Mueller Investigation pt4

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Shrike said:
It was during the campaign that it was already abundantly clear that Putin had something on Trump. Pee-pee tape rumors notwithstanding, Trump was obviously beholden to Russians for some kind of investment/loan dealings. Maddow et al. are merely adding more dots to a line that was already easy to draw.
Click to expand...

Big-ups to Maddow. She was onto the Russian thing a long, long time ago, one of the first reporters to do so.
 
PhantomWolf said:
If you answer the questions asked in a way that is truthful and non-evasion then there is no reason that you would be charged with perjury. It's that simple. And before you wave Popehat and Barry Bonds again, Bonds did not do this, he answered a straight yes of no question with a load of waffle that had zero to do with the question.
Click to expand...

Say that the honest answer is that one does not remember. Can you get charged with saying you don’t remember something that the FBI has evidence actually happened?
 
ServiceSoon said:
Trump didn’t lift the sanctions, he actually increased them.
Click to expand...

acbytesla said:
That was Congress and Trump didn't sign it until they put a gun to Trump's head. And even then the Trump administration did everything they could not to enforce the sanctions.
Click to expand...

You can always trust a Trump sycophant to give Dear Leader credit where credit its NOT due.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
Big-ups to Maddow. She was onto the Russian thing a long, long time ago, one of the first reporters to do so.
Click to expand...

Maddow's show is very often the best news show on TV. She's beyond tthorough. But I also can't stand her when she seems to avoid the point, teasing her audience for 30 minutes.
 
The Big Dog said:
Say that the honest answer is that one does not remember. Can you get charged with saying you don’t remember something that the FBI has evidence actually happened?
Click to expand...

It depends on what it is, if the truth is that you honestly can't remember, then the odds are low of you being charged, yes. Mostly because you would be consistent in your statements that to the best of your recollection you don't recall doing something. However if it's something you are really unlikely to have forgotten, or if you give testimony that your memory is quite clear on the subject, and you didn't do it, then you're probably not being truthful to later say you don't remember.

When it comes to lying to the FBI they don't just ask a single question, they'll ask you a number of different ways and then compare the answers. If you are being truthful about not remembering, then it'll generally be pretty obvious to them.

I'm also going to point out that having done a course on the Brain and Behaviour in University, a large part of which was looking into how memory functions, while I can understand someone forgetting about something that was an every day occurrence, and having trouble recalling it, things that were unusual or one offs, while initially maybe hard to recall, usually when reminded, that reminder will trigger the memory of the event, especially when it happened just within the last few years. It is extremely rare to have zero memory of an event that happened recently, unless you are suffering some form of neurological deterioration.
 
Last edited:
ServiceSoon said:
Trump didn’t lift the sanctions, he actually increased them.
Click to expand...

As was noted, his hand was forced. Regarding what he actually tried to do, he tried to remove the Magnitsky Act sanctions and repeatedly refused to actually make or enforce sanctions until after the media made a big deal of it... about a year later (plenty of time for the subjects to shuffle around assets to minimize the effects). Since then, of course, to show how serious he is about sanctions and the Russia interference, there was things like the time where he signed an executive order allowing sanctions to be laid on Russia for reasons which had already led to sanctions being laid on Russia.
 
Last edited:
Paul2 said:
In the future, we can cut to the chase if you could explain why the statements you make are true or reasonable, etc., in the same post as you make those statements.
Click to expand...
This post, and another of yours upthread, are wonderful gems of zen-like succinctness, expressed with the patience of a Zen master, and I plan to borrow liberally!
 
The Big Dog said:
Well, you were the one who has made the declarations in the first place. . . .
Click to expand...

Doesn’t matter who starts something; if you reply it will save time to provide reasons why what you say is valid. You can pretty much count on me asking you for support for your claims, as I would welcome requests for supports for my claims.

The Big Dog said:
but the real problem is that you don’t seem to understand that the issue typically arises when the fbi already knows the answers through documents or other tangible sources generated by the target, not other people as you suggested.
Click to expand...

Agreed, although, not being a prosecutor, perhaps prosecutors would defend this practice in some way, so my agreement is tentative pending a potential contrary view.

And, you ignored my earlier point that we don’t know whether Mueller has actually done this to Trump. Or do you know?
 
acbytesla said:
Maddow's show is very often the best news show on TV. She's beyond tthorough. But I also can't stand her when she seems to avoid the point, teasing her audience for 30 minutes.
Click to expand...

Rachel is not perfect, but she is the best thing on. I particularly like the historian in her, when she brings up past events that parallel today’s news. See her “Bag Man” podcast about the special person that was Spiro Agnew. ( His parents should have named him “Carl,” even though who would name a baby “Carl?”)

She is the pre-eminent popular historian on TV.
 
varwoche said:
This post, and another of yours upthread, are wonderful gems of zen-like succinctness, expressed with the patience of a Zen master, and I plan to borrow liberally!
Click to expand...

I try in my own, small way.
 
Paul2 said:
Doesn’t matter who starts something; if you reply it will save time to provide reasons why what you say is valid. You can pretty much count on me asking you for support for your claims, as I would welcome requests for supports for my claims.



Agreed, although, not being a prosecutor, perhaps prosecutors would defend this practice in some way, so my agreement is tentative pending a potential contrary view.

And, you ignored my earlier point that we don’t know whether Mueller has actually done this to Trump. Or do you know?
Click to expand...

Yeah, bruh, it does matter. Your claim, your burden. It is really odd that you make all these bare assertions but feel you don’t have to support them, but bust my chops for not spoon feeding you.
 
The Big Dog said:
Well, you were the one who has made the declarations in the first place, but the real problem is that you don’t seem to understand
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

The Big Dog said:
...that the issue typically arises when the fbi already knows the answers through documents or other tangible sources generated by the target, not other people as you suggested.
Click to expand...
So the FBI knows the answer and they ask Trump to verify it. That's a problem, why?

Or it was incriminating and they wanted to give Trump an opportunity to give his side of the story. That's a problem, why?
 
Aridas said:
As was noted, his hand was forced. Regarding what he actually tried to do, he tried to remove the Magnitsky Act sanctions and repeatedly refused to actually make or enforce sanctions until after the media made a big deal of it... about a year later (plenty of time for the subjects to shuffle around assets to minimize the effects). Since then, of course, to show how serious he is about sanctions and the Russia interference, there was things like the time where he signed an executive order allowing sanctions to be laid on Russia for reasons which had already led to sanctions being laid on Russia.
Click to expand...
Just think how many shiny squirrels ago that was. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom