Page 12 of 15 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 146
Thanks Tree107Thanks

Thread: Judge: Mueller Can Indict Manafort

  1. #111
    Veteran Member bmanmcfly's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    22,318
    Thanks
    3459

    From
    C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    No, you posted as though the investigation is political rather than looking into possible criminal behavior. And nothing the government has done is "criminal."


    You wanted the jury to see information about the search. The jury determines only whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty, and information about the search is not relevant to that question. Thus, the jury does not get to see it. Whether the evidence is admissible is a separate, legal question for the judge to determine, not the jury.

    I have addressed the points you originally made. I have addressed the points you switched over to later. The reality is that you have held this whole thing to be some sort of political persecution of Trump and/or the people under him (past or present). It is not, irrespective of how a court rules on the admissibility of the evidence or how a jury finds as to whether a crime was committed.
    Lmao...

    - I discussed the raid as a show of force for a reason, where you said that it's irrelevant to court because it won't be shown. I argued that it was either the argument would be made to get it shown because video is useful to make people look guilty, or to have the headlines about a swat team raid for public consumption.

    - because you raised what was admissible; that led down the train of how the entire investigation is inadmissible because it is fruit of poison tree.

    That's where you started defending the poison fruit as being usable... saying how it doesn't enter the question of guilt or innocence. It turned into ping pong where you would obfuscate admissibility as relevance to end result, and back and forth like that...

    So, to bottom line it:
    Whether or not he is innocent, the case built up is toxic and is unlikely to be usable if any of the origins are questioned.

    Just like if a cop performed an illegal search, you don't discuss what was found until it's proven that the search was legal.

  2. #112
    El Psy Kongroo Lunchboxxy's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    15,720
    Thanks
    16070

    From
    Oregon
    Quote Originally Posted by bmanmcfly View Post
    Are you sure? Are you REALLY sure?
    Yes. Because thatís not how it works.

    Feel free to provide evidence otherwise anytime

  3. #113
    Veteran Member bmanmcfly's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    22,318
    Thanks
    3459

    From
    C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    If you have something, or believe you do, you should post it. Obama can sign off on a FISA warrant application to the FISC, but he cannot sign the warrant authorizing the search.
    That's what I mean... you are obfuscating. (Or are arguing from ignorance of the facts)

    Whatever the jargon, Obama put his name on the application to give it the weight for a judge to sign it... but even that was lying to the judge, they did not disclose to the third judge that the prior attempts to get the warrant had failed. Pretty sure judges do not enjoy being lied to.

    The Nunes memo summarized the whole thing, and other documents were declassified that were only missing the names.

  4. #114
    Junior Member Sprockey's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    1,951
    Thanks
    2455

    From
    Boston
    Muellerís Most Important Accomplishment

    Thursday marks a year since Robert Mueller was appointed as special counsel to oversee the Russia investigation, and in that time Iíve written a lot about the known unknowns of his work. We donít know everyone heís interviewed. We donít know what evidence heís gathered. We donít know what further charges he may bring against people around the president. We donít know if heíll recommend that Congress open impeachment hearings for President Donald Trump.

    But we also know quite a bit about the Muellerís work since last May. All the available evidence indicates that heís running a competent, disciplined, and thorough investigation. Heís maintained those standards under extraordinary circumstances on a matter of immense national consequence. And heís upheld the inquiryís integrity even while Trump threatens to fire him and Republicans in Congress continually try to undermine his work.

    Americans are drawn to bold figures who rise above politics and clean up Washington. Trump played to that cultural bias during the campaign, portraying himself as an outsider whose wealth would insulate him from corruption and empower him to ďdrain the swamp.Ē But itís Mueller, if anyone, who fits this cultural archetype. Over the past twelve months, the former FBI director has upheld the best traditions of the American civil service, rightly becoming an icon for the rule of law in an era when the concept itself is under siege.

  5. #115
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    66,634
    Thanks
    34240

    From
    Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
    Quote Originally Posted by bmanmcfly View Post
    I discussed the raid as a show of force for a reason, where you said that it's irrelevant to court because it won't be shown.
    I did not say it was irrelevant to court. I said it was irrelevant to determining guilt, meaning it would not be shown to the jury. Big, huge difference.

    Quote Originally Posted by bmanmcfly View Post
    I argued that it was either the argument would be made to get it shown because video is useful to make people look guilty, or to have the headlines about a swat team raid for public consumption.
    That does not even make sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by bmanmcfly View Post
    That's where you started defending the poison fruit as being usable... saying how it doesn't enter the question of guilt or innocence.
    Um, no. The evidence itself is usable, or not usable - as determined by the judge, not a jury. Either way, the jury does not get to see video of the search because it does not make it more or less likely the defendant committed a crime, than without the video. The judge would see everything as it could be probative as to the propriety of the search - in this case, the issue being whether or not the warrants were defective.

    Quote Originally Posted by bmanmcfly View Post
    Whether or not he is innocent, the case built up is toxic and is unlikely to be usable if any of the origins are questioned.
    Assuming the warrants were defective.

  6. #116
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    66,634
    Thanks
    34240

    From
    Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
    Quote Originally Posted by bmanmcfly View Post
    That's what I mean... you are obfuscating. (Or are arguing from ignorance of the facts)
    No, I am not. I made a plain statement.

    Quote Originally Posted by bmanmcfly View Post
    Whatever the jargon...
    It is not "jargon." Words have meaning. There is a world of difference between an application for a warrant, and a warrant. One is a request; the other is the granting or denial of that request. The difference is not all that complicated.

    Quote Originally Posted by bmanmcfly View Post
    Obama put his name on the application to give it the weight for a judge to sign it.
    This does not make sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by bmanmcfly View Post
    [E]ven that was lying to the judge, they did not disclose to the third judge that the prior attempts to get the warrant had failed.
    Show your work - i.e., the applications, denial, &c.
    Thanks from labrea

  7. #117
    Veteran Member bmanmcfly's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    22,318
    Thanks
    3459

    From
    C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    I did not say it was irrelevant to court. I said it was irrelevant to determining guilt, meaning it would not be shown to the jury. Big, huge difference.


    That does not even make sense.


    Um, no. The evidence itself is usable, or not usable - as determined by the judge, not a jury. Either way, the jury does not get to see video of the search because it does not make it more or less likely the defendant committed a crime, than without the video. The judge would see everything as it could be probative as to the propriety of the search - in this case, the issue being whether or not the warrants were defective.


    Assuming the warrants were defective.
    Well...

    The seed: wanting information from opponents to have an advantage for the election.

    The root: the lie to a fisa judge to sign off on the Carter page warrant.

    Grew into the tree: the Mueller Russian collusion investigation.

    The fruit : a swat team raid on Manafort to secure the indictment.

    I see that as less than ideal for the prosecution.

  8. #118
    "Mr. Original". the watchman's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    82,760
    Thanks
    45672

    From
    becoming more and more
    Quote Originally Posted by bmanmcfly View Post
    Well...

    The seed: wanting information from opponents to have an advantage for the election.

    The root: the lie to a fisa judge to sign off on the Carter page warrant.

    Grew into the tree: the Mueller Russian collusion investigation.

    The fruit : a swat team raid on Manafort to secure the indictment.

    I see that as less than ideal for the prosecution.
    what's this suppose to be a description of?

  9. #119
    Veteran Member bmanmcfly's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    22,318
    Thanks
    3459

    From
    C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
    Quote Originally Posted by the watchman View Post
    what's this suppose to be a description of?
    How the entire case against manafort is fruit of the poison tree... In other words; he's got a solid argument to have all the evidence declared inadmissible.

  10. #120
    Thought Provocateur NightSwimmer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    40,011
    Thanks
    38429

    From
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by bmanmcfly View Post
    How the entire case against manafort is fruit of the poison tree... In other words; he's got a solid argument to have all the evidence declared inadmissible.

    No. The evidence would have had to have been obtained illegally in order to be considered the "fruit of a poison tree". None of the warrants used in this investigation, either before or after Mueller became Special Counsel, have been challenged in court, much less found to be legally defective.

    Conspiracy theories on the Internet don't count.
    Thanks from OldGaffer

Page 12 of 15 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Judge kick's Manafort's challenge. Mueller has the authority.
    By cpicturetaker12 in forum Current Events
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 27th April 2018, 10:37 PM
  2. Replies: 128
    Last Post: 11th April 2018, 05:55 PM
  3. Mueller cannot indict Trump
    By excalibur in forum Current Events
    Replies: 213
    Last Post: 4th February 2018, 03:58 PM
  4. Manafort sues Mueller and DOJ
    By bajisima in forum Current Events
    Replies: 153
    Last Post: 5th January 2018, 11:32 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed