannot change its construction and meaning, and it must be construed and administered now according to its true meaning and intention when it was formed and adopted."

We can agree that Taney went needlessly far in overturning the Missouri Compromise (I believe that was the first time the SCOTUS invalidated a Federal law since Marbury v. Madison), but when deciding whether Scott was a citizen or not, and thus whether he could even sue in Federal Court, it was very clear the Court decided Scott was NOT a citizen using originalism as support.
 
BKMMAFAN said:
I'll just keep this in a spoiler since it's not germane to the thread topic.

The largest question in front of Taney was whether Scott was a citizen. Taney, and the Court, found that he was not a citizen. The Court concluded that no person descended from any African slave could be considered a 'citizen' for constitutional purposes. He reached this conclusion, very clearly, using originalism. It's crystal clear from his language in the opinion. See:

"A free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is not a "citizen" within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States.

5. When the Constitution was adopted, they were not regarded in any of the States as members of the community which constituted the State, and were not numbered among its "people or citizens." Consequently, the special rights and immunities guarantied to citizens do not apply to them. And not being "citizens" within the meaning of the Constitution, they are not entitled to sue in that character in a court of the United States, and the Circuit Court has not jurisdiction in such a suit.

9. The change in public opinion and feeling in relation to the African race which has taken place since the adoption of the Constitution cannot change its construction and meaning, and it must be construed and administered now according to its true meaning and intention when it was formed and adopted."

We can agree that Taney went needlessly far in overturning the Missouri Compromise (I believe that was the first time the SCOTUS invalidated a Federal law since Marbury v. Madison), but when deciding whether Scott was a citizen or not, and thus whether he could even sue in Federal Court, it was very clear the Court decided Scott was NOT a citizen using originalism as support.
Click to expand...

This is kind of disappointing. My response in the other thread explained why Taney's opinion was an example of faux-originalism, and that by giving "citizen" extra meaning never specified in the Constitution, Taney actually engaged in "living constitutionalism." In particular, Taney clearly violated the 10th Amendment by usurping state authority. I hope you will read my response in that thread.
 
Higus said:
lol, what if half of congress is complicit in the corruption?
Click to expand...
then that too should trigger a constitutional crisis.

What should not be allowed to happen is that the POTUS should not be able to say all of those organizations are corrupt and everyone just carries on with the accused corrupt organizations carrying on 'business as usual'.

Such a statement should be a true litmus test for gov't and should force their hand into action otherwise you will see future POTUS and other such high ranking officials disparaging and degrading the various offices since nothing comes of it anyway.

And I get the Muller investigation may tangentially deal with this but that should not be sufficient. Congress should have been forced to act and to investigate and make findings either supporting the POTUS claim or going against him and thereby showing a lack of confidence in him in the office. I am not so sure even this Congress would find all the institutions Trump has called corrupt, actually corrupt. I think they are happy they are being allowed to most ignore it.
 
Higus said:
lol, what if half of congress is complicit in the corruption?
Click to expand...
It could be that everybody is corrupt BUT Donald Trump.

Doesn't seem likely though. Even if everybody in the FBI is corrupt, that hardly absolves Trump of all his self admitted fabrications and Russia shenanigans. Somebody has to look into it.

If every cop in the house is corrupt, crimes still occur.
 
This proves that trump did in fact collude with stormy to blow a load in her

Impeach now
 
MikeMcMann said:
What should not be allowed to happen is that the POTUS should not be able to say all of those organizations are corrupt and everyone just carries on with the accused corrupt organizations carrying on 'business as usual'.
Click to expand...
In a vacuum, you'd be correct. The context now is that the current president is demonstrably the biggest liar to ever hold the office. Should someone who pathologically lies about damn near everything be taken seriously when he says that he is innocent of a crime and the patsy of a giant conspiracy?
 
Higus said:
In a vacuum, you'd be correct. The context now is that the current president is demonstrably the biggest liar to ever hold the office. Should someone who pathologically lies about damn near everything be taken seriously when he says that he is innocent of a crime and the patsy of a giant conspiracy?
Click to expand...
No.

I think if the Congress was forced to investigate and act they would not render a finding the judiciary is corrupt and incompetent as Trump says. I think they would just rather keep quiet and duck and cover.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,280,676
Messages
58,311,100
Members
175,997
Latest member
joshvegas

Share this page

Back
Top