Mueller Investigation pt4

Status
Not open for further replies.
Captain_Swoop said:
So, 'to the best of my recollection' I was telling the truth.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?
Click to expand...

Shrike's post did not address what to say after that situation occurs. I was answering how someone could give an answer contrary to a document they also handed over.
 
The Shrike said:
But if the documents you gave them indicated the date then you knew the date, too. So why lie to say you didn't know it? If you do so it's not a perjury trap, it's just perjury.
Click to expand...

Yes, you knew it, which does not mean you remembered it.

To refresh your recollection:

“Among the MANY dangers: the government is convinced that the truth is false, the government is lying, your memory is faulty, or you panic and make bad choices like some kind of HUMAN.”
 
plague311 said:
It's your opinion that the FBI are that hard nosed. Trump and his cretins have changed their government documentation about meetings with the Russians several times and have faced absolutely zero penalties.

Post something solid that supports your position or just drop it.
Click to expand...

I have no opinion on the case. I was responding to a specific post not about the case
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Swalwell says he has circumstantial evidence of more lies to Congress by Cohen
Click to expand...

I believe they should not pursue this just yet.

I don't believe that the Special Counsel has released everything he knows about what Cohen has lied about. We have only seen those related to the most recent indictment against Cohen.

Mueller may well want other things kept quiet so as not to tip off those who are going to be in the gun. He will want to keep his powder dry and his cards close to his chest until its showdown time That time will come, and it will come soon.... the clock is ticking.

I said months ago that I believed Cohen was going to be very important to Mueller, more important than Manafort. Looks like I was right; a lot more right that I imagined.
 
Last edited:
The Big Dog said:
That is not the way the trap is set, which should be obvious.

A typical way is that they ask you questions about information they already have.

When is the last time you met with x to discuss y?
They know it is June.
You forget and say April. You have just violated 18 usc 1001.
Click to expand...

That's a nice story.

However - "Did you meet with Russian officials during the election campaign?" is a completely different type of question; that is closer to the lies that were told to the FBI and the House and Senate.

Getting those wrong is not an understandable mistake, it's a deliberate lie and attempt to mislead a legitimate investigation.
 
If there is anyone here who actually believes that a "perjury trap" is a real thing, I challenge you now to create an imaginary scenario that involves me. Set a "perjury trap" for me, and I'll show you how easily I can avoid it.

You get to make up any set of imaginary historical circumstances, and then you can ask me questions and try to trap me into perjuring myself.

Remember...

1. The question (and any potential answer) has to be material to the circumstances, or its not perjury.

2. This is in an American Court, Grand Jury session, Senate or House hearing, under oath.

3. I am allowed to ask clarifying questions about your proposed scenario before we proceed with your questioning...

Have at it!
 
jimbob said:
That's a nice story.

However - "Did you meet with Russian officials during the election campaign?" is a completely different type of question; that is closer to the lies that were told to the FBI and the House and Senate.

Getting those wrong is not an understandable mistake, it's a deliberate lie and attempt to mislead a legitimate investigation.
Click to expand...

Actually Cohen was pinched not for lying about meeting with them (he didn’t meet with them) but lying about “agreeing” to meet. He was also pinched for not “recalling” he received a response in January of 2016 from the Russians about the hotel, which response was totally innocuous of course.
 
The Big Dog said:
Actually Cohen was pinched not for lying about meeting with them (he didn’t meet with them) but lying about “agreeing” to meet. He was also pinched for not “recalling” he received a response in January of 2016 from the Russians about the hotel, which response was totally innocuous of course.
Click to expand...

Given what we know of the Russian connections, I dispute the highlighted. As does Cohen apparently now.

It's almost as though he has decided that he can partially atone by getting on the right side of history, incidentally damaging the person who had rewarded his loyalty with contempt and betrayals.
 
jimbob said:
Given what we know of the Russian connections, I dispute the highlighted. As does Cohen apparently now.

It's almost as though he has decided that he can partially atone by getting on the right side of history, incidentally damaging the person who had rewarded his loyalty with contempt and betrayals.
Click to expand...

Happy to see that you do not dispute the “agreeing” and not recalling parts!

He got an email from and talked to an assistant/secretary. You seem to know something that is not set forth in the plea, please regale us with why those communications in January were not innocuous.

Thanks in advance!
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
That is not the way the trap is set, which should be obvious.

A typical way is that they ask you questions about information they already have.

When is the last time you met with x to discuss y?
They know it is June.
You forget and say April. You have just violated 18 usc 1001.
Click to expand...

Err, no, that is not a perjury trap

18 USC §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.​

Pro Tip: Look up the meanings of the following three words

"knowingly"

"wilfully"

"materially" (as it pertains to the Law)
 
Mojo said:
The law is determined by the legislature and courts, not the fuzz, you dig?
Click to expand...

THAT is adorable! I can assure you that plea bargaining has everything to do with how the fuzz* determines the law is going to be applied.

*Fuzz here meaning the FBI/prosecutors of course
 
The Big Dog said:
That does not really help to clarify anything, to be honest.
Click to expand...

It clarifies that it's logical to ask everyone all the questions, regardless of what the prosecutor might hope for, because you don't know how many people might agree or disagree with any one other person.

What the prosecutor hopes for is irrelevant.
 
Paul2 said:
It clarifies that it's logical to ask everyone all the questions, regardless of what the prosecutor might hope for, because you don't know how many people might agree or disagree with any one other person.

What the prosecutor hopes for is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

No it doesn’t and it is not irrelevant.
 
It continues to amuse me watching certain resident Trumpists twist and turn and tie themselves into knots in their defense of their idol. With every post they prove Trump right when he made the "I could stand in the middle of Times Square and shoot someone" claim. They also prove HRC's "basket of deplorables" comment.
 
You gotta love Rudy saying that Cohen is a liar when he represents Trump and his gang. Let's take a step back and see all the material lies told by members of the Trump Administration about Russia.

Let's skip all the obvious lies Trump has told for a moment.

Cohen lied to the US Senate about Trump Tower Russia

Don Jr. lied about Trump Tower Russia
Don Jr. lied about the Trump Tower meeting (US)
Michael Flynn lied about his dealings with Russia.
KT McFarland lead about her dealings with Russia
Jared Kushner lied about his dealings with Russia.
Jeff Sessions lied about his dealings with Russia

Now here Trump is working on this huge deal with Russia to be financed by a Russian bank that we should drop sanctions against Russia. Talk about a massive conflict of interest as Trump could not borrow money from that bank because of the sanctions.

Everyone and I mean everyone in the Trump administration has been lying about Russia. The question is why? And the answer is obviously clear.
 
Stacyhs said:
It continues to amuse me watching certain resident Trumpists twist and turn and tie themselves into knots in their defense of their idol. With every post they prove Trump right when he made the "I could stand in the middle of Times Square and shoot someone" claim. They also prove HRC's "basket of deplorables" comment.
Click to expand...

Quality post.

:rolleyes:
 
Right, so the concept of a perjury trap is flawed and the best way to avoid committing the crime of perjury would be to tell the truth.

Meanwhile, why have we been having this conversation? I suspect it has something to do with a diversion that provides a momentary salve for the discomfort that accompanies butthurt at seeing one's favorite crime family exposed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom