This is not normal: Trump's tweet storm

#576
#576
AirVol said:
The reason he won is people have woke up with all the corruption at all levels of govt and to elect someone that can’t be bought would cause chaos in DC, which it has. Everyone is after Trump and no one is having much luck trying to bring him down and it’s fun to watch you guys have meltdowns every damn day.
Click to expand...
Whatever helps you sleep.
 
#577
#577
lawgator1 said:
So Trump just reversed 52 years of US policy and said we should recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/21/politics/trump-golan-heights-tweet/index.html

Wonder what US diplomats, national security, military, and intelligence professionals all think of that, since you know he got that off a phone conversation and thought "Gee, that seems right," and then posted it without consulting with anyone.
Click to expand...

Well, you linked CNN so that explains a lot. Keep believing LG.
 
#579
#579
lawgator1 said:
So Trump just reversed 52 years of US policy and said we should recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/21/politics/trump-golan-heights-tweet/index.html

Wonder what US diplomats, national security, military, and intelligence professionals all think of that, since you know he got that off a phone conversation and thought "Gee, that seems right," and then posted it without consulting with anyone.
Click to expand...

Good, should have been done years ago. There is a price to pay when you start a war and lose.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#583
#583
lawgator1 said:
If Obama had done it on a whim like this, you'd be screaming that he's irrational and dangerous.
Click to expand...

You couldn't be more wrong.

I supported the only smart thing Obama did in his eight years, establishing diplomatic relations with Cuba. He tried to f that up too but it was a good idea and past time a POTUS did it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40, volfanhill and Carl Pickens
#584
#584
hog88 said:
Trump needs to shut his trap about McCain, yes I agree that McCain was a despicable dirt-bag but enough is enough.
Click to expand...
It's not very presidential ..... especially since he's not around to defend himself. Trump is basically pissing on his grave.
 
#585
#585
lawgator1 said:
If Obama had done it on a whim like this, you'd be screaming that he's irrational and dangerous.
Click to expand...
Yeah maybe some “red lines” or “re-set buttons” are in order... Heck, lets weaponize the IRS or send guns to Mexican cartels for s&g’s...
 
#586
#586
37L1 said:
McCain should be praised for his sacrifice in service to his country.

That does not give him a lifetime pass for some of his behavior.

His promulgation of the Steele dossier reflects poorly on his character, just as Trump's reaction to McCain's role in it does as well.

Neither gets a pass, shame on them both.

Sen. John McCain's role in Trump dossier intrigue detailed in deposition
Click to expand...
So John McCain taking part in an attempted political coup to oust Trump should get what reaction from Trump?
 
#587
#587
ajvol01 said:
So John McCain taking part in an attempted political coup to oust Trump should get what reaction from Trump?
Click to expand...
So you think what he is doing now looks good?

He also hasn't used the same words to describe McCain's actions as you have. Is there some reason why not?
 
#588
#588
RockyTop85 said:
Show me, in the warrant application, where they swore the document was true.

They didn’t. They never swear to second hand information. In a case like this, or any involving second hand information, Law enforcement swear that they have received evidence and state what the evidence is. The judge determines how much weight to give it and whether that amounts to probable cause.

Who wrote the dossier? A non governmental informant. As the Supreme Court just told you, the veracity of their statements to police are not a recognized basis for challenging the validity of a warrant. If they were expected to always be able to prove their second hand information, they wouldn’t need a warrant to keep investigating.

Your argument is pure legal fiction.
Click to expand...
The FISA warrant application?

If yes, research the Woods Procedures and get back to me.
 
#594
#594
37L1 said:
If you are correct that means that all sorts of bogus crap is permissible when seeking a warrant "as long a a judge determines how much weight to give it".
Click to expand...

Maybe, but that’s a systemic problem. Not indicia of a witch hunt.

What you’re saying is the reason we require that a judge or magistrate issue search warrants. They’re the gatekeeper who refuses bogus crap. They’re elected/appointed to be legal experts, detached from the investigative process, to make those determinations correctly.

There are also rules or at least guidelines (since evidence obtained in good faith reliance on a faulty warrant is not subject to exclusion) for what they have to see in the document in order to find probable cause.
One of those guidelines is a determination of “veracity” and “basis of knowledge” of any hearsay evidence, but that burden is very very light. See this case at page:

*329

But, if there’s a case saying that the police have to disclose the potential biases of their informants, I’m not aware of it.

In TN a few years ago there was a guy driving the wrong way down a one way street. Cop pulls him over, dude says he’s had too much to drink. He passes the SFST’s. Cop arrests him anyways and his BAC is over the legal limit. He moves to suppress the BAC and it goes all the way to the Supreme Court of TN. They essentially say that once the police have probable cause, they can make an arrest and administer implied consent. Evidence that tends to negate guilt is basically of no effect at that stage.

It’s the same basic principle. Once the facts meet probable cause, the government’s actions are reasonable. Police don’t have to go to a judge and tell them all the reasons their evidence might be wrong nor do they have to prove that it’s totally true. They just have to lay a foundation that checks all the boxes for the judge to find that the invasion of privacy is reasonable.

I should say this, also: nothing in this post or any of my posts should ever be construed as legal advice. It’s commentary on the state of the law. Anybody facing a similar issue should hire and rely on the counsel of their own attorney.
 
#595
#595
RockyTop85 said:
Maybe, but that’s a systemic problem. Not indicia of a witch hunt.

What you’re saying is the reason we require that a judge or magistrate issue search warrants. They’re the gatekeeper who refuses bogus crap. They’re elected/appointed to be legal experts, detached from the investigative process, to make those determinations correctly.

There are also rules or at least guidelines (since evidence obtained in good faith reliance on a faulty warrant is not subject to exclusion) for what they have to see in the document in order to find probable cause.
One of those guidelines is a determination of “veracity” and “basis of knowledge” of any hearsay evidence, but that burden is very very light. See this case at page:

*329

But, if there’s a case saying that the police have to disclose the potential biases of their informants, I’m not aware of it.

In TN a few years ago there was a guy driving the wrong way down a one way street. Cop pulls him over, dude says he’s had too much to drink. He passes the SFST’s. Cop arrests him anyways and his BAC is over the legal limit. He moves to suppress the BAC and it goes all the way to the Supreme Court of TN. They essentially say that once the police have probable cause, they can make an arrest and administer implied consent. Evidence that tends to negate guilt is basically of no effect at that stage.

It’s the same basic principle. Once the facts meet probable cause, the government’s actions are reasonable. Police don’t have to go to a judge and tell them all the reasons their evidence might be wrong nor do they have to prove that it’s totally true. They just have to lay a foundation that checks all the boxes for the judge to find that the invasion of privacy is reasonable.

I should say this, also: nothing in this post or any of my posts should ever be construed as legal advice. It’s commentary on the state of the law. Anybody facing a similar issue should hire and rely on the counsel of their own attorney.
Click to expand...
The Judge has to rely on the veracity of the affiant. That's why on page 54 of the Carter Page FISA application there is this little piece of importance:

"I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing information regarding Carter W. Page is true and correct."

If the Steele Dossier is bogus or hasn't been vetted and is used as part of the basis for justifying the warrant, how can the Supervisory Special Agent of the FBI who signed on to that make such a declaration?

I'm sure it's a nuanced lawyer thing, and is not black and white but a gray area but that's a heck of a risk to take if it wasn't even needed or was of minimal value, as some have maintained.

Why use it if the "totality of the circumstances" was enough to get the warrant without it?

Here's an interesting article from Newsweek:

Did Clinton or Obama or Comey know the Steele Dossier was a dud?
 
Last edited:
#596
#596
37L1 said:
The Judge has to rely on the veracity of the affiant. That's why on page 54 of the Carter Page FISA application there is this little piece of importance:

"I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing information regarding Carter W. Page is true and correct."

If the Steele Dossier is bogus or hasn't been vetted and is used as part of the basis for justifying the warrant, how can the Supervisory Special Agent of the FBI who signed on to that make such a declaration?

I'm sure it's a nuanced lawyer thing, and is not black and white but a gray area but that's a heck of a risk to take if it wasn't even needed or was of minimal value, as some have maintained.

Why use it if the "totality of the circumstances" was enough to get the warrant without it?
Click to expand...

I Don’t think it’s that nuanced. He’s not swearing to the truth of the facts contained in the document. He’s swearing to what he said in the affidavit which probably contains something about receiving the dossier.

Criminals associate with other criminals so a ton of warrants are based on the statements of shady criminals. If cops put their own ass on the line every time they used a sleazeball as a source of information for a warrant, you’d have a lot fewer solved crimes.

I don’t know what role the dossier played in obtaining the warrant because only about half of the affidavit is unredacted.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top