Schiff 'very concerned' Trump might fire Rosenstein

[anubias]

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.

 

It was a complete abuse of power.

[Bigun]

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

No I didn't but I'm not surprised.

[Oceander]

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"?

Either by the court under the court’s inherent power to punish contempt, or by the bar disciplinary committee for the bars of the states where they are licensed and where they are practicing.  Both of those powers are not necessarily statutory.

[Bigun]

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).

Even though what they are presenting to the court has previously been signed off on by the AG himself as factual?

[sneakypete]

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.

@Oceander  @Hoodat

OUCH! THAT had to leave a mark!

[Oceander]

@Oceander  @Hoodat

OUCH! THAT had to leave a mark!

No

[Hoodat]

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

Regardless of the frequency of prosecution, perjury is still a crime that is punishable by fine and/or incarceration, regardless of whether one is a lawyer or not.

[sneakypete]

No I didn't but I'm not surprised.

@Bigun

Well,that does answer the question "How did a dumbass like that get elected?" It was bought for him.

[Sanguine]

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

No, I didn't.  Fascinating.

[sneakypete]

   Re: Schiff 'very concerned' Trump might fire Rosenstein
« Reply #155 on: Today at 08:07:40 PM »

    Quote

Quote from: sneakypete on Today at 08:06:48 PM

  @Oceander   

    OUCH! THAT had to leave a mark!


Quote from Oceander:  No

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

@Hoodat The fact that it doesn't says more than Oceander  intended.

[Oceander]

Regardless of the frequency of prosecution, perjury is still a crime that is punishable by fine and/or incarceration, regardless of whether one is a lawyer or not.

Not under 18 USC 1001 it isn’t, if one is a party or counsel to a party. 

You gotta have a statute, or the inherent power of a court to punish for criminal contempt, before you get to start putting people in jail. 

None of these folks is going to jail simply because they did not fully disclose the nature of the Steele dossier to the FISA court.  That’s my projection.  If shitbags like Michael Vecchione don’t go to jail for what he did to so many defendants, these folks certainly won’t go.

[Hoodat]

Not under 18 USC 1001 it isn’t, if one is a party or counsel to a party. 

You gotta have a statute, or the inherent power of a court to punish for criminal contempt, before you get to start putting people in jail. 

None of these folks is going to jail simply because they did not fully disclose the nature of the Steele dossier to the FISA court.  That’s my projection.  If shitbags like Michael Vecchione don’t go to jail for what he did to so many defendants, these folks certainly won’t go.

Then we will agree to disagree.  I can buy the immunity argument in cases where someone does not knowingly supply false information.  However, that was not the case with Rosenstein.  He lied under oath.  He submitted evidence he knew not to be true in order to secure a FISA warrant.

[Cyber Liberty]

[Hoodat]

You got me pegged.

[driftdiver]

 

Really?  Where is that definition?

@Oceander

It's secret

[Oceander]

Then we will agree to disagree.  I can buy the immunity argument in cases where someone does not knowingly supply false information.  However, that was not the case with Rosenstein.  He lied under oath.  He submitted evidence he knew not to be true in order to secure a FISA warrant.

As you wish.  The exception doesn’t apply only to unknowing or nonwillfull submissions, however, by its express terms it applies to parties and their counsel, period.  A party of a counsel who intentionally lies is still under that exception.  The recourse is to the court’s power to police its own proceedings, including with contempt , and bar disciplinary proceeding in the case in of lawyers.  If that were not the case, then every defendant who lied to save his skin would, by that act alone, be guilty of this crime.  18 USC 1001 is not applied that way, and it can only be because the exception applies even to intentional acts. 

[Oceander]

Still at work.

[Hoodat]

Double secret

[Oceander]

@Oceander

It's secret

Whatever.  It seems pretty clear the FISA court is an Article III court albeit a court of limited jurisdiction, because it is composed of Article III judges. 

[corbe]

   NEW and IMPROVED, NOW in Orange.

[Hoodat]

Pennsylvania’s Attorney General Is Convicted on All Counts

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/16/us/trial-kathleen-kane-pennsylvania-attorney-general.html

Perjury is a criminal offense, even when a lawyer does it.

[Hoodat]

OKC attorney convicted of suborning perjury during '08 drug trial

http://newsok.com/article/3558220

[Hoodat]

Defense attorney indicted on perjury, obstruction charges

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-defense-attorney-indicted-on-perjury-obstruction-charges-20140821-story.html

[Oceander]

Pennsylvania’s Attorney General Is Convicted on All Counts

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/16/us/trial-kathleen-kane-pennsylvania-attorney-general.html

Perjury is a criminal offense, even when a lawyer does it.

It happens, if you have an applicable statute and a local prosecutor who is willing to prosecute.  It doesn’t happen very often.

I will bet good money it doesn’t happen to anyone who is mentioned in the Nunes memo because of the submission to the FISA court containing the Steele dossier. 

Also, if one reads carefully what was said about how the dossier was used, they may not have lied about it, they may simply not have told the most direct version of where it came from.  That would not be perjury. 

They should have told the court that it was the product of a political campaign, but so long as they didn’t affirmatively deny that it had political connections, making a charge of perjury out is going to be difficult.

[Oceander]

Defense attorney indicted on perjury, obstruction charges

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-defense-attorney-indicted-on-perjury-obstruction-charges-20140821-story.html

It’s more interesting to focus on government attorneys because that is where the real potential for abuse lies.  Defense attorneys are not so interesting, and not particularly in a position to abuse the governments own power.