• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

ANALYSIS: Constitution Compels Sessions Dismiss Mueller From Non-Campaign Cases

Of course I never argued that. You're talking baseless drivel here, pretending that if you assert something several times but without a shred of backup, coherent argument, or evidence, we're supposed to take your assertions seriously. How about you back up your claims with......anything?

You're making claims about a deficient warrant - OK show me the warrant!

Again...you're failing at such very basic things. Show me the suspected crime.
 
Lol...you ask for evidence of a negative. Hilarious. Just goes to show how divorced from logic and reason you really are. Again, there was no declared crime...how about we do this the right way and you tell me, specifically, what crime was declared to initiate the investigation, because that's how this works.

I'll wait.

The Mueller response lists a few, and much of the page is blacked out so maybe there are many crimes. Have you not read it?

But the bottom line here is you're effectively arguing that Mueller and his team of prosecutors, who have collectively likely obtained or overseen thousands of warrant applications, and the judge who approved the warrant who has likely approved hundreds or thousands of them, don't have a basic grasp of what the Constitution requires for a warrant, and you're making these allegations from a position of nearly 100% ignorance of the facts. It's not persuasive, and gratuitous insults against me and others who call you out on this aren't effective, sorry.
 
I didn't call you an idiot, just said those who can't understand the very, very, simple words of the 4th Amendment is one. . . I know this is super hard for you but try and keep up. I have an idea. How about you read this, and tell me which parts are super confusing for you.

Again: Calling me an "idiot" doesn't demonstrate that your personal opinion about the 4th means something. You have to actually go dig up some case law. Sorry, but that's just how it works. Courts don't care if some guy said some crap on an anonymous internet forum. I'm sure you can work out why that might be.




Yes, I'd hire an attorney and I'd sue the **** out of whichever law enforcement agency that decided to just start an open-ended investigation on me without there being a suspected crime.

Yes, you would hire an attorney. You would use that attorney and not yourself to "sue the **** out of" the target. You would use the attorney because you know that you actually don't know what you're talking about and therefore couldn't actually make a legal argument to a judge about a thing. That's the point. Thank you for agreeing you would hire an attorney.


I didn't call you an idiot, just said those who can't understand the very, very, simple words of the 4th Amendment is one.

I know this is super hard for you but try and keep up. I have an idea. How about you read this, and tell me which parts are super confusing for you.

Again:
This requires finding the cases, reading them, and then analyzing how the decisions about how the decisions in those cases about the appropriateness of the warrant affidavits therein described line up with the fact pattern in the present case. Then, you make an argument. "My case is like X,Y,Z, which say I win. My case is not like A,B,C, which sound bad but actually aren't because of H,J,K distinguishing circumstances". You see, the core of the law is the idea that like cases should be treated alike. That's why judges don't simply cite an amendment and spout off whatever imbecility they want to say based on the words alone.

Remember, this is why you would hire an attorney. You would hire an attorney because you really do know that if you walked into a courtroom to contest anything, held up a constitutional provision and proceeded to read it to the judge then tell him what it meant for your case, that you would lose in flying colors. You won't admit it because you have to *get* me, but you know it.



What's confusing about that?

:thinking
 
Last edited:
The Mueller response lists a few, and much of the page is blacked out so maybe there are many crimes. Have you not read it?

But the bottom line here is you're effectively arguing that Mueller and his team of prosecutors, who have collectively likely obtained or overseen thousands of warrant applications, and the judge who approved the warrant who has likely approved hundreds or thousands of them, don't have a basic grasp of what the Constitution requires for a warrant, and you're making these allegations from a position of nearly 100% ignorance of the facts. It's not persuasive, and gratuitous insults against me and others who call you out on this aren't effective, sorry.

Correct. I'm saying that the system at play, which I admit they are fully and legitimately operating in so far as anything is considered legitimate, is outside the bounds of the Constitution. It's like you think this is beyond the ability of systems of power to do despite endless examples throughout history showing how these very things happen. Astounding.
 
Again: Calling me an "idiot" doesn't demonstrate that your personal opinion about the 4th means something. You have to actually go dig up some case law. Sorry, but that's just how it works. Courts don't care if some guy said some crap on an anonymous internet forum. I'm sure you can work out why that might be.

Rofl...no matter how many times you cry about it, I didn't call you an idiot so stop fishing for an ad hom. It's pathetic. That said, you can dig up w/e case law you want...case law layered on case law where the purpose of each one is to obfuscate and deviate from the actual original document and words, which there is no need to do because we have the actual original words. Words that, quite frankly, you seem very scared to address, time and again.

I delete the rest of your silly post.
 
Again...you're failing at such very basic things. Show me the suspected crime.

The irony meter just blew up.... :roll:

I'm happy to recognize my own state of near complete ignorance of the filings. I've seen Mueller's response and it lists some suspected crimes, and there appear to be others blacked out. But that's not really relevant. All I'm assuming is a team of 17 career prosecutors and appellate lawyers know the basics of warrants, and requested a warrant from a judge who is also competent at this basic task, and the warrants were properly issued. Occam's Razor and all that.

You're arguing the warrant was defective and the search violated the 4th Amendment. And yet you haven't seen the warrant, and don't have a clue what evidence backed it up, what was covered in the warrant, etc. The burden is yours, and it's a tough one because you know nearly nothing of the actual FACTS. But if you want to give it a go, the floor is yours.
 
The defacto AG? That's absurd. Only morons would suggest that or believe it.

While investigating the many crimes of Manafort, they identified suspicious financial activity which lead them to the discover of more, and more crimes. And you want federal prosecutors to give them a pass because....you love Trump?

The party that wants to hunt down illegals that have been here doing good work for 20 years and deport their entire family, but want to let ****ing Manafort off because of a political narrative? What kind of person are you exactly? It's a word almost like Adorable.

Besides, Republican have to keep up their trend of criminals caught in action.

View attachment 67230820

Why is it so much goddam trouble for so many people to inlude a LINK LINK LINK to their citations????
 
The irony meter just blew up.... :roll:

I'm happy to recognize my own state of near complete ignorance of the filings. I've seen Mueller's response and it lists some suspected crimes, and there appear to be others blacked out. But that's not really relevant. All I'm assuming is a team of 17 career prosecutors and appellate lawyers know the basics of warrants, and requested a warrant from a judge who is also competent at this basic task, and the warrants were properly issued. Occam's Razor and all that.

You're arguing the warrant was defective and the search violated the 4th Amendment. And yet you haven't seen the warrant, and don't have a clue what evidence backed it up, what was covered in the warrant, etc. The burden is yours, and it's a tough one because you know nearly nothing of the actual FACTS. But if you want to give it a go, the floor is yours.

There are a list of crimes that he eventually uncovered after digging and digging and digging. You're absolutely 100% correct there. The funny thing is that you don't know why that is the very thing that makes you wrong.
 
Correct. I'm saying that the system at play, which I admit they are fully and legitimately operating in so far as anything is considered legitimate, is outside the bounds of the Constitution. It's like you think this is beyond the ability of systems of power to do despite endless examples throughout history showing how these very things happen. Astounding.

OK, I think I got it now. You're not making an actual claim at all except the system is somehow corrupt because it doesn't operate exactly like you want in this case, and you're making this claim from from your position of near 100% ignorance. It's pretty amazing really. You're alleging violations of the 4th amendment for a warrant you've not seen, based on facts you don't know!
 
There are a list of crimes that he eventually uncovered after digging and digging and digging. You're absolutely 100% correct there. The funny thing is that you don't know why that is the very thing that makes you wrong.

How do you know these crimes were eventually uncovered after digging and digging? You don't know anything at all about how the investigation proceeded. It's funny to see you boldly assert claims about events you're uninformed about, nearly completely in the dark as to the details.

Here you're arguing that a warrant was defective, but you haven't seen the warrant or know the factual basis for it, and the allegations underlying it. It's like a internet doctor diagnosing a patient he's never seen, with no lab work, no physical exam, not x-rays, no nothing, and then smugly accusing others of being ignorant! :shock: :2rofll:

And isn't that how law enforcement works, generally? They suspect a crime might occur, investigate, gather some evidence for that crime, sometimes obtain search warrants based on their preliminary work, and those warrants sometimes provide hard evidence, and they charge someone with a crime and a court hears the case? What EVIDENCE do you have the cases here didn't proceed in a completely constitutionally valid manner? It's hypothetical - the answer is you have NO EVIDENCE at all.
 
OK, I think I got it now. You're not making an actual claim at all except the system is somehow corrupt

Bingo

because it doesn't operate exactly like you want in this case

Well...at least you got one part correct, finally. Where you went wrong is that it has anything to do with what I want but everything to do with the 4th Amendment.
 
And isn't that how law enforcement works, generally? They suspect a crime might occur, investigate, gather some evidence for that crime, sometimes obtain search warrants based on their preliminary work, and those warrants sometimes provide hard evidence, and they charge someone with a crime and a court hears the case?

I'm hopeful because you've started getting some things correct, perhaps by accident but no matter. Yes, it's just like you said above. So what crime happened to enact the Special Counsel? Further, what does the various crimes that have come up have to do with anything related to the non-crime that he was originally appointed for?

Again, I hope you never get put into a situation where the full force of law enforcement is brought to bear on you and tear apart everything you've ever done in your life until they find something to peg you on, merely because they want to and not that you were suspected of a crime (which I'm still waiting for someone, anyone, to tell me what crime was the premise for this entire thing).
 
The only person that sounds silly is you. How about you read the actual words of the 4th amendment and get back to me.

1. There has to be a declared crime.
2. Any search warrants have to be specifically targeted on recovering evidence for that crime.

Since no crime has been declared, and the warrants aren't even be relegated to the original intent of the investigation, which was Russian interference in the election, yeah...blah, blah, blah. Hopefully you never get law enforcement to get a burr up their butt over you and just start an open-ended investigation and just go through your entire life until they dig something up. If it were to happen, then maybe you'd understand abuse of power and tyranny.

Yeah if Trump wasn't dirty, he'd not be being investigated, I know you don't get that's how it works but, that's how it works.
 
I'm hopeful because you've started getting some things correct, perhaps by accident but no matter. Yes, it's just like you said above. So what crime happened to enact the Special Counsel? Further, what does the various crimes that have come up have to do with anything related to the non-crime that he was originally appointed for?

Ah, good, more smug condescension from a guy making the dumbest argument in a while on DP - alleging a warrant he's not seen based on facts he doesn't know somehow violated the 4th amendment.

I don't know what crime they used for the warrant. Unlike you I'm willing to recognize my state of ignorance, and avoid making dumbass points about stuff I'm ignorant about. I especially try to avoid such arguments when the facts underlying the argument, facts about which I am ignorant, are critical to the argument as here.

Any patients you want to diagnose over the internet without examining them or knowing labs, seeing x-rays, etc.?

Again, I hope you never get put into a situation where the full force of law enforcement is brought to bear on you and tear apart everything you've ever done in your life until they find something to peg you on, merely because they want to and not that you were suspected of a crime (which I'm still waiting for someone, anyone, to tell me what crime was the premise for this entire thing).

You're somehow pretending that if you are ignorant of something, it must not exist. Pretty funny.
 
Bingo

Well...at least you got one part correct, finally. Where you went wrong is that it has anything to do with what I want but everything to do with the 4th Amendment.

The part you snipped is critical to my argument. I know why you deleted it because you can't address the simple point, but it's dishonest:

and you're making this claim from from your position of near 100% ignorance. It's pretty amazing really. You're alleging violations of the 4th amendment for a warrant you've not seen, based on facts you don't know!

It's a mystery how you can judge a warrant you've not seen based on facts you don't know against the requirements of the 4th Amendment. It's magic! :roll:
 
The part you snipped is critical to my argument. I know why you deleted it because you can't address the simple point, but it's dishonest:



It's a mystery how you can judge a warrant you've not seen based on facts you don't know against the requirements of the 4th Amendment. It's magic! :roll:


Totally agree on this point. Facts don't get in the way of Conservatives...as Kellyann says there are alternative facts. These Conservatives go to sources of news that spin the news in such a manner that simple facts are declared nonsense and their nonsense is believed to be fact. The walking dead has become a docu-drama of the Trump Voter. Meat with eyes.....
 
You're somehow pretending that if you are ignorant of something, it must not exist. Pretty funny.

The only thing that is funny is that you cannot produce an answer to my question, despite being asked multiple times. Just admit you've lost the point and move on. It would be much better than continuing to dodge it over, and over, and over again.
 
The part you snipped is critical to my argument. I know why you deleted it because you can't address the simple point, but it's dishonest:

It's a mystery how you can judge a warrant you've not seen based on facts you don't know against the requirements of the 4th Amendment. It's magic! :roll:

It's actually not a mystery. We have been told via reporting what information Mueller has gone after. If you know the information that Mueller is requesting then you know what the warrant is for. And your comment that I deleted was done so because it's irrelevant, and I've already explained to you why, on multiple occasions.
 
The only thing that is funny is that you cannot produce an answer to my question, despite being asked multiple times. Just admit you've lost the point and move on. It would be much better than continuing to dodge it over, and over, and over again.

I'm tired of your dishonest debate tactics. I answered your question, and you deleted the response.

Bottom line is you're ignorant of nearly all the relevant facts underlying the warrant, and the warrant itself, what formed the basis for it, the allegations or assertions included in it. And despite your near total state of ignorance, you're stupidly claiming this thing you haven't seen violates the 4th Amendment. It's the dumbest argument I've seen in a long time.
 
It's actually not a mystery. We have been told via reporting what information Mueller has gone after. If you know the information that Mueller is requesting then you know what the warrant is for. And your comment that I deleted was done so because it's irrelevant, and I've already explained to you why, on multiple occasions.

But your core claim is the warrant you've not seen violated the 4th Amendment, presumably because it didn't adequately identify a crime. You CANNOT know this because you are ignorant of all the relevant facts and haven't reviewed the warrant, and if you haven't seen the documents and the basis for them, any claim you make about them is pulled straight from your uninformed rear end. It's really that simple.
 
Thank you for taking me to Disney land and the fantasy world that Conservatives live in. :lamo

If you don't understand something you should ask. That's the only way you'll learn.
 
I'm tired of your dishonest debate tactics. I answered your question, and you deleted the response.

Actually, you didn't answer my question, which is what suspected crime was the Special Counsel premised on and for which person was the suspected criminal?b You've not once answered that question.
 
Actually, you didn't answer my question, which is what suspected crime was the Special Counsel premised on and for which person was the suspected criminal?b You've not once answered that question.

Blah, blah, blah. My response was I DO NOT KNOW.

And the reason is simple - like you, I haven't seen the document, and when I'm ignorant of important facts, I try to avoid making an ass of myself and looking like a moron by making bold claims about the critical content of documents I have not seen. You might try such a strategy!
 
Actually, you didn't answer my question, which is what suspected crime was the Special Counsel premised on and for which person was the suspected criminal?b You've not once answered that question.

FWIW, here's the initial warrant for the storage locker (source for this and analysis by Marcy Wheeler/emptywheel: https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/04/...ress-any-june-9-meeting-information-obtained/

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.257.1.pdf

Suspected crimes are:

31 USC 5314, 5322 (failure to file a report of foreign bank and financial amounts)
22 USC 618 (Violation of FARA)
26 USC 7206(a) (filing a false tax return)

The residence warrant is here: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597/gov.uscourts.dcd.190597.264.2.pdf

Crimes listed:

31 USC 5314, 5322
22 USC 611 et seq (a broader invocation of FARA)
26 USC 7206
18 USC 1014 (fraud in connection with the extension of credit)
18 USC 1341, 1343, 1349 (mail fraud and conspiracy to commit mail fraud)
18 USC 1956 and 1957 (money laundering)
52 USC 30121 (foreign national contributions to an election)
18 USC 371 and 372 (conspiracy to defraud the US, aiding and abetting, and attempt to commit such offenses)

Much of both is blacked out....
 
Back
Top Bottom