Schiff 'very concerned' Trump might fire Rosenstein

[Oceander]

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.

Try again.  You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about. 

You cannot find a single case in which that statute was used against a prosecutor, which implies that either no prosecutor has ever made misstatements to a federal court, or it doesn’t apply. Take your pick, steer or queer. 

[Oceander]

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.

Go away little boy. 

[jmyrlefuller]

Go away little boy.

Oh, so we're into personal attacks now?

Two can play at that game, HOCKEY PUCK!

[Oceander]

Oh, so we're into personal attacks now?

Two can play at that game, HOCKEY PUCK!

Because your question is so basically in error it’s not even funny.  Who says courts can’t make the law?  Courts have always had inherent common law powers unless taken away by statute.  Why even bother asking such a stupid question.

[Hoodat]

Try again.  You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about.

Oh really?  Let's have a look, shall we.

Focusing on two inaccurate factual statements in petitioner's certification, respondent sued her for damages under 42 U. S. C. § 1983, alleging that she had violated his constitutional right to be free from unreasonable seizures.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/522/118/

Civil case.  Again, if you hadn't been so lazy and had actually read the case, you wouldn't have ended up looking like a complete fool.

You cannot find a single case in which that statute was used against a prosecutor, which implies that either no prosecutor has ever made misstatements to a federal court, or it doesn’t apply. 

So now you want to move the goal posts?  Even though federal law is clear, your now demand a case where it was used against a prosecutor?  Pathetic.

[INVAR]

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.

Exactly.

Courts have no authority to create or establish 'law' according to the Constitution.

The fact we have generations that think 'case law' and 'precedent' ARE law, and that Court Activism to establish law and the striking down of laws passed by Congress or by The People at the ballot box - illustrates the fact this country no longer operates as a Republic.

[Oceander]

Oh really?  Let's have a look, shall we.

Civil case.  Again, if you hadn't been so lazy and had actually read the case, you wouldn't have ended up looking like a complete fool.


So now you want to move the goal posts?  Even though federal law is clear, your now demand a case where it was used against a prosecutor?  Pathetic.

Actually, did you even bother reading section (b) of the statute you cited?

To paraphrase, it says that subsection (a), which imposes the penalty, does not apply to either a party to a judicial proceeding or that party’s counsel, for any “statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.”

In other words, it doesn’t apply to this circumstance, by its own terms. 

You lose.

[Hoodat]

Actually, did you even bother reading section (b) of the statute you cited?

To paraphrase, it says that subsection (a), which imposes the penalty, does not apply to either a party to a judicial proceeding or that party’s counsel, for any “statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.”

In other words, it doesn’t apply to this circumstance, by its own terms. 

You lose.

Actually, I did read it.  The fact that it took you this long to read it speaks volumes about you and your intellectual laziness.  But since you just now decided to read it, you will notice it refers to a judicial proceeding of which this is not.  But thanks for actually reading it, finally.

[Oceander]

Actually, I did read it.  The fact that it took you this long to read it speaks volumes about you and your intellectual laziness.  But since you just now decided to read it, you will notice it refers to a judicial proceeding of which this is not.  But thanks for actually reading it, finally.

A proceeding before the FISA court is not a judicial proceeding?  Whatever. 

[Bigun]

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.

 

[Hoodat]

A proceeding before the FISA court is not a judicial proceeding?

Who is the defendant?

[Oceander]

Who is the defendant?

Has the judicial machinery been activated?

[edpc]

Who is the defendant?

Who’s the defendant in any warrant proceeding?

[driftdiver]

A proceeding before the FISA court is not a judicial proceeding?  Whatever.

FISA by definition is extra judicial.  It's secret and bypasses Constitutional protections

[Oceander]

FISA by definition is extra judicial.  It's secret and bypasses Constitutional protections

Really?  Where is that definition?

[Bigun]

@Hoodat @Oceander

Anyone care to tell me exactly what the language quoted below from the statute Hoodat posted earlier means?

18 U.S. Code § 1001

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section,

I think it means that any exceptions, such as any for immunity of any kind for anyone,  would be laid out specifically in the same section.  I can't find them.

[Oceander]

@Hoodat @Oceander

Anyone care to tell me exactly what the language quoted below from the statute Hoodat posted earlier means?

I think it means that any exceptions, such as any for immunity of any kind for anyone,  would be laid out specifically in the same section.  I can't find them.

Subsections (b) and (c) contain exceptions. 

[Bigun]

OK. 

(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.

Does that mean they can lie their asses off to the judge with impunity?

[ABX]

Did y'all know that Adam Schiff's sister is married to George Soros' son?

[Hoodat]

OK. 

Does that mean they can lie their asses off to the judge with impunity?

According to Oceander, yes.

[Hoodat]

FISA warrant applications are entered under oath.  So perjury also comes into play here.  Unless Oceander wants to argue that lawyers are immune to perjury.

[Oceander]

OK. 

Does that mean they can lie their asses off to the judge with impunity?

Subject to the court’s inherent power to punish contempt - something that would be impermissible if courts were not allowed to “make law” as it was put earlier - and subject to potential discipline for violating the duty of candor to a tribunal under the rules of professional conduct - yes.  More specifically, it means that they cannot be prosecuted under the statute on the basis that a representation or document contains a materially false statement (and that the act was done knowingly and willfully).

[Hoodat]

The entire Russia narrative was invented solely to get FISA Court jurisdiction.  Without the Russia angle, there is no way they ever would have been able to bug Trump Tower.

This is no different from Waco and the Branch Davidians.  The warrant issued in that case was a drug warrant which allowed those serving it to receive military training and military weaponry.

[Oceander]

FISA warrant applications are entered under oath.  So perjury also comes into play here.  Unless Oceander wants to argue that lawyers are immune to perjury.

Prosecutors routinely commit perjury; show me how often they’re prosecuted for it. 

And before you make more assumptions about what I think, I think they get away with it far too often and that tighter rules should be imposed on them, such as mandatory referral to a disciplinary committee. 

[Hoodat]

Subject to the court’s inherent power to punish contempt - something that would be impermissible if courts were not allowed to “make law” as it was put earlier - and subject to potential discipline for violating the duty of candor to a tribunal under the rules of professional conduct - yes.  More specifically, it means that they cannot be prosecuted under the statute on the basis that a representation or document contains a materially false statement (and that the act was done knowingly and willfully).

Let me see if I have this right.  You are saying that they can be "disciplined" for filing false information, but they can't be "prosecuted" for filing false information.  How do you propose they be "disciplined" without "prosecution"?