Mueller is in disrepute - Page 2
The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Wildear
Retriever Coach
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20

Thread: Mueller is in disrepute

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    SW Minnesota
    Posts
    4,659

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Johnson View Post
    There was a member of his staff (Executive Asst.) who probably should have been dis-barred. Andrew Wiessman led the team that tried Sen Ted Stevens. While found guilty that was lost on appeal because Wiessman et al hid so much evidence, got witnesses to lie, etc. In fact, the case was handled in such a manner that one of the key players on Wiessman's team committed suicide because of what they had put Stevens through. It was all an effort to keep Stevens from being re-elected which it did. Of course, you don't get a "do over" election when an guilty verdict is thrown out. Wiessman also headed the Enron team, the case was largely lost on appeal, as well as the Arthur Anderson team, which was appealed to the Supreme Ct and the entire case overturned. You'd need to read the case files and the Supreme Ct ruling to really understand just how crooked Wiessman is. The jury instructions were written so that even if innocent, the firms officers were guilty. Here's Rehnquist, "For example, the jury was told that, even if petitioner honestly and sincerely believed its conduct was lawful, the jury could convict. The instructions also diluted the meaning of "corruptly" so that it covered innocent conduct." That's Wiessman!

    And, this is the best and brightest of the legal talent coming from the DOJ?

    Mueller's strategy in not testifying before Congress is likely

    1) avoidance of the likes of a Jim Jordan questioning,and;
    2) avoidance of a perjury trap.

    Mueller is as dirty as they come.
    I looked at the Arthur Anderson case, it was overturned on appeal because the judge gave faulty instructions to the jury.

    I briefly looked at the Stevens case, the prosecutors (Principal Deputy Chief Brenda K. Morris, Trial Attorneys Nicholas A. Marsh and Edward P. Sullivan of the Criminal Division's Public Integrity Section, headed by Chief William M. Welch II; and Assistant U.S. Attorneys Joseph W. Bottini and James A. Goeke from the District of Alaska)…………… What role did Wiessman play in hiding evidence, or getting witnesses to lie?
    Last edited by mngundog; 06-09-2019 at 05:41 PM.

  2. Remove Advertisements
    RetrieverTraining.net
    Advertisements
     

  3. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Wetumpka, AL
    Posts
    4,124

    Default

    In answer to your first, the prosecution always writes the jury instructions. The judge merely approve them and passes them to the jury. Thus, the Anderson case, in the original court, followed the prosecution instructions.

    Wiessman was the Chief of the Criminal Division but supervised these cases rather directly. The Alaskan prosecutors were acting on direction of the Washington DOJ and I believe actually took a backseat at one point in the trial.

    Have you read Sidney Powell's both titled "Licensed to Lie"?
    Last edited by Eric Johnson; 06-09-2019 at 06:52 PM.
    Eric

    WRC HR Lennoxlove's Run with Wolves JH, WCX ("Cheyenne") ... still so fondly remembered
    HRCh Struan's Devil's in De Tails SH, WCX ("Lucy") ... as is her daughter
    SR CH Struan's Flight of Fancy JH WC ("Muse") ... gone now also
    Struan's Master of the Hunt JH, WC ("Charlie") ... also gone
    Struan's Just Plain Perfect ("Jane")
    NSDTR/CH Struan's Driving Us Crazy JH WCI ("Daisy") ... the baby in charge
    Honeyrun's Duchess of Argyll ("Socks")
    Dixie ... the "spare parts" dog

  4. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Wetumpka, AL
    Posts
    4,124

    Default

    Anything can form a perjury trap which is the reason that knowing people are so careful. All someone has to do is ask did you wear a blue or a red tie at the first session with person X. If he answers wrong, they produce a photo and it's all downhill. This is a rather minor question but it serves to show just how innocuous the line of questioning can be. As I recall, Martha Stewart went to prison because of such a trap, though I've forgotten the details, not for insider trading.

    I'm not claiming anything about those two. That something you inserted into the discussion when you ran out of other things to say. I would say that their defense attorneys ought to look very closely at the trials from the standpoint of Andrew Wiessmaan's history.
    Eric

    WRC HR Lennoxlove's Run with Wolves JH, WCX ("Cheyenne") ... still so fondly remembered
    HRCh Struan's Devil's in De Tails SH, WCX ("Lucy") ... as is her daughter
    SR CH Struan's Flight of Fancy JH WC ("Muse") ... gone now also
    Struan's Master of the Hunt JH, WC ("Charlie") ... also gone
    Struan's Just Plain Perfect ("Jane")
    NSDTR/CH Struan's Driving Us Crazy JH WCI ("Daisy") ... the baby in charge
    Honeyrun's Duchess of Argyll ("Socks")
    Dixie ... the "spare parts" dog

  5. Remove Advertisements
    RetrieverTraining.net
    Advertisements
     

  6. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    473

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Johnson View Post
    In answer to your first, the prosecution always writes the jury instructions. The judge merely approve them and passes them to the jury.

    Have you read Sidney Powell's both titled "Licensed to Lie"?
    I have not read Sidney Powell's Book but I have a question for you about that book do you believe that you buy a book called. Licensed to Lie" that that gives you license to lie?

    And would that explain your recent ridiculous Fake Fact pronouncements such as when you stated:

    Immigrants, by international law, can only seek asylum in the first country they enter after their home country. That means that the seekers from south of Mexico must seek asylum there not in the US....

    OR when you stated


    "Anything can form a perjury trap which is the reason that knowing people are so careful. All someone has to do is ask did you wear a blue or a red tie at the first session with person X. If he answers wrong, they produce a photo and it's all downhill"

    OR when you stated:

    , "the prosecution always writes the jury instructions. The judge merely approve them and passes them to the jury."



    Where do you come up with such Whoppers like that
    Do you think it advances the conversation to horribly twist the truth.

  7. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Wetumpka, AL
    Posts
    4,124

    Default

    The first comments was based on hearsay admittedly but from what I consider to be a reliaable source, However since I am unable to make contact with the chap or to find it or another source, I'll not be repeating it.

    As to the second and third comments, the second is true on it's face. Tell one item in a grand jury that contradicts what you've already told to a LEO ... snap goes the trap.

    As to jury instructions, most states have a "canned" set or template. The prosecutor will addend these if there is a particular circumstance that requires explanation. Here in Alabama in the Paul Hubbard trial, the defense was all wrapped around the axle about the instructions which the prosecution had prepared as they didn't like the prosecution's use and/or definition of "principal" (it is an ongoing ethics case).
    Eric

    WRC HR Lennoxlove's Run with Wolves JH, WCX ("Cheyenne") ... still so fondly remembered
    HRCh Struan's Devil's in De Tails SH, WCX ("Lucy") ... as is her daughter
    SR CH Struan's Flight of Fancy JH WC ("Muse") ... gone now also
    Struan's Master of the Hunt JH, WC ("Charlie") ... also gone
    Struan's Just Plain Perfect ("Jane")
    NSDTR/CH Struan's Driving Us Crazy JH WCI ("Daisy") ... the baby in charge
    Honeyrun's Duchess of Argyll ("Socks")
    Dixie ... the "spare parts" dog

  8. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    SW Minnesota
    Posts
    4,659

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Johnson View Post
    In answer to your first, the prosecution always writes the jury instructions. The judge merely approve them and passes them to the jury. Thus, the Anderson case, in the original court, followed the prosecution instructions.

    Wiessman was the Chief of the Criminal Division but supervised these cases rather directly. The Alaskan prosecutors were acting on direction of the Washington DOJ and I believe actually took a backseat at one point in the trial.

    Have you read Sidney Powell's both titled "Licensed to Lie"?
    As to your first, you are incorrect.

    As to your second, it is a giant leap to go from overseeing a prosecution team to hiding evidence, and convincing witnesses to lie.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Johnson View Post
    Anything can form a perjury trap which is the reason that knowing people are so careful. All someone has to do is ask did you wear a blue or a red tie at the first session with person X. If he answers wrong, they produce a photo and it's all downhill. This is a rather minor question but it serves to show just how innocuous the line of questioning can be. As I recall, Martha Stewart went to prison because of such a trap, though I've forgotten the details, not for insider trading.

    I'm not claiming anything about those two. That something you inserted into the discussion when you ran out of other things to say. I would say that their defense attorneys ought to look very closely at the trials from the standpoint of Andrew Wiessmaan's history.
    Are you suggesting that Trump should have pled the fifth if (or when) subpoenaed?
    Last edited by mngundog; 06-10-2019 at 04:34 PM.

  9. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    473

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Johnson View Post
    The first comments was based on hearsay admittedly but from what I consider to be a reliaable source, However since I am unable to make contact with the chap or to find it or another source, I'll not be repeating it.

    As to the second and third comments, the second is true on it's face. Tell one item in a grand jury that contradicts what you've already told to a LEO ... snap goes the trap.

    As to jury instructions, most states have a "canned" set or template. The prosecutor will addend these if there is a particular circumstance that requires explanation. Here in Alabama in the Paul Hubbard trial, the defense was all wrapped around the axle about the instructions which the prosecution had prepared as they didn't like the prosecution's use and/or definition of "principal" (it is an ongoing ethics case).
    You can dig your heels in all you want Eric but you're still wrong on all three of your comments.
    Regardless of how credible you consider your source to be you may want to consider getting different sources cuz this source is 100% incorrect.
    I'm sure you've read and seen all the babble about huge Caravans of people coming up from Guatemala El Salvador and other Central American countries to seek asylum in the United States. In fact our borders facilities are overrun with those people at this point in time.

    While you may claim that your second point is true on its face the only thing it is on its face is ridiculously wrong.
    If what you said were true no one would ever testify in court it would all invoke the Fifth Amendment to avoid your so-called perjury trap, for saying something as mundane as they had a red tie on on one certain day when it was a blue tie.
    I'm not aware of a trial ever occurring were there weren't differing versions of testimony. Frequently highly paid highly qualified experts in their field will give differing testimony on factual issues.
    By your ridiculous comment every one of said trials
    Could result in perjury charges.
    In a bench trial the judge decides both issues of Law and issues of fact.
    In a jury trial the judge still decides issues of law, however the jury takes the place of the judge and is the Trier of fact
    You are also wrong on your repeated claims of jury instructions always being exclusively written by the prosecution.
    That is out of the purview of the prosecution and lies strictly in the domain of the judge, as the judge always decides issues of law and the instruction submitted to a jury are considered issues of law .
    What actually occurs in a jury trial is that both sides write up and submit proposed jury instructions.At the close of evidence When both sides have rested there will be an in-camera hearing between both sides or they will submit and argue in support of their proposed jury instructions. If there is any disagreement as to one or more of the proposed jury instructions they will argue it out and the judge not the prosecution nor the Defense will decide what jury instructions go to the jury

  10. #18
    Senior Member swampcollielover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    MO
    Posts
    3,711

    Default

    Tigerlilly, aside from the lack or a logical argument, you just cannot get to the POINT! If this were a conversation we would call you "long winded"...

  11. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Wetumpka, AL
    Posts
    4,124

    Default

    mngundog -

    I stand corrected in re the jury instructions comment.
    Eric

    WRC HR Lennoxlove's Run with Wolves JH, WCX ("Cheyenne") ... still so fondly remembered
    HRCh Struan's Devil's in De Tails SH, WCX ("Lucy") ... as is her daughter
    SR CH Struan's Flight of Fancy JH WC ("Muse") ... gone now also
    Struan's Master of the Hunt JH, WC ("Charlie") ... also gone
    Struan's Just Plain Perfect ("Jane")
    NSDTR/CH Struan's Driving Us Crazy JH WCI ("Daisy") ... the baby in charge
    Honeyrun's Duchess of Argyll ("Socks")
    Dixie ... the "spare parts" dog

  12. #20
    Senior Member sick lids's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    mukwonago, wi
    Posts
    853

    Default

    The real question to ponder might be, "If the law is the law, why are jury instructions ever allowed to be changed, from case to case, shouldn't they be spelled out by the legislators?"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •