Lyndon B. Johnson's tapes reveal Richard Nixon's treasonous act

[chrisrobin]

I was around. I would not consider media reports to be first hand.

How nice for you. If tapes were enough to force Nixon to resign, a taped conversation between Johnson and Dirken should qualify as legitimate. It's called a primary source for those of us who have done research.

Ed Note: We have no proof that we actually went to the Moon. All we have to show for it is a bunch of lousy rocks.

 

[Benvolio]

How nice for you. If tapes were enough to force Nixon to resign, a taped conversation between Johnson and Dirken should qualify as legitimate. It's called a primary source for those of us who have done research.

Ed Note: We have no proof that we actually went to the Moon. All we have to show for it is a bunch of lousy rocks.

No, in a case against Nixon the tapes would be inadmissible. Johnson does not say what his sources were. "we have learned....". Lack of foundation. Hearsay on its face. More importantly, he does not tell us what he learned. He characterizes it as "playing on the outskirts". Characterizations and conclusions from the actual evidence are not evidence. What actual information is Johnson basing his conclusions
on? His sources might be admissible, Johnson's characterizations from themwould not be admissible.

 

[Benvolio]

LOL... this is such a misconception of the legal system I don't even know what else to say.

Don't even try. I am a lawyer and you are not.

 

[MisterB]

Don't even try. I am a lawyer and you are not.

Don't you even try. Mr. GiancarloC is a very bright man as evidenced by his numerous posts throughout these threads.

You are not, as you, all by your lonesome, have demonstrated admirably throughout these forums.

 

[Rolyo85]

Don't even try. I am a lawyer and you are not.

You are yet to prove in any way - even through simply showing you know anything about the laws of this country - that you are a lawyer.

 

[TX-Beau]

He seems to have more free time to post in here than any lawyer I ever knew.

Perhaps he's just a really bad lawyer.

 

[Benvolio]

Oh puh-lease. I've only had a few constitutional law classes and I know more in this field. And your knowledge of law is mediocre... at best.

And I'm being nice. I have to be nice because I have a moderator who is just waiting to get on my culo... LOL.

This is not a question of constitutional law, but of the law of evidence, but I could not expect you to know the difference.

 

[Benvolio]

Those classes included a variety of legal topics. I have significant background in this field. So try again. And I do know the difference. Keep the conjectures out of here.

So, you think the entire body of law was encompassed in your non-law-school courses on con law.Now you think you know everything that a full law school education would teach you. How pathetic.

 

[CowboyBob]

Don't even try. I am a lawyer and you are not.

Watching a few episodes of Perry Mason doesn't make you a lawyer.

If you're an attorney then I'm a vagina-lapping heterosexual.

 

[Benvolio]

Keep on licking.

 

[chrisrobin]

No, in a case against Nixon the tapes would be inadmissible.

If the tapes were not admissible, why wouldn't Nixon surrender them to Archibald Cox? - who was fired along with John Ruckleshaus - both of whom insisted on Nixon surrendering the tapes. Google "Saturday Night Massacre." Sometimes facts are a heavy cross to bear, especially when one decides to rewrite history.

 

[Benvolio]

If the tapes were not admissible, why wouldn't Nixon surrender them to Archibald Cox? - who was fired along with John Ruckleshaus - both of whom insisted on Nixon surrendering the tapes. Google "Saturday Night Massacre." Sometimes facts are a heavy cross to bear, especially when one decides to rewrite history.

You are very confused. Go back to the original post and you will see that the tape involved here is a conversation between Johnson and Russell. Nixon was not a party to the conversation, and it is not evidence against Nixon in any sense.

 

[CowboyBob]

He hasn't demonstrated any insight of the legal system and the statements about evidence are completely misleading at best. I don't think he's even watched Perry Mason lol.

I doubt very much if he passed the bar..... or even knows what that is without googling. And besides, I think reruns of Perry Mason are available in his country dubbed in his language.

 

[Kulindahr]

No, in a case against Nixon the tapes would be inadmissible. Johnson does not say what his sources were. "we have learned....". Lack of foundation. Hearsay on its face. More importantly, he does not tell us what he learned. He characterizes it as "playing on the outskirts". Characterizations and conclusions from the actual evidence are not evidence. What actual information is Johnson basing his conclusions
on? His sources might be admissible, Johnson's characterizations from themwould not be admissible.

Who decided this was a court situation? If everything about history had to be substantiated according to the rules of evidence in a court of law, all of world history could be put in a volume smaller than the Washington, D.C. phone book.

 

[Kulindahr]

Don't you even try. Mr. GiancarloC is a very bright man as evidenced by his numerous posts throughout these threads.

You are not, as you, all by your lonesome, have demonstrated admirably throughout these forums.

Except in this case he's closer to correct than Giancarlo -- not that it's relevant.

He seems to have more free time to post in here than any lawyer I ever knew.

Perhaps he's just a really bad lawyer.

The second I can believe. As for the first, we have had some lawyers here before, including a mod.

 

[Kulindahr]

If the tapes were not admissible, why wouldn't Nixon surrender them to Archibald Cox? - who was fired along with John Ruckleshaus - both of whom insisted on Nixon surrendering the tapes. Google "Saturday Night Massacre." Sometimes facts are a heavy cross to bear, especially when one decides to rewrite history.

Congress isn't bound to the rules of evidence that have been established for the courts. For example, in an impeachment proceeding, Congress could admit the contents of a letter about a topic without having that person appear, should they so wish, but in a court that would be hearsay. And when the sharks are circling, Congress runs on rules of evidence that favor the folks with the votes to win.

 

[Benvolio]

Congress isn't bound to the rules of evidence that have been established for the courts. For example, in an impeachment proceeding, Congress could admit the contents of a letter about a topic without having that person appear, should they so wish, but in a court that would be hearsay. And when the sharks are circling, Congress runs on rules of evidence that favor the folks with the votes to win.

Not reallly, they of course, use the Federal Rules of Evidence, which were enacted into law by Congress, 88 Stat. 1926, and are familiar to the lawyers conducting the proceedings. Beyond that, the rules of evidence are largely rules of logic. Logically, what Johnson says to Russell is not proof of anything Nixon might have done. Taping the conversation does not make it better evidence.