Mueller Investigation pt5

[Lurch]

Sure he is. He's a counter-example to the claim that if you're innocent, you don't have anything to fear from the FBI. It's really not complicated, and the only thing offered in response is denialism.

Would you be suggesting that because of *an* instance of a wrongful charging/investigation/prosecution that *all* folk who are innocent must assume 'the man' is is out to get them and thus must lie? Are you saying that the *default* condition is to *not* have the conviction of one's innocence and the confidence in truth winning the day?

Among those under any significant investigation to the point of charging, I wonder what do the statistics say on the fraction who turn out to be innocent, and who turn out to have been wrongly dealt with? If most folk charged are (truly) guilty--of even some peripheral or unrelated crime that comes to light--then the argument for taking the default stance whereby the innocent must lie to protect themselves has a weak foundation.

If 'the man' is out to get you in spite of your innocence, then you're gonna be got whether you lie or not. What cost to tell the truth, which would only redound all the more to your character? Especially if and when the miscarriage of justice is redressed.

 

[a_unique_person]

Mueller was in charge of the FBI at the time, and was involved in the case. I'd love to hear your theory about how what happened then couldn't possibly happen now. Go on, enlighten us.

And calling me dishonest doesn't suffice as a counter argument, but it's the only thing you have to offer. No surprise though.

There is a toxic culture in the US as far as prosecuters in general go about their everyday work. The prosecute at all costs has repeatedly produced unjust outcomes that have been proven, sometimes after decades of incarceration.



There is a toxic culture in everything Trump touches or associates himself with.



So far the prosecutions by Mueller in this investigation, or associated with Mueller, all appear to be sound.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The evolution of Trumpanzee excuses and rhetoric is interesting. When Trump said he didn't know anything about the tower meeting, they sided with him on that point. Now that evidence shows that Trump lied about it, they say it isn't illegal to lie to the press.

This is a pattern repeated in all Trump scandals.

1. Deny the allegation.
2. When evidence allegation is true, attack the persons making allegations.
3. When allegation evidence gets strong, deny the allegation is illegal or attack Hillary Clinton.
4. Affirm the allegation is true, but taken out of context.
5. When context is shown, say that it isn't a big deal. Attack Mueller.

I'm missing a few steps, but it's late. The pattern is often seen in this forum and anywhere Trump's supporters have a voice.

Straight out of Gaslighting America - Why We Love It When Trump Lies to Us

In Gaslighting America, Carpenter breaks down Trump’s formula, showing why it’s practically foolproof, playing his victims, the media, the Democrats, and the Republican fence-sitters perfectly. She traces how this tactic started with Nixon, gained traction with Bill Clinton, and exploded under Trump. If you think Trump is driving you crazy, it’s because he is. Now, in this urgent book, she explains how to withstand the fire.

Where some people see lies, Trump’s fierce followers see something different. A commitment to winning at all costs; there is nothing he could say that would erode their support at long as it’s in the name of taking down his political enemies.

His opponents on the left and right continue to act as if his fake narratives and conspiracy theories will bring him down, when in fact, they are the ruses that raised him up....

 

[Ziggurat]

Would you be suggesting that because of *an* instance of a wrongful charging/investigation/prosecution that *all* folk who are innocent must assume 'the man' is is out to get them and thus must lie?

If a prosecutor is out to get you, lying isn’t usually a good defense strategy. Shutting up tends to work better. I’m also not saying that all innocent people should always be worried, I’m saying that there are legitimate reasons why an innocent person could be worried. Do you understand the distinction?

Among those under any significant investigation to the point of charging, I wonder what do the statistics say on the fraction who turn out to be innocent, and who turn out to have been wrongly dealt with?

Political interests can influence proceedings. There’s really not enough similar cases to get relevant statistics to predict this case. Nor would it really matter, since we’re discussing Trump’s actions, and I doubt he would do a statistical analysis of the risk even if there was sufficient data. So his choices wouldn’t be dictated by those odds regardless.

If 'the man' is out to get you in spite of your innocence, then you're gonna be got whether you lie or not. What cost to tell the truth, which would only redound all the more to your character? Especially if and when the miscarriage of justice is redressed.

We were not discussing Trump lying. We were discussing Trump attacking Mueller in tweets, and why he might do that if he was innocent.

 

[Ziggurat]

So far the prosecutions by Mueller in this investigation, or associated with Mueller, all appear to be sound.

I disagree, I think some rather questionable actions have taken place. Not on the level of trying to frame someone, but still ethically dubious.

 

[phiwum]

I disagree, I think some rather questionable actions have taken place. Not on the level of trying to frame someone, but still ethically dubious.

You know you'll be asked. What do you have in mind?

 

[Ziggurat]

You know you'll be asked. What do you have in mind?

The Flynn interview was questionable. They knew the entire contents of the conversation already, why were they asking him about it? Just to see if they could nab him in a process crime?

And this isn’t specific to Flynn, but why the hell doesn’t the FBI record its interviews? I find it unacceptable that they do not as a general policy. It’s ridiculous.

 

[phiwum]

The Flynn interview was questionable. They knew the entire contents of the conversation already, why were they asking him about it? Just to see if they could nab him in a process crime?

And this isn’t specific to Flynn, but why the hell doesn’t the FBI record its interviews? I find it unacceptable that they do not as a general policy. It’s ridiculous.

The second question, as you say, isn't specific to these particular investigations.

For the former question, far as I know it's standard to interview suspects regardless of what the investigators already believe they know. Flynn knew it was a crime to lie to the FBI and it's certainly not entrapment to ask him questions. Again, if this is, as I think, standard procedure, then your complaint is not specific to this investigation at all.

As a minor point, these complaints are slightly off-topic in a thread about the Mueller investigation, since they have nothing to do with Mueller -- aside from the fact that Mueller had more leverage when questioning Flynn due to his earlier lies.

Just to be clear, the Starr investigation knew about Clinton's dalliances before questioning him. Do you regard his lying under those circumstances a mere process crime? (I don't. I regard them as significant, just as I regard Flynn's lies as significant.)

 

[Ziggurat]

The second question, as you say, isn't specific to these particular investigations.

For the former question, far as I know it's standard to interview suspects regardless of what the investigators already believe they know. Flynn knew it was a crime to lie to the FBI and it's certainly not entrapment to ask him questions. Again, if this is, as I think, standard procedure, then your complaint is not specific to this investigation at all.

It wasn’t standard procedure to interview him without notifying him of the nature of the interview. And the agents who interviewed him thought he was being honest.

Just to be clear, the Starr investigation knew about Clinton's dalliances before questioning him. Do you regard his lying under those circumstances a mere process crime? (I don't. I regard them as significant, just as I regard Flynn's lies as significant.)

Clinton’s primary crime was lying under oath in the civil trial, not to Starr. There was no underlying criminal conduct in the Flynn case.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

When asking someone things you don't know, it can be helpful to start with some things you do know to see if they are working with you or against you.

That this needs to be explained to an adult is quite regrettable.

 

[phiwum]

It wasn’t standard procedure to interview him without notifying him of the nature of the interview. And the agents who interviewed him thought he was being honest.

What does the highlighted matter? I understand that, per Grassley, “agents saw no change in his demeanor or tone that would say he was being untruthful.” Given the evidence that he lied, this only leads one to conclude that he lied well.

I don't know whether notifying an administration official of the nature of an interview is unusual or not. Do you have any reputable source suggesting that this is an unusual procedure? If so, I'll wait and comment at that time (I'm taking your word that Flynn wasn't so notified, since I don't recall that detail.)

Clinton’s primary crime was lying under oath in the civil trial, not to Starr. There was no underlying criminal conduct in the Flynn case.

Thanks for the correction.

There was no underlying criminal conduct for Clinton either. You're right that the two situations are different (lying in a civil deposition -- not trial, I think -- as opposed to lying to the FBI), but I don't see that this difference is particularly relevant. I'm willing to say that both cases involve unlawful behavior[1].

[1] I'm pretty sure that lying under oath in a civil deposition is a crime. I can be corrected on that point, though it sure wouldn't help Zig's case. We all know that lying to the FBI in an investigation is a crime.

 

[CapelDodger]

@Ziggurat

It wasn’t standard procedure to interview him without notifying him of the nature of the interview.

What was the "nature" of the interview?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I disagree, I think some rather questionable actions have taken place. Not on the level of trying to frame someone, but still ethically dubious.

Oh for Pity's sake. And you don't even give examples.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The Flynn interview was questionable. They knew the entire contents of the conversation already, why were they asking him about it? Just to see if they could nab him in a process crime?

And this isn’t specific to Flynn, but why the hell doesn’t the FBI record its interviews? I find it unacceptable that they do not as a general policy. It’s ridiculous.

That is what Flynn plea-bargained his charges down to. You do not appear to be very well informed.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Yet another fringe reset where we have to painstakingly explain the obvious for 6 or 7 pages only to draw rebuke for being "hostile" when someone inevitably gets tired of it.

People emulate behaviors that appear to get rewarded, so it's not surprising, really.

 

[autumn1971]

A number of those have been process crimes with no underlying criminal conduct. Anyone in the crosshairs of such an investigation needs to worry about the possibility of ending up like that, regardless of their prior innocence.

Oh Christ. The “ process crime” ********.

“They did not conspire, they merely discussed it and carried it out”

You treasonous apologists disgust me. Take some pride in your country before whoring it out to scum like Putin and Kim Jong Il.

 

[Lurch]

Oh Christ. The “ process crime” ********.

“They did not conspire, they merely discussed it and carried it out”

You treasonous apologists disgust me. Take some pride in your country before whoring it out to scum like Putin and Kim Jong Il.

 

[a_unique_person]

That is what Flynn plea-bargained his charges down to. You do not appear to be very well informed.

That is my understanding. They let him plea down to more innocuous sounding crime than they could have convicted him on.

 

[Aridas]

That is my understanding. They let him plea down to more innocuous sounding crime than they could have convicted him on.

The judge asking whether the prosecutors seriously considered bringing charges of treason on Flynn when he read through what was presented to him is pretty damning on that count, really.

 

[JoeMorgue]

- I'm still a little hazy on the whole "process crime" distinction.

- Why are we, yet again, talking about Bill Clinton? So what we have to let the country be destroyed so we can "even the score card" about Bill Clinton getting a rusty trombone from the chubby chick that brings in the mail?