Schiff 'very concerned' Trump might fire Rosenstein

[Cyber Liberty]

Exactly.

Trump may not have been operating with a good sense of reason in office, but he still seems brighter than to fall for this.  I don't think that's the game being played, anyway.

I don't think either Schiffless or Trump want to get rid of Rosenstein.  They both want to keep him there, but are expecting different results.

[Hoodat]

How about instead of firing Rosenstein, he's indicted?   

For what?  Not being sufficiently worshipful of Lord Trump?

@Oceander

Sorry, not quite seeing what any of this has to do with Lord Trump.  Let's review, shall we.

The Deputy Attorney General submitted as evidence to the FIS Court documents that he knew to be the product of a political campaign.  Furthermore, this same Deputy Attorney General knew that the source of that information - Christopher Steele - was no longer trusted as an FBI informant due to willfully leaking information to the press.  Further more, this same Deputy Attorney General bolstered the politically derived Steele evidence by dressing up a news story published in Yahoo News as independent factual evidence, even though the source of that news story was Christopher Steele himself.

The Deputy Attorney General cited above is none other than Rod Rosenstein.  He secured a FISA warrant against Clarence Page based on information he knew to be fiction.  And for that, he should go to prison for a period at least as long as did G. Gordon Liddy.

[Hoodat]

Watergate has nothing to do with this. Try focusing on the issue at hand.

Watergate pales in comparison to this.

[Oceander]

For what?  Not being sufficiently worshipful of Lord Trump?


@Oceander

Sorry, not quite seeing what any of this has to do with Lord Trump.  Let's review, shall we.

The Deputy Attorney General submitted as evidence to the FIS Court documents that he knew to be the product of a political campaign.  Furthermore, this same Deputy Attorney General knew that the source of that information - Christopher Steele - was no longer trusted as an FBI informant due to willfully leaking information to the press.  Further more, this same Deputy Attorney General bolstered the politically derived Steele evidence by dressing up a news story published in Yahoo News as independent factual evidence, even though the source of that news story was Christopher Steele himself.

The Deputy Attorney General cited above is none other than Rod Rosenstein.  He secured a FISA warrant against Clarence Page based on information he knew to be fiction.  And for that, he should go to prison for a period at least as long as did G. Gordon Liddy.

Cite to the statute that makes his actions a crime, and caselaw that says his absolute immunity for actions in office does not overcome that statute. 

People don’t go to jail just because you don’t like what they did.  There has to be a statute that criminalizes their conduct and no defenses, such as immunity, can be available to override the statute. 

Prosecutors and other law enforcement officials have very broad immunity for actions they take in their official capacity.  Just ask Jabbar Collins about why his civil rights case against Brooklyn ADA Michael Vecchione was dismissed. 

[Oceander]

Watergate pales in comparison to this.

Watergate does not pale in comparison to this. 

[Hoodat]

Cite to the statute that makes his actions a crime, and caselaw that says his absolute immunity for actions in office does not overcome that statute.

18 U.S. Code § 1001

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001

[Oceander]

18 U.S. Code § 1001

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001

Now show me the caselaw that says his absolute immunity doesn’t protect him.

Hint.  Look up the district court’s opinion dismissing Jabbar Collin’s civil rights case against ADA Michael Vecchione, and follow the caselaw from there. 

[Cyber Liberty]

Watergate does not pale in comparison to this.

I don't know whether it does or not.  There's too much we don't know, stacked against so many allegations of misconduct it's difficult to believe them all.  Obviously the truth is somewhere in the middle and we're a long way from finding out where.

[Hoodat]

Now show me the caselaw that says his absolute immunity doesn’t protect him.

Your asking me to prove a negative?

[Oceander]

Here’s another hint:  Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118 (1997). 

[Oceander]

Your asking me to prove a negative?

I’m asking you to do the research to back up your claims.  If the statute you cited do does what you claim it does with respect to a prosecutor, then you’ll find cases that say so. 

[Hoodat]

Watergate does not pale in comparison to this.

Chuck Colson handed one unopened FBI file to the President of the United States.  For that, he served seven months in prison.

That doesn't even come close to using the FISA Court to conduct wiretaps on an opposing political candidate two months before an election, and extending those warrants after the election in the attempt to somehow reverse the results of that election.  Not to mention a Secretary of State violating the non-disclosure agreement (felony), and her cover-up of the crime by deleting subpoenaed files, along with the cooperation and assistance of this same Justice Department.

People should go to prison for this, regardless of who happens to be President.

[Hoodat]

I’m asking you to do the research to back up your claims.

I already did.  The immunity part is YOUR claim, not mine.  So let's see you do the research and back it up.

[DB]

Chuck Colson handed one unopened FBI file to the President of the United States.  For that, he served seven months in prison.

That doesn't even come close to using the FISA Court to conduct wiretaps on an opposing political candidate two months before an election, and extending those warrants after the election in the attempt to somehow reverse the results of that election.  Not to mention a Secretary of State violating the non-disclosure agreement (felony), and her cover-up of the crime by deleting subpoenaed files, along with the cooperation and assistance of this same Justice Department.

People should go to prison for this, regardless of who happens to be President.

Yep - and these are only the things that we sort of know about... The corruption of the FBI to save Hillary right before the election is also basket of crimes at the highest levels of government.

[Oceander]

I already did.  The immunity part is YOUR claim, not mine.  So let's see you do the research and back it up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutorial_immunity

[Hoodat]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutorial_immunity

Wikipedia?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA



btw, this isn't prosecution.  Thus "prosecutorial [sic] immunity" isn't applicable here.  But anyone capable of critical thought would have recognized that.

[Oceander]

Wikipedia?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA



btw, this isn't prosecution.  Thus "prosecutorial [sic] immunity" isn't applicable here.  But anyone capable of critical thought would have recognized that.

Prosecutorial immunity is a broader term for the immunity that government lawyers have for actions taken in the course of their work.

I wouldn’t expect any better from you because I don’t expect you to come to grips with reality.  So, off you go, playing with your deluded fantasies that somehow the FISA application is going to get everyone arrested and convicted. 

[Cyber Liberty]

Wikipedia?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

In @Oceander 's defense (not that he needs or wants it):

I use Wiki the same way my Middle School English teacher taught me to use the Encyclopedia Brittanica:  Don't use it as a source, but use it as a starting point to find other sources.  That Wiki article you are laughing at lists four good articles to read, including "Federalpracticemanual.org."  Are the immunity laws applicable here?  I don't know, I didn't read the four articles of legaleze.  Did you?

[Hoodat]

In @Oceander 's defense (not that he needs or wants it):

I use Wiki the same way my Middle School English teacher taught me to use the Encyclopedia Brittanica:  Don't use it as a source, but use it as a starting point to find other sources.  That Wiki article you are laughing at lists four good articles to read, including "Federalpracticemanual.org."  Are the immunity laws applicable here?  I don't know, I didn't read the four articles of legaleze.  Did you?

I did not read the four articles because they had nothing at all to do with the subject at hand.  Oceander didn't read them because he is lazy (which is why he posted the wiki link to begin with).  It could have been worse though.  At least he didn't post a Yahoo News article.

As Oceander already pointed out, it is not my job to research his evidence for him.  I already cited the US Code (which he also didn't bother reading).

[Hoodat]

Prosecutorial immunity is a broader term for the immunity that government lawyers have for actions taken in the course of their work.

That's not what Wiki says.  I suggest you go in there and edit it so that it can say whatever you want it to say.

[Oceander]

That's not what Wiki says.  I suggest you go in there and edit it so that it can say whatever you want it to say.

Whatever.  God Himself could explain it to you and you would refuse to listen because it doesn’t validate your personal beliefs.  You are impervious to all logic, reason, or evidence. Have a good night. 

[Hoodat]

Whatever.  God Himself could explain it to you and you would refuse to listen because it doesn’t validate your personal beliefs.

So we are back where we started with me making a claim about false warrants and backing that claim up, and then you making a claim about immunity in filing false warrants but then not backing it up.

You are impervious to all logic, reason, or evidence. Have a good night.

What evidence?  Still waiting for you to post it.  As for logic and reason, I don't think those terms mean what you think they mean.  That was evident when you insisted I produce evidence to refute your claim even though your claim was not supported by evidence.  Clearly, logic is not your strong suit.

[Oceander]

So we are back where we started with me making a claim about false warrants and backing that claim up, and then you making a claim about immunity in filing false warrants but then not backing it up.


What evidence?  Still waiting for you to post it.  As for logic and reason, I don't think those terms mean what you think they mean.  That was evident when you insisted I produce evidence to refute your claim even though your claim was not supported by evidence.  Clearly, logic is not your strong suit.

I cited you to a Supreme Court case that concerned exactly this sort of situation.  Apparently that’s not good enough for you.  Too bad.  You’re not interested in rule of law, you’re interested in Just-Us, just like most liberals, with law used as a pliable weapon to do your bidding. 

[Hoodat]

I cited you to a Supreme Court case that concerned exactly this sort of situation.

You typed the name of a Supreme Court case without providing a link.  In other words, you expected me to do your research for you since you were clearly too lazy to read and then provide a link yourself.

Fortunately, I was able to do what you were not willing to do yourself, and researched the case.  If you had taken the time to do so, you would have saved yourself the trouble of looking like a complete fool.  Kalina v. Fletcher is a civil case - not a criminal case.  The immunity provided is protection against civil judgment, not criminal prosecution.

Nice try though.  Maybe next time, you will do your own research the next time someone on another website like DummieUnderground hands you the name of some court case.

Have a good night.

[jmyrlefuller]

Here’s another hint:  Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118 (1997).

And where in the United States Constitution does it give the courts authority to establish law?

Nowhere.

Citing court cases as a source of law is a corrupt man's form of evidence.It's also arguably circular reasoning: the court says this, that's why the court says this.