Mueller Investigation pt4

[DallasDad]

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....

There's also a (very remote) possibility that, during the questioning, the person of interest can present additional facts of which the FBI was unaware, thus changing the criminal activity to non-criminal activity. For a (very wild and completely unbelievable) example, Trump could produce evidence that he'd been working with the CIA on a sting operation against Putin, and all of his suspicious behavior was part of a long con, not against the US, but against Russia. Trump would obviously not have been able to admit to this until the con ended, and his behavior during the long con would be consistent with someone guilty of criminal conspiracy.



I'm throwing this out because an FBI interview is not always a foregone conclusion of guilt; it's often a fact-finding portion of an ongoing investigation. It's a crazily-ridiculous example of how Trump could be dismissed as a person of interest, but it's theoretically possible.


In general, when questioned by the FBI, only four answers to any question are advisable:


Yes (truthfully),

No (truthfully),

I don't recall (truthfully), or,

Plead the 5th (and force the FBI to prove their case)

 

[The Big Dog]

If trying to make a perfectly legal real estate deal in Moscow is part of a larger criminal conspiracy, then it is fair game for prosecutors to question a witness about that legal activity.

I suppose moving the goalposts but staying inside the stadium is a thing

 

[WilliamSeger]

That had literally nothing at all to do with what I posted...

Are you admitting that what you posted -- "not one of the things admitted to lying about last week was even the slightest bit illegal" -- has literally nothing to do with the issue of knowingly and willfully lying about a material fact?

 

[WilliamSeger]

Why would that be a material fact? Sounds irrelevant to me. Sounds like trying to say I helped Walmart violate SEC regulations and asking if I shop at Walmart.

Read my definition again: "a reasonable person..."

It's a material fact because it's part of a larger pattern of contacts with Russians that were lied about, which is circumstantial evidence of "collusion." It's also a material fact because the Russians knew Trump was lying about the deal, and that's kompromat that could be used as leverage.

 

[Paul2]

I suppose moving the goalposts but staying inside the stadium is a thing

Without any details about what the goalposts represent, it's impossible to reply, as I'm sure you'll understand.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Read my definition again: "a reasonable person..."

It's a material fact because it's part of a larger pattern of contacts with Russians that were lied about, which is circumstantial evidence of "collusion." It's also a material fact because the Russians knew Trump was lying about the deal, and that's kompromat that could be used as leverage.

Larger pattern of contacts? Since when is normal work a larger pattern of contacts?

 

[The Big Dog]

Are you admitting that what you posted -- "not one of the things admitted to lying about last week was even the slightest bit illegal" -- has literally nothing to do with the issue of knowingly and willfully lying about a material fact?

HI! Here is the thing, repeating your total non sequitor in response to my post does not actually make your non sequitor a "sequitor," you dig?

He plead guilty to lying about activities that were not illegal, so typing "material fact" again is actually quite silly.

Focus like a laser on TBD's posts and y'all might learn something.

 

[WilliamSeger]

HI! Here is the thing, repeating your total non sequitor in response to my post does not actually make your non sequitor a "sequitor," you dig?

He plead guilty to lying about activities that were not illegal, so typing "material fact" again is actually quite silly.

Focus like a laser on TBD's posts and y'all might learn something.

The meaning of irony?

 

[sts60]

Trump is in trouble because of his vanity, greed, dishonesty, and lack of regard for anything other than himself.

He’s in more trouble because he’s been able to get away with stuff up to now, enthusiastically aided and abetted by a cynical coalition of criminals, kleptocrats, crackpots, con men, Klansmen, wife-beaters, assorted nincompoops, trolls, and traitors. But he’s never had to deal with a team of smart, disciplined, incorruptible prosecutors and investigators like Mueller’s. These aren’t cheaply-bought mooks like Bondi and Paxton. They’re not interested in owning Twitter for the day, or cable ratings or book deals. They’re all about getting to the bottom of it. Trump thinks he can out-Fox them. That’s precious.

 

[smartcooky]

He plead guilty to lying about activities that were not illegal, so typing "material fact" again is actually quite silly.

For someone who gives out unsolicited law "pro-tips" and claims to be an expert in US Law, y'all do come out with some howlers. Fantastic!

You do understand, don't you, that doing something that is on its face, legal, can still be illegal if it is materially connected with the commission of a crime? e.g. Provided you are fully licenced to drive, then driving a car is perfectly legal. However, if that car is a getaway car, and you are driving two perps away from a bank robbery they have just committed, then what you are doing is illegal.

There was nothing per se illegal about Trump negotiating a building project in Russia; it wasn't even illegal for him to do so while he was on the campaign trail - there was nothing wrong or illegal about him hedging his bets against losing the election.

However, if that project was in furtherance of gaining a quid-pro-quo for Putin and his people to hack into computers and servers to steal documents, then that is conspiracy to commit a crime.

If he then fires people who wont stop an investigation into what he has done, that's obstruction of justice (18 USC § 1510).
If he dangles pardons in front of people who would testify against him, that is witness tampering (18 USC § 1512 ) and obstruction of justice (18 U.S. Code § 1510).
If part of the quid pro quo was Russia interfering in the 2016 Presidential election, then that is defrauding the United States of America (18 USC § 371).

Also, I hear and read some people saying that lying to the American people might be scummy and bad form, it is not actually a crime. That might be correct, however, it is an impeachable offence for a President to do so when he has done so in order to mislead the public over a criminal act that he was involved in, and this has precedent in the impeachment of President Richard M. Nixon.

Article 1

.....

The means used to implement this course of conduct or plan included one or more of the following:

Clause 8: making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation had been conducted with respect to allegations of misconduct on the part of personnel of the executive branch of the United States and personnel of the Committee for the Re-election of the President, and that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct​

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Having been questioned by the FBI in connection with matters that have absolutely nothing to do with Mueller's investigation, I can report that the following statement is quite silly:

In general, when questioned by the FBI, only four answers to any question are advisable:


Yes (truthfully),

No (truthfully),

I don't recall (truthfully), or,

Plead the 5th (and force the FBI to prove their case)

Not all FBI questions are yes/no questions. Most of the questions I was asked were along the lines of "What can you tell me about ____?" or "Concerning ____, did you notice anything unusual?"

Of course, my experience with the FBI might be quite different from DallasDad's experience. I have no reason to think the FBI has ever suspected me of committing a crime.

 

[PhantomWolf]

That is so tenderly naive I can hardly believe it! Adorable.

Case in point, not one of the things admitted to lying about last week was even the slightest bit illegal. Pull the plea if you don’t believe me.

The fbi wants to give the perp the “chance to come clean.”

I see you are still having issues with the what a plea deal is.

 

[The Big Dog]

I see you are still having issues with the what a plea deal is.

But you said that the FBI had the criminal activity totally documented! Yet the plea agreement does not show that what he lied about was criminal activity. You think the FBI is hiding it from us?

 

[a_unique_person]

But you said that the FBI had the criminal activity totally documented! Yet the plea agreement does not show that what he lied about was criminal activity. You think the FBI is hiding it from us?

Yes. The FBI and police always hide details from possible colleagues in crime out in the public during an investigation.

 

[The Big Dog]

Yes. The FBI and police always hide details from possible colleagues in crime out in the public during an investigation.

Say, but this was a plea bargain, not an investigation. And we were confidently informed that the FBI had documented evidence of criminal conduct, although the only criminal conduct mentioned was “lying” about legal activity.

Although I am a bit jealous that people can argue that there is totally secret “facts” that totally support your argument.

Lol

 

[smartcooky]

But you said that the FBI had the criminal activity totally documented! Yet the plea agreement does not show that what he lied about was criminal activity. You think the FBI is hiding it from us?

Say, but this was a plea bargain, not an investigation. And we were confidently informed that the FBI had documented evidence of criminal conduct, although the only criminal conduct mentioned was “lying” about legal activity.

Although I am a bit jealous that people can argue that there is totally secret “facts” that totally support your argument.

Lol

I'm a bit jealous of people who, rather that admit Dear Leader did something wrong, can twist and contort themselves in their efforts to excuse his rancid behaviour, so that they more resemble a pretzel than a person. Adorable! Fantastic even!

Hooboy!

 

[DallasDad]

Having been questioned by the FBI in connection with matters that have absolutely nothing to do with Mueller's investigation, I can report that the following statement is quite silly:

Not all FBI questions are yes/no questions. Most of the questions I was asked were along the lines of "What can you tell me about ____?" or "Concerning ____, did you notice anything unusual?"

Of course, my experience with the FBI might be quite different from DallasDad's experience. I have no reason to think the FBI has ever suspected me of committing a crime.

I've sat in on an FBI questioning, but my experience may not be typical. What the lawyer told my acquaintance was that leading or exploratory questions don't have to be answered directly. For example, if asked, "What can you tell me about___?" one can either respond by asking for a more specific question, or just offer some general information you know about ___.

Say, for example, one is asked, "What can you tell me about Vladimir Putin?" one could answer, "There are probably a lot of people named that. I wouldn't know. If you mean the current ruler of Russia, he appears to be around 60 in my judgment, has short hair, likes to be photographed doing sportsy things shirtless, and is rumored to be pretty rich." This would force the investigator to reformulate his question a series of questions like, "Have you ever met Vladimir Putin in person?" "When did you meet him?" "Where did you meet?" etc., each of which could be answered yes/no or simple declarative. Even "What did you discuss?" can generate an honest, "I'm not sure. It was a long time ago. What do you mean?" which would force the investigator to ask, "Did you discuss Brexit?" -- reducing again to a yes/no type of answer.

In the one experience I had, the respondent never got a chance to answer leading or exploratory questions, because the lawyer jumped in immediately to force the investigator to narrow the scope.

I've never been on the receiving end of an FBI investigation, so my one experience may be way off. I was only allowed to be present for a few minutes, to attest to a written statement that I had seen my acquaintance sign the week before. He was never charged with anything, as far as I know, and this was at least 20 years ago. Rules may have changed, or maybe the type of investigation controls the amount of fishing they can do.

If there are any experts here, I'd enjoy learning more.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I've sat in on an FBI questioning, but my experience may not be typical. What the lawyer told my acquaintance was that leading or exploratory questions don't have to be answered directly. For example, if asked, "What can you tell me about___?" one can either respond by asking for a more specific question, or just offer some general information you know about ___.

Say, for example, one is asked, "What can you tell me about Vladimir Putin?" one could answer, "There are probably a lot of people named that. I wouldn't know. If you mean the current ruler of Russia, he appears to be around 60 in my judgment, has short hair, likes to be photographed doing sportsy things shirtless, and is rumored to be pretty rich."

That's the kind of answer you'd want to give if you were the kind of clueless idiot who, having committed a crime, cannot resist inflating your ego by daring the FBI to make something of it.

So yes, your experience and advice, albeit atypical, is definitely more relevant to this thread than my experience.

 

[Aridas]

Trump administration 'had a secret plan to lift Russian sanctions' and cede Ukraine territory to Moscow.

I wonder if we'll be hearing more about this on the Mueller front.

 

[varwoche]

wrong thread!?*