Pecker Problems (Mueller+ Investigation Thread v. 21)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wingslaught said:
Things certainly are not looking good for Trump right now but if the left gets their wish and Trump is impeached, that leaves Mike Pence as President. Personally, I'd prefer Pence at this point since he's reliably conservative and non-controversial. Really, I can't imagine what CNN, MSNBC and the others will cover if Pence becomes President and never tweets or anything.
Click to expand...

Perhaps a tan suit and terrorist fist jab....




























and :eek::eek::eek::eek:philia.

<{MingNope}>
 
Tobacco said:
Perhaps a tan suit and terrorist fist jab....




























and :eek::eek::eek::eek:philia.

<{MingNope}>
Click to expand...
Doooooon't forget, he criticised his own country's highest law enforcement agency while praising a despot as he stood on foreign soil. That was Obama's most disgraceful moment.
 
Quipling said:
Lol, some defendants have actually tried this. Its not working, of course, but it's already happened.
Click to expand...
It should work.

If a Sheriff or a Prosecutor came out and said my entire office is ripe with corruption I don't think any prosecutions going through would stand. I am sure that has been a success defense many times in the past when rampant corruption was exposed in an office.

So with Trump, Th Chief Law Enforcement Officer, saying the whole system is corrupt there should be zero confidence by the judges of any evidence brought forth by the system. Defendants should be walking.
 
MikeMcMann said:
It should work.

If a Sheriff or a Prosecutor came out and said my entire office is ripe with corruption I don't think any prosecutions going through would stand. I am sure that has been a success defense many times in the past when rampant corruption was exposed in an office.

So with Trump, Th Chief Law Enforcement Officer, saying the whole system is corrupt there should be zero confidence by the judges of any evidence brought forth by the system. Defendants should be walking.
Click to expand...
This is antithetical to the US Constitution, specifically the concept of separation of powers. What a Stalinist hellhole you've embraced here.
 
MikeMcMann said:
It should work.

If a Sheriff or a Prosecutor came out and said my entire office is ripe with corruption I don't think any prosecutions going through would stand. I am sure that has been a success defense many times in the past when rampant corruption was exposed in an office.

So with Trump, Th Chief Law Enforcement Officer, saying the whole system is corrupt there should be zero confidence by the judges of any evidence brought forth by the system. Defendants should be walking.
Click to expand...
Three problems.

The first is admissibility. Trump's statements are out of court and unsworn, but being offered for the proof of their assertions. That's classic hearsay,which is generally inadmissible.

The second is credibility. Trump isn't.

The third is more technical. The applicable argument had two important elements: (1.) the prosecutor/police did something wrong, and (2.) it "prejudiced" your case (had a significant negative effect). You can't simply claim that the prosecutor or police are corrupt in some general sense. You must have a specific action in mind, and must show that it affected your case.
 
Fawlty said:
This is antithetical to the US Constitution, specifically the concept of separation of powers. What a Stalinist hellhole you've embraced here.
Click to expand...
I don't know what you are talking about here. are you saying accused corrupt institutions have to be left alone by other levels of gov't because of "separation of powers"?

I think Trump is a disgrace and needs to go but he is STILL the head of the judiciary and the Chief Law Enforcement officer. He is the boss of the departments.

I cannot see how you have a boss saying "everything is corrupt. There is a deep state at play undermining everything. All the people are crooked and incompetent" and yet those same departments are continuing to prosecute others.

By Trump very own words he should start a constitutional crisis by firing everyone and wiping those departments clean regardless of the instability it would cause rather than him allowing 'corrupt and incompetent" offices to continue to prosecute people.

If Obama thought his DoJ was corrupted I would say the same thing. Wipe it clean and deal with the blow back after. If others, Congress, Senate, disagree then they have to take action to preserve those institutions and remove Trump if they think him acting out of self interest and not to protect those institutions as he suggests. BUt I simply do not see how you can just leave status quo alone.
 
MikeMcMann said:
I don't know what you are talking about here.

I think Trump is a disgrace and needs to go but he is STILL the head of the judiciary and the Chief Law Enforcement officer. He is the boss of the departments.

I cannot see how you have a boss saying "everything is corrupt. There is a deep state at play undermining everything. All the people are crooked and incompetent" and yet those same departments are continuing to prosecute others.

By Trump very own words he should start a constitutional crisis by firing everyone and wiping those departments clean regardless of the instability it would cause rather than him allowing 'corrupt and incompetent" offices to continue to prosecute people.

If Obama thought his DoJ was corrupted I would say the same thing. Wipe it clean and deal with the blow back after. If others, Congress, Senate, disagree then they have to take action to preserve those institutions and remove Trump if they think him acting out of self interest and not to protect those institutions as he suggests. BUt I simply do not see how you can just leave status quo alone.
Click to expand...
What amazes me constantly is that afaik he has never said the investigation will clear him. Or at least he's simply been attacking the integrity of the investigation for months.

The way a guilty man does. Every bit of his behavior on the matter is a huge, red "I'm guilty and they're finding out the truth" flag.
 
Quipling said:
Three problems.

The first is admissibility. Trump's statements are out of court and unsworn, but being offered for the proof of their assertions. That's classic hearsay,which is generally inadmissible.

The second is credibility. Trump isn't.

The third is more technical. The applicable argument had two important elements: (1.) the prosecutor/police did something wrong, and (2.) it "prejudiced" your case (had a significant negative effect). You can't simply claim that the prosecutor or police are corrupt in some general sense. You must have a specific action in mind, and must show that it affected your case.
Click to expand...

1. Trump's statements via Tweet ARE official Statements of the POTUS Office.

2. He is POTUS and thus credible unless the Congress and Senate step up and remove him saying he wasn't. The statements about his DoJ alone should force action from all of them. They should either stand behind him with these comments or against him.

3. When Cops or Prosecutors are found to be corrupt on a wide scale within an office not only are many current prosecutions dropped, also many of their past convictions are re-looked at.
 
MikeMcMann said:
1. Trump's statements via Tweet ARE official Statements of the POTUS Office.

2. He is POTUS and thus credible unless the Congress and Senate step up and remove him saying he wasn't. The statements about his DoJ alone should force action from all of them. They should either stand behind him with these comments or against him.

3. When Cops or Prosecutors are found to be corrupt on a wide scale within an office not only are many current prosecutions dropped, also many of their past convictions are re-looked at.
Click to expand...

<Dany07>

Trump is probably the easiest person in history to prove a lack of credibility to a court.

Your job title doesn't prove your credibility.

His lies started on inauguration day.
 
MikeMcMann said:
1. Trump's statements via Tweet ARE official Statements of the POTUS Office.

2. He is POTUS and thus credible unless the Congress and Senate step up and remove him saying he wasn't. The statements about his DoJ alone should force action from all of them. They should either stand behind him with these comments or against him.

3. When Cops or Prosecutors are found to be corrupt on a wide scale within an office not only are many current prosecutions dropped, also many of their past convictions are re-looked at.
Click to expand...
1. Still hearsay for the purpose of the court

2. Wrong. Being potus doesn't make him automatically credible or authoritative.

3. You don't magically get a pass from a statement about general corruption. Again, you have to show what the corruption was, that it affected your case, and how it did so. Same applies on have as review (the "relooked at")
 
MikeMcMann said:
I think Trump is a disgrace and needs to go but he is STILL the head of the judiciary and the Chief Law Enforcement officer. He is the boss of the departments.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Rational Poster said:
<Dany07>

Trump is probably the easiest person in history to prove a lack of credibility to a court.

Your job title doesn't prove your credibility.

His lies started on inauguration day.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Rational Poster said:
<Dany07>

Trump is probably the easiest person in history to prove a lack of credibility to a court.

Your job title doesn't prove your credibility.

His lies started on inauguration day.
Click to expand...
Ordinarily, the gravitas of a President's word is hung on a framework of the dignity of the office.

With this guy the framework is a lifetime of deceit.
 
Quipling said:
1. Still hearsay for the purpose of the court

2. Wrong. Being potus doesn't make him automatically credible or authoritative.

3. You don't magically get a pass from a statement about general corruption. Again, you have to show what the corruption was, that it affected your case, and how it did so. Same applies on have as review (the "relooked at")
Click to expand...
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,280,795
Messages
58,318,301
Members
175,998
Latest member
Rosabelot

Share this page

Back
Top