Mueller Investigation pt4

Status
Not open for further replies.
Skeptic Ginger said:
:rolleyes:

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?
Click to expand...

If they wanted to “verify” an answer they would give the person they are questioning the documents to refresh their memory and clarify their testimony.

Guess why they do not do that?

Because a cheap conviction under 18 usc 1001 is better than nothing.
 
The Big Dog said:
If they wanted to “verify” an answer they would give the person they are questioning the documents to refresh their memory and clarify their testimony.

Guess why they do not do that?

Because a cheap conviction under 18 usc 1001 is better than nothing.
Click to expand...

 
The Big Dog said:
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.
Click to expand...

Which claim? If you are specific, I’ll reply.
 
The Big Dog said:
If they wanted to “verify” an answer they would give the person they are questioning the documents to refresh their memory and clarify their testimony.

Guess why they do not do that?

Because a cheap conviction under 18 usc 1001 is better than nothing.
Click to expand...

Isn't that called "Discovery" in US law?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_(law)

Are you saying that the FBI is ignoring standard legal procedure in order to trick Trump into committing perjury?

If so, wouldn't that be self defeating as the results of any such investigation could be dismissed for violating due process?

What am I missing here?
 
Brainache said:
Isn't that called "Discovery" in US law?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_(law)

Are you saying that the FBI is ignoring standard legal procedure in order to trick Trump into committing perjury?

If so, wouldn't that be self defeating as the results of any such investigation could be dismissed for violating due process?

What am I missing here?
Click to expand...

Nah, disclosure obligations are not triggered until after arrest or indictment, and certainly not to a precustodial interview
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
:rolleyes:

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?
Click to expand...

Here's the thing.

You only commit perjury under 18 USC § 1001 by lying about something that is material to the investigation. If they ask what you ate for dinner, and it was chicken but you say it was steak, that is not material to the case. Even if you KNEW it was chicken, and you knowingly lie and say it was steak, that is not perjury. 18 USC § 1001 is very clear and unambiguous on this

(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—
"(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation;​

TBD's example of getting a date wrong is also not material, unless the date you give is a wilful attempt to alibi yourself for the date at which the crime under investigation has been committed
 
smartcooky said:
Here's the thing.

You only commit perjury under 18 USC § 1001 by lying about something that is material to the investigation. If they ask what you ate for dinner, and it was chicken but you say it was steak, that is not material to the case. Even if you KNEW it was chicken, and you knowingly lie and say it was steak, that is not perjury. 18 USC § 1001 is very clear and unambiguous on this

(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—
"(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation;​
 TBD's example of getting a date wrong is also not material, unless the date you give is a wilful attempt to alibi yourself for the date at which the crime under investigation has been committed
Click to expand...

Exactly. Cohen saying it was January and then it turns out to be June is huge. Especially when you consider all that happened during that time. What is notable, the number of other people who also said this project was terminated before the primaries. What that shows is a deliberate attempt to deceive by a group of people. That's perjury, conspiracy and obstruction
 
acbytesla said:
...But I also can't stand her when she seems to avoid the point, teasing her audience for 30 minutes.
Click to expand...

I actually like that approach... what she effectively does draws the dots, all seemingly unrelated, and then systematically shows you how they all connect together. Its like telling a long and involved joke and delivering the punchline at the end.
 
I am fascinated by the concept that the only way to get President Donald J. Trump to tell a lie is to set a trap.

We are talking about the guy who promised a middle-class tax cut before the midterms even though Congress was not in session. That guy.

The guy who said he didn’t know about the payments to Stormy Daniels days before a recording surfaced showing that he set the terms of the payments.

The guy who said he didn’t write the answers to the questions submitted to Don Jr. weeks before he admitted to writing the answers to the questions.

[insert 100 more examples here]

That’s the guy who needs to be tricked into telling a lie about his activies.

.........
Try pulling the other leg, it has bells on it.
.
.
 
Ladewig said:
I am fascinated by the concept that the only way to get President Donald J. Trump to tell a lie is to set a trap.

We are talking about the guy who promised a middle-class tax cut before the midterms even though Congress was not in session. That guy.

The guy who said he didn’t know about the payments to Stormy Daniels days before a recording surfaced showing that he set the terms of the payments.

The guy who said he didn’t write the answers to the questions submitted to Don Jr. weeks before he admitted to writing the answers to the questions.

[insert 100 more examples here]

That’s the guy who needs to be tricked into telling a lie about his activies.

.........
Try pulling the other leg, it has bells on it.
.
.
Click to expand...

It's almost as if Trumpsters are living in a completely different reality from the rest of the world, innit? You know, with 'alternate facts' and whatnot.
 
Okay, so what exactly is the minimum standard of honesty for, and forgive me for shouting, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

Shouldn't we be holding our politicians to a higher standard than 'beyond reasonable doubt'

It might be better to let 99 guilty men go free than to lock one innocent man up, but should that apply to those who aspire to and acheive the highest office in the land?

I really doin't expect every politician to be José Mujica, but why do they all seem to be bloody Pinocchio?


(To be fair and balanced, our leadership are also a bunch of utter muppets right now too.)
 
Ladewig said:
I am fascinated by the concept that the only way to get President Donald J. Trump to tell a lie is to set a trap.

We are talking about the guy who promised a middle-class tax cut before the midterms even though Congress was not in session. That guy.

The guy who said he didn’t know about the payments to Stormy Daniels days before a recording surfaced showing that he set the terms of the payments.

The guy who said he didn’t write the answers to the questions submitted to Don Jr. weeks before he admitted to writing the answers to the questions.

[insert 100 more examples here]

That’s the guy who needs to be tricked into telling a lie about his activies.

.........
Try pulling the other leg, it has bells on it.
.
.
Click to expand...

You forgot... The guy who his lawyers did a mock interview with and then refused to let him have a sit down interview with Muller because they knew he couldn't help himself but start lying.
 
3point14 said:
Okay, so what exactly is the minimum standard of honesty for, and forgive me for shouting, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

Shouldn't we be holding our politicians to a higher standard than 'beyond reasonable doubt'

It might be better to let 99 guilty men go free than to lock one innocent man up, but should that apply to those who aspire to and acheive the highest office in the land?

I really doin't expect every politician to be José Mujica, but why do they all seem to be bloody Pinocchio?


(To be fair and balanced, our leadership are also a bunch of utter muppets right now too.)
Click to expand...

I kinda found it funny that one of the reasons that Trumpsters often give about hating Hillary is that she lies all the time, but when all the candidates in 2016 were fact checked on their speeches, Hillary come out as the most Honest, just a hair ahead of Bernie, and Trump came in dead last with more pants on fire lies than Hillary told in total.
 
The Big Dog said:
If they wanted to “verify” an answer they would give the person they are questioning the documents to refresh their memory and clarify their testimony.

Guess why they do not do that?

Because a cheap conviction under 18 usc 1001 is better than nothing.
Click to expand...

You realise that if the FBI already have the criminal activity documented, then all they are doing in the questioning is giving the person the chance to come clean. If they want to get them, they already have them, remember that Manafort found that out the hard way.

The reason so many have been charged with just "Lying to the FBI" is not because it's an easy charge for the FBI to get, but because that is a slap on the wrist that they are being granted for their cooperation, rather than having the entire tonnage of their crimes brought before the Court and being sentenced to 999 years for everything, something else Manafort is about to learn about first hand.

This is the essence of the plea deals. Because Flynn, Cohen, and so on have been willing to help the FBI by spilling their guts to the commission, in return they get a slap on the wrist, a perjury charge, rather then getting a Conspiracy to Defraud the USA and a multitude of other charges.

If Muller has the goods on Trump, then he doesn't have any need to trap him because the evidence will speak for itself already, In asking questions he's giving Trump the opportunity to tell his side and come clean about the matters. If he doesn't, and Muller has the goods, then it's not going to be a case of perjury landing on Trump, it's going to be all the evidence of every crime he's committed and every conspiracy he's been a part of.
 
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...


I don’t quite see how the Bonds case is an example of a successful “perjury trap”, since as far as I can see the perjury charges were dropped after a mistrial, and the conviction for obstruction of justice was overturned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barry_Bonds_perjury_case&oldid=860420176

Am I missing something here? I couldn’t read the article about it linked by Popehat because it isn’t available here, but that seemed to be headlined “Barry Bonds’ obstruction of justice conviction overturned”. Is there something there that isn’t reflected in the headline?
 
PhantomWolf said:
The reason so many have been charged with just "Lying to the FBI" is not because it's an easy charge for the FBI to get, but because that is a slap on the wrist that they are being granted for their cooperation,
Click to expand...
It also doesn't reveal much about the investigation to higher-value targets.

Ladewig said:
I am fascinated by the concept that the only way to get President Donald J. Trump to tell a lie is to set a trap.
Click to expand...
To be fair, Trump has a good track record of technically not lying under oath. His fantastic brain and world class memory just fail him and leave him unable to recall anything but the oddest details, like how to contribute to the District Attorney's reelection campaign.

For all his bluster over being willing to talk to Mueller, everyone but the talking heads said there wasn't a chance in hell of him ever being in the same room willingly.

If Mueller was sneaky enough to convince Manafort his lies were working and that Trump should parrot them, that would help explain why a) Manafort's and Trump's teams' continued contact was allowed, and b) why Mueller accepted a lawyer-drafted response to written questions.
 
Ladewig said:
I am fascinated by the concept that the only way to get President Donald J. Trump to tell a lie is to set a trap.
.
Click to expand...

It's because they know he in not capable of telling the truth. It's unfair to ask him to do so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom