March 25, 2019, 05:51:01 AM


Author Topic: Good for Donald Trump  (Read 5538 times)

Offline Mr.DeMartino

  • Waygook Lord
  • *****
  • Posts: 6334
  • Gender: Male
Re: Good for Donald Trump
« Reply #80 on: September 10, 2018, 09:16:09 AM »
Actually, the fact that the Russian government interfered in the US election is anything but a joke and constitutes a grave threat to American democracy.  To demean it as anything less for partisan reasons is dangerous and unpatriotic. Further, any US citizens involved in this interference are guilty of a crime.  The DOJ has a sworn duty to investigate this matter and needs sufficient time and resources to do it. 
What's a joke is the extent to which people on the left have convinced themselves that this Russian stuff had any significant imapct. Do you seriously think people's minds were changed because someone retweeted a meme of Jesus high-fiving Trump? Have you seen the Russian propaganda? As far as hacks, we apparently have a low-grade phsihing scheme that Podesta fell for (and the fact that he fell for it proves his unfitness), and a DNC hack where the servers were investigated by a paid 3rd party (NOT the FBI) and that outside sources have said is inconsistent with an external hack and more consistent with an internal leak.

You do realize YOU are the one regurgitating Russian propaganda when you fall for this, right? Russia wants you to think that Putin is all big and bad and all-controlling. Certainly we don't want the real truth- that his hacking operation was 3rd rate and his propaganda so ineffective, it can't boost Stolichnaya above Absolut.

Offline Mr.DeMartino

  • Waygook Lord
  • *****
  • Posts: 6334
  • Gender: Male
Re: Good for Donald Trump
« Reply #81 on: September 10, 2018, 09:23:43 AM »
Well, that's a tired old canard that you surely know is not true. It depends on his reason.  IF the President sacked Comey to stymie the investigation, that is quite straightforwardly an attempt to obstruct justice. The only legal minds arguing otherwise are Trump's lawyers and Alan Dershowitz.
Actually plenty of other lawyers are doing so, you're just only selecting the ones that confirm what you want to hear. There's other lawyers than just legal pundits on CNN or HuffPo.

Quote
The reason Mueller is interested in getting Trump under oath is to determine his state of mind when he did so.  It's not a "perjury trap"--hell, that isn't even a thing!

Dude.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury_trap
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-to-avoid-perjury-trap/

Yeah, Mr. C, you might know teaching English and all, but you really need to get more of a clue when it comes to crime and how the law works and how shady politicians and prosecuters are.

Quote
But here's the thing about Trump's tweets.  They can be used to show his state of mind.
It can...but it's a terrible way to draw conclusions. Look at any body of written work, particularly literature (and one can reasonably argue that Trump is trying to craft a narrative) and you'll get 50 different interpretations.

Also, state of mind? In other words, you can mind read?
« Last Edit: September 10, 2018, 12:54:39 PM by Mr.DeMartino »

Offline Mr.DeMartino

  • Waygook Lord
  • *****
  • Posts: 6334
  • Gender: Male
Re: Good for Donald Trump
« Reply #82 on: September 10, 2018, 10:12:22 AM »
Quick questions for the Trump brigade (wasn't sure which thread to post in as there about 600  :P).

Why is Trump so into NFL? Why does he have to tweet every time someone takes a knee on the national anthem?

Why do Americans even play the national anthem before team (non international) sports games?

I always thought you played the national anthem when you play sports games or walk into a Wendys to boost military enrolment.

If I may say, I think Trump is into the NFL because this is an issue he can use as a wedge. It's one of those issues that generates a lot of passion in people and causes them to take a stand. I think Trump, correctly, assumes that there are more people who A) Think it's an insult to America/The Troops or B) Are really upset that politics is in their sport than C) People who strongly support Kaepernick. Also, Kaepernick's supporters are already locked in for the Democrats, whereas Trump might be able to pull in people who don't normally support him. Of course the biggest group of fans are D) The people who don't notice or care either way and are more into the game/gambling/their fantasy team.

Also, I think if Trump can push this issue AND it ends up that the NFL has to buckle and the athletes turn on each other over this (which could happen if ratings, attendance, and revenues decline), then he will have scored a major victory and looked "strong" against what many regard as an invicible American icon in the vein of Coca-Cola or Google.

Lastly, no other sports league has been so interwtwined with the U.S. military as the NFL. That's probably another part of it.

Now the other side will tell you "Because Trump is racist and he wants to fire up his white base." I think this explanation is overly simplistic. While there is an element of the "white base" that is against Kaepernick because of his Black Lives Matter support, I think they are nowhere near as numerous as the left suggests. In fact, a lot of them think Trump is too liberal or part of the Global Zionist Conspiracy or whatever nonsense they believe in because Ivanka married someone of Jewish heritage. 

The tradition of the American national anthem being played at sporting events goes back to World War I, before the Star Spangled Banner became our official national anthem. It started being played at baseball games as a way to show the sport's solidarity with America and the war effort. From there the practice spread. The connection between sports and military/patriotism is obvious as they engender similar feelings- tribalism, competition, human interest in conflict and violence, winners and losers, good vs. evil, colors and symbols, heroes and legends, cooperation and teamwork, and so on.


Offline Chester Jim

  • Hero of Waygookistan
  • *****
  • Posts: 1061
  • Gender: Male
  • Getter Done
Re: Good for Donald Trump
« Reply #83 on: September 10, 2018, 10:47:18 AM »
Would you, as a Republican go under oath, and answer questions and his team of democrat donor lawyers? 
Youíd be stupid to do it.


The investigation is a joke. 
Just say, I fired Comey and I has every right to do so? 
Yes I tweeted, itís my right to do so, you canít prove that it was obstruction.  You have nothing. 

So your saying he could do that but decides not to.... weird....
Not as weird as your response.
He could what?
Decide to answer questions for Mueller and 17 lawyer donors to the Democratic Party.   Yes, he could.   You could also have your testicles removed.  But you donít .  Weird.

He actually wants to.  Because he doesnít think that he has anything to hide.   But rightly he is advised not to. 

Mueller is now a democratic hero, and if he doesnít find anything, he will have no one and no where left to go to.  So he will find something as he already has, and it will be nothing, like it has been.
Bonzai!

Offline Chester Jim

  • Hero of Waygookistan
  • *****
  • Posts: 1061
  • Gender: Male
  • Getter Done
Re: Good for Donald Trump
« Reply #84 on: September 10, 2018, 10:51:47 AM »
Would you, as a Republican go under oath, and answer questions and his team of democrat donor lawyers? 
Youíd be stupid to do it.


The investigation is a joke. 
Just say, I fired Comey and I has every right to do so? 
Yes I tweeted, itís my right to do so, you canít prove that it was obstruction.  You have nothing.
You're saying all repubs are dishonest and have something to hide. I think there's some truth to that, but there must be at least one who is honest.

Wow!  This is stupid. 
No republican would want to answer questions to partisan democrat lawyers, like my sentence indicated.
Yet you twisted it..
You give a good example of how they might twist what Trump says to them.
If Mueller and democrats are half as deceptive as you are, then obviously no Republican would want to answer questions.
Bonzai!

Offline AvecPommesFrites

  • Expert Waygook
  • ****
  • Posts: 811
  • Gender: Female
Re: Good for Donald Trump
« Reply #85 on: September 10, 2018, 10:56:50 AM »
Quick questions for the Trump brigade (wasn't sure which thread to post in as there about 600  :P).

Why is Trump so into NFL? Why does he have to tweet every time someone takes a knee on the national anthem?

Why do Americans even play the national anthem before team (non international) sports games?

I always thought you played the national anthem when you play sports games or walk into a Wendys to boost military enrolment.

If I may say, I think Trump is into the NFL because this is an issue he can use as a wedge. It's one of those issues that generates a lot of passion in people and causes them to take a stand. I think Trump, correctly, assumes that there are more people who A) Think it's an insult to America/The Troops or B) Are really upset that politics is in their sport than C) People who strongly support Kaepernick. Also, Kaepernick's supporters are already locked in for the Democrats, whereas Trump might be able to pull in people who don't normally support him. Of course the biggest group of fans are D) The people who don't notice or care either way and are more into the game/gambling/their fantasy team.

Also, I think if Trump can push this issue AND it ends up that the NFL has to buckle and the athletes turn on each other over this (which could happen if ratings, attendance, and revenues decline), then he will have scored a major victory and looked "strong" against what many regard as an invicible American icon in the vein of Coca-Cola or Google.

Lastly, no other sports league has been so interwtwined with the U.S. military as the NFL. That's probably another part of it.

Now the other side will tell you "Because Trump is racist and he wants to fire up his white base." I think this explanation is overly simplistic. While there is an element of the "white base" that is against Kaepernick because of his Black Lives Matter support, I think they are nowhere near as numerous as the left suggests. In fact, a lot of them think Trump is too liberal or part of the Global Zionist Conspiracy or whatever nonsense they believe in because Ivanka married someone of Jewish heritage. 

The tradition of the American national anthem being played at sporting events goes back to World War I, before the Star Spangled Banner became our official national anthem. It started being played at baseball games as a way to show the sport's solidarity with America and the war effort. From there the practice spread. The connection between sports and military/patriotism is obvious as they engender similar feelings- tribalism, competition, human interest in conflict and violence, winners and losers, good vs. evil, colors and symbols, heroes and legends, cooperation and teamwork, and so on.



Thanks Tino. Nice read there.
Can I refill your eggnog for you? Get you something to eat? Drive you out to the middle of nowhere and leave you for dead?

Offline Mr.DeMartino

  • Waygook Lord
  • *****
  • Posts: 6334
  • Gender: Male
Re: Good for Donald Trump
« Reply #86 on: September 10, 2018, 10:59:24 AM »
Stop making me defend Donald Trump!



Seriously, at least 20% of Trump's support is because of stuff like this.

Offline Chester Jim

  • Hero of Waygookistan
  • *****
  • Posts: 1061
  • Gender: Male
  • Getter Done
Re: Good for Donald Trump
« Reply #87 on: September 10, 2018, 11:24:38 AM »
He actually wants to.  Because he doesnít think that he has anything to hide.   But rightly he is advised not to. 

What a stupid sentence.  Just read it over and see if you can notice what's wrong with this picture.

I read it.  And itís not stupid. You are saying that he has something to hide, so he wonít answer questions to a clearly biased Mueller.  He will answer them in writing.  Trump naively believes he can just talk to them in a friendly way.  But these guys hate him. 
Democrats are petty and looking for anything. 
To look at how insignificant this is, look at what happened to Bill Clinton who obstructed like a sob, and lied so much that the Supreme Court boycotted his state of the union.  He was impeached, but not charged with anything.
Ok, now we are talking about trump using a cutout in Cohen to pay Stormy Daniels.  Itís from his pocket.
Bill Clinton paid someone who paid someone to kill a ladies cat to keep her from testifying. 
The crazy thing is that democrats get away with it, and Trump did something legal; settling with someone in exchange for silence. 
Look at John Edwards.  He used campaign funds to hide his pregnant mistress from the public.
Trump used his own money. 
Again this is a witch hunt.

Partisan Mueller and swamp rat lawyers who are going to try to trap Trump into admitting some little picadilly that no one has gotten in trouble for, just so mueller can have his comic con, antifa heroes worship his dark government powers. Hopefully Papadopoulosí 14 day in jail can satiate the nasty democratic beast.  I wonder if they are adopting Aztec culture.

And if you want to look  into whether he lied to feds.  Then you should really be consistent, and attack Hillary.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2018, 11:26:53 AM by Chester Jim »
Bonzai!

Offline hangook77

  • Expert Waygook
  • ****
  • Posts: 945
  • Gender: Male
Re: Good for Donald Trump
« Reply #88 on: September 10, 2018, 12:45:23 PM »


Offline hangook77

  • Expert Waygook
  • ****
  • Posts: 945
  • Gender: Male
Re: Good for Donald Trump
« Reply #89 on: September 10, 2018, 12:50:02 PM »

Offline Chester Jim

  • Hero of Waygookistan
  • *****
  • Posts: 1061
  • Gender: Male
  • Getter Done
Re: Good for Donald Trump
« Reply #90 on: September 10, 2018, 12:50:42 PM »
He actually wants to.  Because he doesnít think that he has anything to hide.   But rightly he is advised not to. 

What a stupid sentence.  Just read it over and see if you can notice what's wrong with this picture.

I read it.  And itís not stupid. You are saying that he has something to hide, so he wonít answer questions to a clearly biased Mueller. 

Christ, that whole missive gave me a headache, like one of Trump's 'stream of consciousness' rallies.

There is a big difference.  In...
Quote
Because he doesnít think that he has anything to hide.
and...
Quote
You are saying that he has something to hide


Trump's perception and very stunted and limited view of having 'nothing to hide' and what I think he 'might be hiding' are two completely different things.  Trump has no qualms about sleeping with porn stars and then lying about it, thinking he'd done nothing wrong because, you know, he can grab women by the ***** because he's rich.  Just pay them off and be done with it.  Rational people don't seem to care what he did, what makes this whole thing worse is the constant story changing.  Which is why the lawyers told him not to testify because he can't keep a straight story for 5 minutes.  That is the problem.  The difference between what Trump thinks he might have done wrong and what is actually legally wrong are daylights apart.  Trump has no idea how to speak truthfully, that has been proved time and time again.

Is sleeping with porn stars illegal?  Is saying that when you are famous you can grab em .... illegal?

I prefer my ďmissiveĒ to that roundabout drivel.
I think John Kerry makes quicker points. 
Your words donít mean anything.
I feel like Iím in the twilight zone or a peewee Herman, I know you are but what am I match.
 Blah blah bla .. I hate trump, so letís throw the book at him. 
Bonzai!

Offline hangook77

  • Expert Waygook
  • ****
  • Posts: 945
  • Gender: Male
Re: Good for Donald Trump
« Reply #91 on: September 10, 2018, 12:53:13 PM »

Offline Mr C

  • Hero of Waygookistan
  • *****
  • Posts: 1593
  • Gender: Male
Re: Good for Donald Trump
« Reply #92 on: September 10, 2018, 02:18:31 PM »
Well, that's a tired old canard that you surely know is not true. It depends on his reason.  IF the President sacked Comey to stymie the investigation, that is quite straightforwardly an attempt to obstruct justice. The only legal minds arguing otherwise are Trump's lawyers and Alan Dershowitz.
Actually plenty of other lawyers are doing so, you're just only selecting the ones that confirm what you want to hear. There's other lawyers than just legal pundits on CNN or HuffPo.

Quote
The reason Mueller is interested in getting Trump under oath is to determine his state of mind when he did so.  It's not a "perjury trap"--hell, that isn't even a thing!

Dude.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury_trap
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-to-avoid-perjury-trap/

Yeah, Mr. C, you might know teaching English and all, but you really need to get more of a clue when it comes to crime and how the law works and how shady politicians and prosecuters are.

"Getting a clue" might include reading before you point someone to a link.  The Wikipage you cite says: "No US federal court has ever accepted a motion to dismiss because of claimed perjury trap." The 2nd of the three sources cited on that page is: McLain, Billy Joe (March 2010). "Debunking the Perjury-Trap Myth".

Prosecutors don't lay perjury traps.
Quote
Quote
But here's the thing about Trump's tweets.  They can be used to show his state of mind.
It can...but it's a terrible way to draw conclusions. Look at any body of written work, particularly literature (and one can reasonably argue that Trump is trying to craft a narrative) and you'll get 50 different interpretations.

Also, state of mind? In other words, you can mind read?
No.  Why?

Wait, didn't you just accuse me of not knowing about how the law works?  Um, "state of mind", unlike a perjury trap, is a thing.  It's a real thing used by courts and judges and so forth.  In fact, it is almost impossible to obtain a criminal conviction for many crimes without the "mental element" of the person's intent.  Look up Mens rea and get back to me.

Offline Mr.DeMartino

  • Waygook Lord
  • *****
  • Posts: 6334
  • Gender: Male
Re: Good for Donald Trump
« Reply #93 on: September 10, 2018, 02:47:53 PM »
"Getting a clue" might include reading before you point someone to a link.  The Wikipage you cite says: "No US federal court has ever accepted a motion to dismiss because of claimed perjury trap." The 2nd of the three sources cited on that page is: McLain, Billy Joe (March 2010). "Debunking the Perjury-Trap Myth".

Prosecutors don't lay perjury traps.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

https://definitions.uslegal.com/p/perjury-trap-doctrine/
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1998-11-01/news/1998305008_1_monica-lewinsky-perjury-starr-report
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1998/08/10/the-perjury-trap
https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1756-perjury-cases-special-problems-and-defenses-perjury-trap

For something you claim doesn't happen and doesn't exist, it sure seems like it exists. Just google "Perjury Trap" and set it before the Trump stuff started and you get a whole slew of results.

This is in the same vein as prosecutorial overcharging and leveraging defendants to get testimony and get plea bargains

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overcharging_(law)

Dude, you really need to get a clue about how the U.S. criminal justice system operates and what a racket it is. The same tactics that are used to bully minority defendants and get people into the prison system and make money for the courts are the ones being used with Trump.

You do realize that the objective of the US legal system is to get you to plea so you can be swiftly processed and money can be taken from you, right? It is NOT to provide you with a fair and impartial trial and criminal investigation. Cops and prosecutors will turn people's lives upside down, even if they know they are innocent or didn't commit any serious offenses, simply to improve their conviction rate, get money from people, or to win high-profile cases.

Quote
It's a real thing used by courts and judges and so forth.  In fact, it is almost impossible to obtain a criminal conviction for many crimes without the "mental element" of the person's intent.  Look up Mens rea and get back to me.

So now you are agreeing that there is an element of criminal intent. Yes, simply meeting with Russians is not enough, you also have to prove intent and that they were part of a conspiracy.

Also, in order to prove someone's state of mind, you are going to need very clear evidence, not just YOUR interpretation and suspicions. It's the same as the Republicans who think Strozk's text messages PROVE he was corrupt. That's certainly ONE possibility. On the other hand, he could have simply been showing off for his girlfriend and acted completely within procedure. That is also a possibility and you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he had intent.

And as I said, given that Trump was consulting with his lawyer about what he could do, it is going to be VERY HARD to prove he had criminal intent absent some sort of smoking gun like "I don't care if you do it legally or illegally". Even something as strong as "By any means necessary" is not enough because since he was talking TO HIS LAWYER, Trump can plausibly say that this meant "within the law" and that was understood.

This is why I, unlike some other posters, don't go too much into the Clinton Emails thing or the FBI stuff, because you have to turn things around and apply the same standards and principles to "the other side" and argue from the other side. If you can't make a convincing argument from the other side, you probably aren't cut out for this sort of thing. That is why people who study law (which I did in undergrad as a PoliSci major and Mock Trial student), have to do this- You have to be able to take the Prosecution's case and argue it as though you believe it and then turn around and be able to argue the Defense's case with equal fervor. If you can't do that, you are going to have problems. Now, I think you are aware of the defenses of Clinton and the FBI agents and how they apply, you do realize that those same kinds of defenses also apply, in many cases, to Trump and his associates as well, right?

Who has shown that kind of capacity? Most notable you have some Republican Never-Trumpers who ARE applying the same standards to some extent that they applied to Democrats in their loathing of Trump. You also have people like Dershowitz and Glenn Greenwald on the left who personally loathe much of what Trump stands for, but also think the case against him regarding Russia is rather weak and has a flimsy legal basis.

Now, I'm not saying I'm like them, nor am I a lawyer so I'm much more apt to make mistakes and have greater biases, but I'm just trying to point out how what looks like an open-and-shut case to you, might not be so.

Offline gogators!

  • The Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3346
  • Gender: Male
Re: Good for Donald Trump
« Reply #94 on: September 10, 2018, 08:13:49 PM »
"Getting a clue" might include reading before you point someone to a link.  The Wikipage you cite says: "No US federal court has ever accepted a motion to dismiss because of claimed perjury trap." The 2nd of the three sources cited on that page is: McLain, Billy Joe (March 2010). "Debunking the Perjury-Trap Myth".

Prosecutors don't lay perjury traps.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

https://definitions.uslegal.com/p/perjury-trap-doctrine/
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1998-11-01/news/1998305008_1_monica-lewinsky-perjury-starr-report
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1998/08/10/the-perjury-trap
https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1756-perjury-cases-special-problems-and-defenses-perjury-trap

For something you claim doesn't happen and doesn't exist, it sure seems like it exists. Just google "Perjury Trap" and set it before the Trump stuff started and you get a whole slew of results.

This is in the same vein as prosecutorial overcharging and leveraging defendants to get testimony and get plea bargains

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overcharging_(law)

Dude, you really need to get a clue about how the U.S. criminal justice system operates and what a racket it is. The same tactics that are used to bully minority defendants and get people into the prison system and make money for the courts are the ones being used with Trump.

You do realize that the objective of the US legal system is to get you to plea so you can be swiftly processed and money can be taken from you, right? It is NOT to provide you with a fair and impartial trial and criminal investigation. Cops and prosecutors will turn people's lives upside down, even if they know they are innocent or didn't commit any serious offenses, simply to improve their conviction rate, get money from people, or to win high-profile cases.

Quote
It's a real thing used by courts and judges and so forth.  In fact, it is almost impossible to obtain a criminal conviction for many crimes without the "mental element" of the person's intent.  Look up Mens rea and get back to me.

So now you are agreeing that there is an element of criminal intent. Yes, simply meeting with Russians is not enough, you also have to prove intent and that they were part of a conspiracy.

Also, in order to prove someone's state of mind, you are going to need very clear evidence, not just YOUR interpretation and suspicions. It's the same as the Republicans who think Strozk's text messages PROVE he was corrupt. That's certainly ONE possibility. On the other hand, he could have simply been showing off for his girlfriend and acted completely within procedure. That is also a possibility and you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he had intent.

And as I said, given that Trump was consulting with his lawyer about what he could do, it is going to be VERY HARD to prove he had criminal intent absent some sort of smoking gun like "I don't care if you do it legally or illegally". Even something as strong as "By any means necessary" is not enough because since he was talking TO HIS LAWYER, Trump can plausibly say that this meant "within the law" and that was understood.

This is why I, unlike some other posters, don't go too much into the Clinton Emails thing or the FBI stuff, because you have to turn things around and apply the same standards and principles to "the other side" and argue from the other side. If you can't make a convincing argument from the other side, you probably aren't cut out for this sort of thing. That is why people who study law (which I did in undergrad as a PoliSci major and Mock Trial student), have to do this- You have to be able to take the Prosecution's case and argue it as though you believe it and then turn around and be able to argue the Defense's case with equal fervor. If you can't do that, you are going to have problems. Now, I think you are aware of the defenses of Clinton and the FBI agents and how they apply, you do realize that those same kinds of defenses also apply, in many cases, to Trump and his associates as well, right?

Who has shown that kind of capacity? Most notable you have some Republican Never-Trumpers who ARE applying the same standards to some extent that they applied to Democrats in their loathing of Trump. You also have people like Dershowitz and Glenn Greenwald on the left who personally loathe much of what Trump stands for, but also think the case against him regarding Russia is rather weak and has a flimsy legal basis.

Now, I'm not saying I'm like them, nor am I a lawyer so I'm much more apt to make mistakes and have greater biases, but I'm just trying to point out how what looks like an open-and-shut case to you, might not be so.
And yet you claim extensive knowledge about the U.S. justice system. LOL.

Mr. C. don't let sr/dm's logorrhea suck you down the rabbit hole.

Offline Mr.DeMartino

  • Waygook Lord
  • *****
  • Posts: 6334
  • Gender: Male
Re: Good for Donald Trump
« Reply #95 on: September 11, 2018, 07:49:19 AM »

And yet you claim extensive knowledge about the U.S. justice system. LOL.

Mr. C. don't let sr/dm's logorrhea suck you down the rabbit hole.

I never claimed extensive knowledge. I claimed basic knowledge.

gogators, for someone who hates on Trump, you sure seem to have a similar writing style and depth to it.

Offline Mr C

  • Hero of Waygookistan
  • *****
  • Posts: 1593
  • Gender: Male
Re: Good for Donald Trump
« Reply #96 on: September 11, 2018, 12:33:44 PM »
"Getting a clue" might include reading before you point someone to a link.  The Wikipage you cite says: "No US federal court has ever accepted a motion to dismiss because of claimed perjury trap." The 2nd of the three sources cited on that page is: McLain, Billy Joe (March 2010). "Debunking the Perjury-Trap Myth".

Prosecutors don't lay perjury traps.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

https://definitions.uslegal.com/p/perjury-trap-doctrine/
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1998-11-01/news/1998305008_1_monica-lewinsky-perjury-starr-report
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1998/08/10/the-perjury-trap
https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1756-perjury-cases-special-problems-and-defenses-perjury-trap

For something you claim doesn't happen and doesn't exist, it sure seems like it exists. Just google "Perjury Trap" and set it before the Trump stuff started and you get a whole slew of results.
I think gogators is correct here, and I need to get out of the endless DeMartino blathering trap (which is a thing). 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?
Quote
This is in the same vein as prosecutorial overcharging and leveraging defendants to get testimony and get plea bargains

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overcharging_(law)
No, it isn't.
Quote
Dude, you really need to get a clue about how the U.S. criminal justice system operates and what a racket it is. The same tactics that are used to bully minority defendants and get people into the prison system and make money for the courts are the ones being used with Trump.

You do realize that the objective of the US legal system is to get you to plea so you can be swiftly processed and money can be taken from you, right? It is NOT to provide you with a fair and impartial trial and criminal investigation. Cops and prosecutors will turn people's lives upside down, even if they know they are innocent or didn't commit any serious offenses, simply to improve their conviction rate, get money from people, or to win high-profile cases.

Quote
It's a real thing used by courts and judges and so forth.  In fact, it is almost impossible to obtain a criminal conviction for many crimes without the "mental element" of the person's intent.  Look up Mens rea and get back to me.

So now you are agreeing that there is an element of criminal intent. Yes, simply meeting with Russians is not enough, you also have to prove intent and that they were part of a conspiracy.

Also, in order to prove someone's state of mind, you are going to need very clear evidence, not just YOUR interpretation and suspicions. It's the same as the Republicans who think Strozk's text messages PROVE he was corrupt. That's certainly ONE possibility. On the other hand, he could have simply been showing off for his girlfriend and acted completely within procedure. That is also a possibility and you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he had intent.
See, you have this exactly backward, as (not to be too ad hominem here) usual. First, you need to find that he was acting in a manner that violated procedure.  Only after you find the potentially liable behavior do you look for evidence that goes to state of mind.

But I guess I can't blame you too much, as the Republicans in Congress (many of whom are lawyers), seem to get it backwards too, like in the Strozk instance.  They are simply looking for any way to discredit the very legitimate and necessary investigation into Russian interference in our electoral system.  The fact that have to go to such ridiculous lengths only illustrates how straight and narrow is the path Mueller is on.

Offline Mr.DeMartino

  • Waygook Lord
  • *****
  • Posts: 6334
  • Gender: Male
Re: Good for Donald Trump
« Reply #97 on: September 11, 2018, 12:45:15 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. 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. Especially if you're just parroting talking points like "Look at all the llies and guilty pleas" without even being able to understand their context and what was used to get those guilty pleas.

If you want to bow out, fine. I just ask that you take a long look into the U.S. legal system and how it REALLY operates. Not the stuff you were taught in school, but the way the courts REALLY work in practice.

Let me guess- you think the Judge is a neutral arbiter between the prosecution and the defense and is there to ensure the proceedings are fair?

Offline Mr.DeMartino

  • Waygook Lord
  • *****
  • Posts: 6334
  • Gender: Male
Re: Good for Donald Trump
« Reply #98 on: September 11, 2018, 12:47:40 PM »
Also, not talking to the police should NEVER be construed as a sign of guilt. That's why we have the 5th Amendment.

And that's before we get to the fact that only an idiot would talk to the cops unless they were absolutely sure they weren't going to be invovled in any serious way.

People bash Trump for his Central Park Five ad. Did you know the Central Park Five confessed? That's how little you can trust a guilty plea.

Offline Mr.DeMartino

  • Waygook Lord
  • *****
  • Posts: 6334
  • Gender: Male
Re: Good for Donald Trump
« Reply #99 on: September 11, 2018, 01:00:12 PM »
First, you need to find that he was acting in a manner that violated procedure.  Only after you find the potentially liable behavior do you look for evidence that goes to state of mind.

Meeting with a foreign individual while a candidate for office is not illegal. Meeting with a foreign individual while a candidate for office and that foreign individual claims to have evidence of criminal activity is not illegal.

You previously said that those were probably crimes. They are not.

Quote
In all probability, it's already illegal when a foreign agent shows up at the meeting. Pretty sure the FBI would welcome word of such a meeting at Trump Tower.

Since you have something where criminal behavior COULD have taken place, you have to evidence of it. Now as for their state of mind, it is the burden of the prosecution to prove that their intention was to engage in criminal activity and that evidence has to be clear and compelling. It's going to take a lot more than some clip of Trump going "Russia, if you're listening" and everyone laughing.

As it stands, there's not much to go on.