January 24, 2019, 01:47:56 AM


Author Topic: Good for Donald Trump  (Read 5134 times)

Online Mr.DeMartino

  • Waygook Lord
  • *****
  • Posts: 5968
  • Gender: Male
Re: Good for Donald Trump
« Reply #100 on: September 11, 2018, 01:10:59 PM »
  They are simply looking for any way to discredit the very legitimate and necessary investigation into Russian interference in our electoral system. 
"We need an investigation." Dude, I can give you an investigation right now- The Russians had some trolls, some possibly government funded, others just looking to monetize that retweeted election stuff, much of it divisive. John Podesta was an idiot who fell for a phishing scheme. Someonw hacked the DNC server, we think it was the Russians. The Russians will do it again. To prevent it we can either A) shut down the internet B) Try and get facebook and twitter to ban foreign troll accounts (which the internet is great at- shutting down spam bots or C) Do nothing and accept the fact that now we live in the 21st century. As for Trump, his people have a history of shady stuff, but we can't nail anything on Orangehead. It's all circumstantial."

Unless you're an idiot who believes that $1 million worth of refacebook ads of a meme of Jesus high-fiving Trump won Trump the election, Russian interference had virtually no impact on the result. Hillary lost because she was tossed in the back of a van like a sack of potatoes and could barely beat Larry David for the nomination because people hated her so much. 

This is essentially what it boils down to. I didn't need 10s of millions of dollars to tell you that.


Quote
The fact that have to go to such ridiculous lengths only illustrates how straight and narrow is the path Mueller is on.

Did it ever occur to you that they might be discrediting the Mueller investigation because it's gone beyond it's scope of Russian interference, has turned into a fishing expedition, has employed some dubious tactics, and the charges it has brought are unconnected to Trump but are being portrayed as so?

Of course it could be politiics as usual, party over law, typical Washington sleaze, and buying time until 2020 when Trump doesn't run and Pence takes over or whatever. I can see both possibilities. You can only see one. That's a problem. While your interpretation may be more probable, that doesn't make the other interpretation impossible, and we're talking something like anywhere between 66-33 and 80-20 probability, not .0001% probability.

Offline Mr C

  • Hero of Waygookistan
  • *****
  • Posts: 1557
  • Gender: Male
Re: Good for Donald Trump
« Reply #101 on: September 11, 2018, 01:19:27 PM »
But before I do, let me point out that none of these links really indicate a "perjury trap" taking place, although the Lewinsky article in the Baltimore Sun had some news to me that just confirms what an @$$hole Ken Starr is. The New Yorker thing says perjury traps "have become a popular tactic among independent counsels" but I don't know if you realize that was a dig at Ken Starr--just how many "independent counsels" were there?

But they do confirm that perjury traps are a real thing, which you denied. let me quote-

Quote
Prosecutors don't lay perjury traps.

Quote
It's not a "perjury trap"--hell, that isn't even a thing!

I'm sorry, but you weren't even aware of such a concept.
Don't be stupid.  Rudy Giuliani has been running his mouth about if for months. It's just not a thing.

Quote
The fact that you didn't even know that prosecutors around the country use this ethically dubious tactic is startling and frankly, I think it calls into question your ability to be taken credibly when it comes to analyzing this.

Yet somehow, you have not provided a single actual case of a "perjury trap". NOT ONE of the numerous links you've provided--NOT ONE--describes any actual examples of this phenomenon in a court of a law.  And let me again quote from the first link you provided: "No US federal court has ever accepted a motion to dismiss because of claimed perjury trap."

But I lack credibility?

Offline Mr C

  • Hero of Waygookistan
  • *****
  • Posts: 1557
  • Gender: Male
Re: Good for Donald Trump
« Reply #102 on: September 11, 2018, 01:28:40 PM »
Did it ever occur to you that they might be discrediting the Mueller investigation because it's gone beyond it's scope of Russian interference, has turned into a fishing expedition, has employed some dubious tactics, and the charges it has brought are unconnected to Trump but are being portrayed as so?
Of course it did.  However, I read and learned quite a lot about Bobby Three-sticks and judge him to be just about the straightest player ever in Washington DC history.  And, more to the point, so did every one of the Republicans now besmirching him at every turn.

Why the change? My answer: They have a historic chance to reshape the Supreme Court and Justice system for the next generation that will be stymied if they can't get the new justice seated before the mid-terms.  This investigation stands to do just that.

Your answer:
Quote
Of course it could be politiics as usual, party over law, typical Washington sleaze, and buying time until 2020 when Trump doesn't run and Pence takes over or whatever. I can see both possibilities. You can only see one. That's a problem. While your interpretation may be more probable, that doesn't make the other interpretation impossible, and we're talking something like anywhere between 66-33 and 80-20 probability, not .0001% probability.
Your typical gibberish.

Online Mr.DeMartino

  • Waygook Lord
  • *****
  • Posts: 5968
  • Gender: Male
Re: Good for Donald Trump
« Reply #103 on: September 11, 2018, 03:08:01 PM »

Yet somehow, you have not provided a single actual case of a "perjury trap". NOT ONE of the numerous links you've provided--NOT ONE--describes any actual examples of this phenomenon in a court of a law.  And let me again quote from the first link you provided: "No US federal court has ever accepted a motion to dismiss because of claimed perjury trap."

But I lack credibility?

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/waterfront-commission-slammed-perjury-trap-ti-catch-longshoreman-article-1.1736220

That was like, on the first page of "Perjury Trap Conviction Overturned"

Here's another
https://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/16/obituaries/andrew-tyler-71-retired-judge-cleared-after-perjury-conviction.html

Scholarly article from a ways back on the topic, which specifically cites multiple instances
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=9431&context=penn_law_review

Here's one case dealing with this issue, People v. Raohttps://www.leagle.com/decision/198016173ad2d881148
It also cites on this issue Brown v. United States
https://www.leagle.com/decision/1957794245f2d5491629
People v. Tyler also addresses this
https://www.leagle.com/decision/197829746ny2d2511275

A prosecture questioning someone, simply for the purposes of trying to get them to commit perjury and NOT to persue some broader crime, is not a proper basis for action against them.

Sorry, but this thing is real and I don't know why you're choosing to make your stand on this issue. After all, prior to Trump, it was an issue for people who supported criminal justice reform that disproportionately targeted minorities.

Online Mr.DeMartino

  • Waygook Lord
  • *****
  • Posts: 5968
  • Gender: Male
Re: Good for Donald Trump
« Reply #104 on: September 11, 2018, 03:17:44 PM »
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/03/record-number-people-exonerated-of-crimes-last-year

Quote
Studies suggest that even investigators with decades of experience are only about 54% accurate at judging when a suspect is honest or deceitful. Saul Kassin, a professor of psychology at Williams College, wrote in a study on false confessions that some police tactics, such as extended isolation, “put innocents at risk to confess, especially if they are young, mentally impaired, or otherwise vulnerable”.

This is why I say be careful when it comes to being so certain that "they're guilty" and because Trump is behaving a certain way, he's guilty of X. We're not as good as we think we are. You can assess probabilities, but to be certain and close off your mind? No.

I think most of us have learned that eyewitness testimony is suspect because of bad memory. Now we can add convictions and perjury to the list of things that are evidence, but are not smoking guns.

Online Mr.DeMartino

  • Waygook Lord
  • *****
  • Posts: 5968
  • Gender: Male
Re: Good for Donald Trump
« Reply #105 on: September 11, 2018, 04:07:13 PM »
Quote
Studies suggest that even investigators with decades of experience are only about 54% accurate at judging when a suspect is honest or deceitful.

However, these investigators also said they'd make an exception to this and said without a shadow of a doubt, 100%, that if Trump's mouth is moving, then he's lying.  No question at all.  No siree.  No doubts.  Without a second thought.  A surefooted statement that Trump is incapable of speaking honestly.  Ever.  The 'president' of the US, who was elected, is unable to tell the truth.  That truly is something.

Trump lies in the results of his policies and his critiques of his enemies and a lot of other stuff.

But the man sure has attempted to do what he said he'd do if elected. Some of it was stuff that no one thought he'd really do.

Offline Mr C

  • Hero of Waygookistan
  • *****
  • Posts: 1557
  • Gender: Male
Re: Good for Donald Trump
« Reply #106 on: September 11, 2018, 04:29:54 PM »

Yet somehow, you have not provided a single actual case of a "perjury trap". NOT ONE of the numerous links you've provided--NOT ONE--describes any actual examples of this phenomenon in a court of a law.  And let me again quote from the first link you provided: "No US federal court has ever accepted a motion to dismiss because of claimed perjury trap."

But I lack credibility?

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/waterfront-commission-slammed-perjury-trap-ti-catch-longshoreman-article-1.1736220

That was like, on the first page of "Perjury Trap Conviction Overturned"
Which link was that?  It's no longer on your lists …

Quote
Here's another
https://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/16/obituaries/andrew-tyler-71-retired-judge-cleared-after-perjury-conviction.html

Scholarly article from a ways back on the topic, which specifically cites multiple instances
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=9431&context=penn_law_review

Here's one case dealing with this issue, People v. Raohttps://www.leagle.com/decision/198016173ad2d881148
It also cites on this issue Brown v. United States
https://www.leagle.com/decision/1957794245f2d5491629
People v. Tyler also addresses this
https://www.leagle.com/decision/197829746ny2d2511275

Before we carry on, are willing to concede that not one of your previous links listed a single actual case of a perjury trap?

Quote
A prosecture questioning someone, simply for the purposes of trying to get them to commit perjury and NOT to persue some broader crime, is not a proper basis for action against them.

Sorry, but this thing is real and I don't know why you're choosing to make your stand on this issue.

Well, I guess I have mis-stated my point.  Scrupulous prosecutors who want their convictions to stand do not lay perjury traps. 

I'm not "making my stand", I made an off-hand remark--correctly--that Giuliani's complaint in keeping Trump away from the grand jury was a "perjury trap" pointing out that that's just not a prosecutorial move.  Now, after several days, you have managed to scare up a handful of unscrupulous prosecutors who've done so. 

You could also find cases of prosecutors who've had evidence planted in a case to implicate a defendant, but I'll say that planting evidence "is not a thing".

Online Mr.DeMartino

  • Waygook Lord
  • *****
  • Posts: 5968
  • Gender: Male
Re: Good for Donald Trump
« Reply #107 on: September 11, 2018, 05:29:45 PM »
Before we carry on, are willing to concede that not one of your previous links listed a single actual case of a perjury trap?
You denied the thing existed at all. I was pointing it out it didn't. I'm sorry, I should have included an actual case. I thought a law professor discussing it was enough to convince you of its existence, I guess not.

Quote
Which link was that?  It's no longer on your lists

In a google search. I should have clarified.

Quote
Well, I guess I have mis-stated my point.  Scrupulous prosecutors who want their convictions to stand do not lay perjury traps
Okay. That has nothing to do with whether or not the phenomenon exists or whether they may be trying to get Trump and/or his associates in one (and it appears that they might well have been trying to do so with Flynn)

Quote
I made an off-hand remark--correctly--that Giuliani's complaint in keeping Trump away from the grand jury was a "perjury trap" pointing out that that's just not a prosecutorial move.  Now, after several days, you have managed to scare up a handful of unscrupulous prosecutors who've done so. 
Except it IS a prosecutorial move. I'm sorry I haven't combed the width and breadth of US cases to find examples of perjury traps and instead just listed several, including one rather high profile case, to show it does exist. I mean dude, it involved the City/States of New York and New Jersey. This isn't some no man's land.

Quote
but I'll say that planting evidence "is not a thing".

Yeah, neither are roughing up suspects, coercing confessions, bad evidence, corrupt testimony, prosecutorial misconduct, and corrupt judges.

That's totally not a thing that happens ever in the United States.  :rolleyes:

Get a clue.

Online Mr.DeMartino

  • Waygook Lord
  • *****
  • Posts: 5968
  • Gender: Male
Re: Good for Donald Trump
« Reply #108 on: September 11, 2018, 05:35:01 PM »
Do you think judges are neutral arbiters between the prosecution and defense who are there to impartially referee things? Do you think thats how our criminal justice system actually operates in most cases?

Offline Mr C

  • Hero of Waygookistan
  • *****
  • Posts: 1557
  • Gender: Male
Re: Good for Donald Trump
« Reply #109 on: September 11, 2018, 07:33:42 PM »
Do you think judges are neutral arbiters between the prosecution and defense who are there to impartially referee things? Do you think thats how our criminal justice system actually operates in most cases?
Well, I've only been a juror on one case, but on the whole, I'd say, yeah it does work that way. There are problems in the justice system, real problems, but you make it sound like a seething den of corruption.  I've known a few judges and lawyers and believe they operate on a system of ethics. Of course, there are occasionally bad guys on the bench and in the DA's office and in uniform, but mostly they caught--and when they do it makes the news. And then becomes a story line on Law & Order.

But TV shows don't do a lot of nice stories where everything is on the up-and-up, there aren't good ratings in that. 

TV is not real life, dude.  Get a clue.

Offline Mr C

  • Hero of Waygookistan
  • *****
  • Posts: 1557
  • Gender: Male
Re: Good for Donald Trump
« Reply #110 on: September 11, 2018, 07:38:45 PM »
...
Quote
Well, I guess I have mis-stated my point.  Scrupulous prosecutors who want their convictions to stand do not lay perjury traps
Okay. That has nothing to do with whether or not the phenomenon exists or whether they may be trying to get Trump and/or his associates in one (and it appears that they might well have been trying to do so with Flynn)
Got a mainstream media link to support that?

Online gogators!

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3256
  • Gender: Male
Re: Good for Donald Trump
« Reply #111 on: September 12, 2018, 02:26:40 AM »
Do you think judges are neutral arbiters between the prosecution and defense who are there to impartially referee things? Do you think thats how our criminal justice system actually operates in most cases?
The witness will please answer the question. What is your direct experience with the law that qualifies you to claim any sort of expertise/

Online Mr.DeMartino

  • Waygook Lord
  • *****
  • Posts: 5968
  • Gender: Male
Re: Good for Donald Trump
« Reply #112 on: September 12, 2018, 12:43:35 PM »
Well, I've only been a juror on one case, but on the whole, I'd say, yeah it does work that way. There are problems in the justice system, real problems, but you make it sound like a seething den of corruption.
Your experience is solely as a juror? You do realize that the overwhelming majority of cases never go to trial. What you see in a trial case is completely different than what goes on during Grand Juries, arraignment, and sentencing in mundane everyday cases.

In courtroom after courtroom, the entire thing is a racket designed to suck as much money out of you as possible, process you, and deliver numbers, with the judge enabling it. Ask public defenders, probation officers, defense attorneys and even prosecuters and they'll tell you about how the system really is.

If you want one example- Look at NYC parking fines. You have meter maids that follow delivery trucks around the city, repeatedly handing out tickets. Then you go to the courtroom and every month those companies come in with reams of tickets, reach a deal with the court, and leave. It's all a money-making racket.

Quote
But TV shows don't do a lot of nice stories where everything is on the up-and-up, there aren't good ratings in that. 

TV is not real life, dude.  Get a clue.
You're the one who has only seen the court system as a juror. Other than that you just have your classroom and the TV. Talk to people who have actually dealt with the system and you'll get a completely different story.

"I was once a juror. I know how things are in the courts."- That very statement is laughable. You actually think trials are representative of what defendants go through in the system. Wow.

Online Mr.DeMartino

  • Waygook Lord
  • *****
  • Posts: 5968
  • Gender: Male
Re: Good for Donald Trump
« Reply #113 on: September 12, 2018, 12:50:58 PM »
The witness will please answer the question. What is your direct experience with the law that qualifies you to claim any sort of expertise/

Let's just say that a...friend...went through the process and it was a wakeup call when you realized all that stuff you'd been taught in school was a lie and the judge was not there to be impartial. The judge was there to project his image, process you as fast, get your money, and the only thing that would stop him is if you had a private attorney. Your public defender isn't your attorney, it's the court's assistant to process you and get your money.

Then you go over to the Probation office where they can't stand the judge because he keeps on doing that stuff and sending cases over that should be fines and "soak them" with probation costs and monitoring and stuff.

You think that random testing tether really costs the courts $30/day?
 
What I don't get, is that if this wasn't about Trump and instead about corruption in the US legal system, you'd all be agreeing with this stuff, but because it's me and Trump, you're pretending it doesn't exist.

Online Mr.DeMartino

  • Waygook Lord
  • *****
  • Posts: 5968
  • Gender: Male
Re: Good for Donald Trump
« Reply #114 on: September 12, 2018, 12:52:04 PM »
TV is not real life, dude.  Get a clue.

Mr C, insightful and correct as your posts are, you've fallen into the endless, monotonous trap set by Martin.  He'll keep doubling down on his incorrect assertions, changing his story, flip-flopping, commenting with long missives of nonsense.  He'll keep doubling down, in his war of attrition, until you make a tiny little mistake and then he'll pat himself on the back, incorrectly thinking he finally won an internet argument.  This will include something like 'Ahhh, you didn't say THE Supreme Court.  You missed off THE'.  You're there scratching your head, then Martin wheels away in delight thinking he's 'won' the argument.  He plainly didn't, he just thinks he did.  Leave him be with that victory.  It's all he's got.

How the heck was the dude who didn't know perjury traps existed insightful and correct?

Online Mr.DeMartino

  • Waygook Lord
  • *****
  • Posts: 5968
  • Gender: Male
Re: Good for Donald Trump
« Reply #115 on: September 12, 2018, 12:56:01 PM »
Got a mainstream media link to support that?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/michael-flynn-pleaded-guilty-now-his-supporters-are-trying-to-exonerate-him/2018/05/20/0508753c-5a11-11e8-858f-12becb4d6067_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c786b5a8bd11

Quote
Grassley wrote that when Comey met with committee members on March 15, 2017, “Comey led us to believe during that briefing that the agents who interviewed Flynn did not believe he intentionally lied about his conversation with the Ambassador and that the Justice Department was unlikely to prosecute him for false statements made in that interview.”

“In the months since then,” Grassley added, “the Special Counsel obtained a guilty plea from Lt. General Flynn for that precise alleged conduct.”

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-comey-told-congress-fbi-agents-didnt-think-michael-flynn-lied/article/2648896

Quote
To some Republicans, it appears the Justice Department used a never-enforced law and a convoluted theory as a pretext to question Flynn — and then, when FBI questioners came away believing Flynn had not lied to them, forged ahead with a false-statements prosecution anyway.

Now, that's their interpretation and there are different interpretations. Still, if what they are saying is true, that the agents AND Comey did not believe that Flynn intenionally lied or mislead them, then charging him with perjury over that would be tantamount to a perjury trap for the sole purpose of prosecutorial leverage AND NOT to go after Flynn for any actual criminal act.

Offline Mr C

  • Hero of Waygookistan
  • *****
  • Posts: 1557
  • Gender: Male
Re: Good for Donald Trump
« Reply #116 on: September 12, 2018, 04:50:48 PM »
Well, I've only been a juror on one case, but on the whole, I'd say, yeah it does work that way. There are problems in the justice system, real problems, but you make it sound like a seething den of corruption.
Your experience is solely as a juror? You do realize that the overwhelming majority of cases never go to trial. What you see in a trial case is completely different than what goes on during Grand Juries, arraignment, and sentencing in mundane everyday cases.

In courtroom after courtroom, the entire thing is a racket designed to suck as much money out of you as possible, process you, and deliver numbers, with the judge enabling it. Ask public defenders, probation officers, defense attorneys and even prosecuters and they'll tell you about how the system really is.

If you want one example- Look at NYC parking fines. You have meter maids that follow delivery trucks around the city, repeatedly handing out tickets. Then you go to the courtroom and every month those companies come in with reams of tickets, reach a deal with the court, and leave. It's all a money-making racket.

Quote
But TV shows don't do a lot of nice stories where everything is on the up-and-up, there aren't good ratings in that. 

TV is not real life, dude.  Get a clue.
You're the one who has only seen the court system as a juror. Other than that you just have your classroom and the TV. Talk to people who have actually dealt with the system and you'll get a completely different story.

"I was once a juror. I know how things are in the courts."- That very statement is laughable. You actually think trials are representative of what defendants go through in the system. Wow.



Seriously. 

Offline Mr C

  • Hero of Waygookistan
  • *****
  • Posts: 1557
  • Gender: Male
Re: Good for Donald Trump
« Reply #117 on: September 12, 2018, 04:51:58 PM »

"I was once a juror. I know how things are in the courts."- That very statement is laughable.
Maybe it is, but I didn't say it.  You made that up, which makes you a liar.

Offline Mr C

  • Hero of Waygookistan
  • *****
  • Posts: 1557
  • Gender: Male
Re: Good for Donald Trump
« Reply #118 on: September 12, 2018, 04:54:25 PM »
Got a mainstream media link to support that?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/michael-flynn-pleaded-guilty-now-his-supporters-are-trying-to-exonerate-him/2018/05/20/0508753c-5a11-11e8-858f-12becb4d6067_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c786b5a8bd11

Quote
Grassley wrote that when Comey met with committee members on March 15, 2017, “Comey led us to believe during that briefing that the agents who interviewed Flynn did not believe he intentionally lied about his conversation with the Ambassador and that the Justice Department was unlikely to prosecute him for false statements made in that interview.”

“In the months since then,” Grassley added, “the Special Counsel obtained a guilty plea from Lt. General Flynn for that precise alleged conduct.”

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-comey-told-congress-fbi-agents-didnt-think-michael-flynn-lied/article/2648896

Quote
To some Republicans, it appears the Justice Department used a never-enforced law and a convoluted theory as a pretext to question Flynn — and then, when FBI questioners came away believing Flynn had not lied to them, forged ahead with a false-statements prosecution anyway.

Now, that's their interpretation and there are different interpretations. Still, if what they are saying is true, that the agents AND Comey did not believe that Flynn intenionally lied or mislead them, then charging him with perjury over that would be tantamount to a perjury trap for the sole purpose of prosecutorial leverage AND NOT to go after Flynn for any actual criminal act.
Well, considering that you've established yourself as 'The Boy Who Makes Up Quotes', you'll have to understand that I don't believe anything you've "quoted" there. Liar.

Online Savant

  • Hero of Waygookistan
  • *****
  • Posts: 1791
Re: Good for Donald Trump
« Reply #119 on: September 12, 2018, 04:59:06 PM »

"I was once a juror. I know how things are in the courts."- That very statement is laughable.
Maybe it is, but I didn't say it.  You made that up, which makes you a liar.

To be played after every inaccurate statement from ADA Steels.