What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

POTUS 45.25: Oh Jesus, What Now

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: POTUS 45.25: Oh Jesus, What Now

I can’t tell if they know it’s a lie and this is just the push to outrage the people with IQs below 70 who support trump, or if his lawyers are that stupid.
Look at his nominees, could be either
 
Re: POTUS 45.25: Oh Jesus, What Now

Twitter thread from a former federal prosecutor: https://twitter.com/renato_mariotti/status/942168454647484417

- Happens all of the time in white collar cases, is legal.
- If it happens, it means they had a warrant from a judge.
- If there is something privileged, the defense can raise the issue in court and it can be excluded from trial, but the initial getting of the evidence is still perfectly legal.
- If you do object, object to a judge. Not to Congress. Unless of course the sole purpose for bringing up this (perfectly legal) action is to try to get public support for firing the head of an investigation into you.
 
French Rage said:
Twitter thread from a former federal prosecutor: https://twitter.com/renato_mariotti/status/942168454647484417

- Happens all of the time in white collar cases, is legal.
- If it happens, it means they had a warrant from a judge.
- If there is something privileged, the defense can raise the issue in court and it can be excluded from trial, but the initial getting of the evidence is still perfectly legal.
- If you do object, object to a judge. Not to Congress. Unless of course the sole purpose for bringing up this (perfectly legal) action is to try to get public support for firing the head of an investigation into you.
Click to expand...

It’s public support. Trump will be tweeting soon
 
Re: POTUS 45.25: Oh Jesus, What Now

Drew S. said:
Are other candidates asked the same questions?
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting they did enough research to know this guy knew nothing about the job and therefore asked him these questions in order to embarrass him?

If not, then he must have gotten the standard questions.

If so, then they must do some level of research into the candidates they are asked to approve. If they know a candidate has a solid history as a trial judge, do you think they ask him what a motion in limine is? Of course not. Anyone who has sat through a single jury trial would know that.

I think you and I can assume they ask questions concerning matters about which they have concern. If a candidate appears unqualified, they want to know how unqualified. At least, I hope like hell they are doing that to protect me from having grossly unqualified judges administering the law in my district.

Once in a great while they probably uncover an embarrassingly unqualified candidate. Not just one they disagree with--one who is just thoroughly out of his or her water. We know now that can happen with the office of POTUS. Fortunately POTUS is not a lifetime appointment.
 
Re: POTUS 45.25: Oh Jesus, What Now

Deutsche Gopher Fan said:
It’s public support. Trump will be tweeting soon
Click to expand...

The President is just upset that the prosecutors wants to hear the original tapes rather than rely on his administration's summaries of them.

Oh wait, my bad, that was the other time that this case keeps mirroring.
 
Re: POTUS 45.25: Oh Jesus, What Now

Explain to me how firing Mueller is going to help Trump. Mueller isn't the only one who is privy to whatever he has dug up so far. Is it just a delay and someone else has to start all over? I don't get it. It seems to me it just makes Trump look bad(not that he looked good before)
 
walrus said:
Explain to me how firing Mueller is going to help Trump. Mueller isn't the only one who is privy to whatever he has dug up so far. Is it just a delay and someone else has to start all over? I don't get it. It seems to me it just makes Trump look bad(not that he looked good before)
Click to expand...

I don’t think anyone with a brain thinks it’s good for trump.
 
Re: POTUS 45.25: Oh Jesus, What Now

walrus said:
Explain to me how firing Mueller is going to help Trump. Mueller isn't the only one who is privy to whatever he has dug up so far. Is it just a delay and someone else has to start all over? I don't get it. It seems to me it just makes Trump look bad(not that he looked good before)
Click to expand...

Deutsche Gopher Fan said:
I don’t think anyone with a brain thinks it’s good for trump.
Click to expand...

A cornered rat will bite the cat.
 
Deutsche Gopher Fan said:
Wow, he might be fired by Monday am...

BREAKING: One of President Trump's lawyers is claiming that special counsel Robert Mueller obtained tens of thousands of emails from the Trump transition team illegally and that Mueller now has access to all of the teams' messages, including ones with privileged information.

I’d be shocked if this republican appointed by a republican who has a history of being impeccable really obtained this without proper channels.
Click to expand...

The same lawyer who tweeted out the admission of obstruction of justice.?
 
Re: POTUS 45.25: Oh Jesus, What Now

Also, note that "susceptible to privilege claims" is completely different than actually being privileged.

In the same way that "Homeboys from Outer Space" was Emmy-eligible but never actually won any.
 
Re: POTUS 45.25: Oh Jesus, What Now

http://www.businessinsider.com/muel...sands-of-trump-transition-team-emails-2017-12

Legal experts pushed back on the claim that Mueller illegally obtained the emails in question, some of which belong to senior adviser Jared Kushner.

"Of course Mueller obtained emails from a third party," wrote former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti. "Prosecutors in most white collar criminal investigations do that. It's not 'inappropriate' or even unusual. Anyone who claims otherwise has no idea what they're talking about."

He added that it seemed like Trump's lawyers were just "playing politics," but that the development was nevertheless a "bad sign" for them.

Jeffrey Cramer, a longtime former federal prosecutor who specialized in white collar cases, echoed that point.

"This is not a problem," he said, referring to the way Mueller's team got a hold of the emails. "The server owner, in this case GSA, properly has the emails and can turn them over if there was a subpoena or court order," in the same way that internet providers and banks can provide emails and records about clients to law enforcement.

More than that, Cramer added, the special counsel's team may not even have needed a subpoena to obtain the emails. An administrative request — a legally authorized and judicially enforceable demand for records issued by a government authority — may have sufficed, he said.
Click to expand...
 
Re: POTUS 45.25: Oh Jesus, What Now

rufus said:
Asking him a few basic questions that any law school graduate should know the answers to is humiliating him?

The only thing humiliating him is his gross unfitness for the job.
Click to expand...

Those were literally the softball questions that Republicans routinely toss to judicial appointments from a GOP White House. This guy needs a tee ball, I guess.
 
Re: POTUS 45.25: Oh Jesus, What Now

bronconick said:
Those were literally the softball questions that Republicans routinely toss to judicial appointments from a GOP White House. This guy needs a tee ball, I guess.
Click to expand...

I don't think those were routine questions. You wouldn't ask those questions of a real judge if you wanted him or her to look good. Those were questions you would ask a plumber who wants to be judge. A plumber who has never had to take a client to small claims court.
 
Handyman said:
To put it in more perspective, I never went to Law school (just took undergrad classes) and I have a better understanding of the law than this guy does. The only reason he is even up for the job was because he was on the Election Commission. He doesnt have the requisite knowledge to run traffic court let alone be a federal court judge.

I am hoping the RBG thing was a bit, and attempt at "GOTCHA" that just went wrong because a simple google search would have told Hovey how ridiculously misguided his point was. And again, it wasnt like it was Amy Klobuchar asking him a bunch of super obscure legal questions in hopes of making him look foolish, this was a Republican asking him about as basic a question as you can ask just so he can get his feet under him. This is on par with being at a job interview and them asking about your previous experience. This is Katie Couric asking Sarah Palin what magazines she reads.

Much like most of Trump's nominees, I am sure there is a job this guy is qualified for, but this isnt it.
Click to expand...
My point wasn’t misguided. It was just missed. My point was that the notion of simply dismissing judicial candidates because they lack trial experience is misguided. Many very bright and very talented legal minds never see the inside of a courtroom or participate in a trial. We may decide someone with trial experience is a better candidate but that doesn’t justify immediately casting aside someone who doesn’t.

In any event I’m happy I was able to help FS23 take his newly minted law degree for a spin and show off for all his friends and neighbors.
 
Re: POTUS 45.25: Oh Jesus, What Now

SJHovey said:
My point wasn’t misguided. It was just missed. My point was that the notion of simply dismissing judicial candidates because they lack trial experience is misguided. Many very bright and very talented legal minds never see the inside of a courtroom or participate in a trial. We may decide someone with trial experience is a better candidate but that doesn’t justify immediately casting aside someone who doesn’t.

In any event I’m happy I was able to help FS23 take his newly minted law degree for a spin and show off for all his friends and neighbors.
Click to expand...

For an appellate position, possibly, but not to run a trial docket.
 
SJHovey said:
My point wasn’t misguided. It was just missed. My point was that the notion of simply dismissing judicial candidates because they lack trial experience is misguided. Many very bright and very talented legal minds never see the inside of a courtroom or participate in a trial. We may decide someone with trial experience is a better candidate but that doesn’t justify immediately casting aside someone who doesn’t.

In any event I’m happy I was able to help FS23 take his newly minted law degree for a spin and show off for all his friends and neighbors.
Click to expand...

Yeah your point was missed because it was misguided. There is a reason people with knowledge on the subject are telling you as such. I mean you can pretend otherwise but the facts don't back up the point you were making.

But yes a guy should be dismissed from being a trial judge if he knows nothing of trial law. Should someone be Surgeon General if they never had experience in medicine?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top