Cont: The Trump Presidency Part III

Status
Not open for further replies.
BobTheCoward said:
I don't have my own money I am allowed to gamble with.

Also, there doesn't need to be probable cause. The only requirement for special counsel is that an investigation is warranted. The requirements for an investigation are substantially lower than.probable cause.
Click to expand...

Further, I can't find the perfect example, but in united States v Leon they really expand acceptable good faith fourth amendment issues.

"The suppression of evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant should be ordered only on a case-by-case basis and only in those instances where exclusion would promote the purposes of the exclusionary rule. An officer acting in good faith and within the scope of a search warrant should not be subjected to Fourth Amendment constitutional violations. It is the magistrate’s or judge’s responsibility to ascertain whether the warrant is supported by sufficient information to support probable cause. However, the officer’s reliance must be objectively reasonable. Suppression remains an appropriate remedy where the magistrate was misled by information in an affidavit that the affiant knew was false or would have known was false except for his reckless disregard for the truth.'
 
Assuming there's anything solid on Trump personally, is there anything stopping Trump from just making sure everybody who could seriously incriminate him knows that they'll get a pardon if they don't turn snitch?
 
Civet said:
Assuming there's anything solid on Trump personally, is there anything stopping Trump from just making sure everybody who could seriously incriminate him knows that they'll get a pardon if they don't turn snitch?
Click to expand...

State level charges or a Democratic controlled congress.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I don't have my own money I am allowed to gamble with.

Also, there doesn't need to be probable cause. The only requirement for special counsel is that an investigation is warranted. The requirements for an investigation are substantially lower than.probable cause.
Click to expand...

See 28 CFR § 600.1 Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel (my bolding added)

The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and -

(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and

(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.
Click to expand...

Probable cause in the 4th Amendment sense means preponderance of the evidence that the person subject to the search or arrest has committed a crime. Determining that a criminal investigation is warranted is also by preponderance of the evidence that a crime has been committed. In the case of the appointment by Mueller, no crime was identified, let alone claimed to have occurred by the preponderance of the evidence standard.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Further, I can't find the perfect example, but in united States v Leon they really expand acceptable good faith fourth amendment issues.

"The suppression of evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant should be ordered only on a case-by-case basis and only in those instances where exclusion would promote the purposes of the exclusionary rule. An officer acting in good faith and within the scope of a search warrant should not be subjected to Fourth Amendment constitutional violations. It is the magistrate’s or judge’s responsibility to ascertain whether the warrant is supported by sufficient information to support probable cause. However, the officer’s reliance must be objectively reasonable. Suppression remains an appropriate remedy where the magistrate was misled by information in an affidavit that the affiant knew was false or would have known was false except for his reckless disregard for the truth.'
Click to expand...

I don't know if your case is applicable, but I certainly think there was a reckless disregard for the truth here. The Trump dossier is completely baseless.
 
sunmaster14 said:
See 28 CFR § 600.1 Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel (my bolding added)



Probable cause in the 4th Amendment sense means preponderance of the evidence that the person subject to the search or arrest has committed a crime. Determining that a criminal investigation is warranted is also by preponderance of the evidence that a crime has been committed. In the case of the appointment by Mueller, no crime was identified, let alone claimed to have occurred by the preponderance of the evidence standard.
Click to expand...

The standard is not a preponderance of evidence that a crime has been committed.

"Predicated investigations that concern federal crimes or threats to the national security are subdivided into preliminary investigations and full investigations. Preliminary investigations may be initiated on the basis of any allegation or information indicative of possible criminal or national security-threatening activity, but more substantial factual predication is required for full investigations. Wle time limits are set for the completion of preliminary investigations, full investigations may be pursued without preset limits on their duration. "


Combined with the factual basis being subject to "good faith" an investigation can begin on almost anything.
 
sunmaster14 said:
I don't know if your case is applicable, but I certainly think there was a reckless disregard for the truth here. The Trump dossier is completely baseless.
Click to expand...

I agree with you but think of the last 40 years of cases about warrants. Do you think the courts have moved closer to our idea of "reckless disregard for the true" or the ideas of prosecutors and police?

ETA: at some point you are betting the government has your same sense of reverence for the fourth amendment. And if they did, you probably wouldn't consider yourself a libertarian.
 
Last edited:
dudalb said:
I think it is clear that the Clinton campaign did pay for some negative research about Trump...but then paying for negative research has become SOP for every campaign nowdays.
They saw that the research was crap,and decided it would be self defeating to use it.
BTW what happened tonight indicates why this cropped up just now.
Click to expand...

Every candidate does oppo research. Normal part of politics. HUGE difference between paying a professional investigator and colluding with a hostile foreign power in exchange for selling out the nation.
 
Word from WH is that Trump is "unhinged" after finding out about imminent arrests. From a source I consider pretty solid:

https://twitter.com/funder/status/924143276571201537

The US is now entering the most dangerous phase of this illegitimate regime. We have 3 carrier groups in the vicinity of N Korea. Trump supporters calling for the execution of Trump's enemies (specifically Hillary), and a stirred up American Nazi movement just itching to take it to the streets.
 
logger said:
The most important to me was the nomination and confirmation of Judge Neil Gorsuch.
Click to expand...
McConnell stole the nomination from Obama before Trump was elected. So, if theft can be praised then that would be McConnell's accomplishment.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Why does the President need a legislative achievement? He can accomplish a great deal more in the short-term through his control of the administrative state (to the extent he can drain the swamp and get it under control).
Click to expand...
Do you mean "drain the swamp" by displacing the swamp water with raw sewage?
 
Civet said:
Assuming there's anything solid on Trump personally, is there anything stopping Trump from just making sure everybody who could seriously incriminate him knows that they'll get a pardon if they don't turn snitch?
Click to expand...
That could happen and it would also likely wind up at the Supreme Court.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Well, that's a non sequitur, but I'll bet you $100 even odds that Mueller's investigation is ultimately ruled illegitimate by a federal court in any trial that comes out of the charges announced today (illegitimate in the sense that criminal charges will be tossed because of the 4th Amendment and/or the 14th Amendment's right to Due Process). Mueller should never have been appointed, even if there was thought to be probable cause for the allegations at the time, which prompted his appointment. As it turns out, there was never probable cause, and everybody should have known that. This is a classic case of "fruit of the poisoned tree."
Click to expand...
Can you put an end date to this? Then I may be game!
 
sunmaster14 said:
Well, that's a non sequitur, but I'll bet you $100 even odds that Mueller's investigation is ultimately ruled illegitimate by a federal court in any trial that comes out of the charges announced today (illegitimate in the sense that criminal charges will be tossed because of the 4th Amendment and/or the 14th Amendment's right to Due Process).
Click to expand...

I suppose I should be wary of betting against someone who's never wrong, but I'll take that bet! :p

Mueller should never have been appointed, even if there was thought to be probable cause for the allegations at the time, which prompted his appointment. As it turns out, there was never probable cause, and everybody should have known that. This is a classic case of "fruit of the poisoned tree."
Click to expand...

Well, I think you're in a serious state of denial about a lot of things, including why the Mueller investigation was commissioned. It would be almost comical if defense lawyers tried your "due process" defense, but then, I don't suppose they'll have much else.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom