Mueller Investigation pt 6

[Fast Eddie B]

What was Clinton supposed to do...

Just tell the truth after taking an oath to do so.

Our judicial system hinges in part on the validity of sworn testimony. It’s not to be taken lightly, whether about adultery, murder, or even a traffic infraction.

And that’s not a right wing/left wing thing.

 

[Lurch]

The Right gets its knickers in a twist over Bill's perjury, to the point of exulting over the serious business of the presidential impeachment resulting therefrom. But it excuses the convictions for same by the likes of Flynn as mere "process crimes" of no consequence. And ignores Trump's perjury--and much else besides!--in his written (and sworn) testimony to Mueller, as the latter informed us during his recent hearing.

What's good for the goose is not for the gander.

 

[The Norseman]

Mueller refused to endorse that letter when he was specifically asked about it, so I feel pretty confident in saying that he didn't intend to say at a different point in time that he agreed with it:



Which isn't to say that those prosecutors are wrong. It's to say that what they are saying is something that Mueller has been very careful not to himself say in public.

Ah, alright. I confess that I hadn't seen that part of the hearing.

 

[Aridas]

The Right gets its knickers in a twist over Bill's perjury, to the point of exulting over the serious business of the presidential impeachment resulting therefrom. But it excuses the convictions for same by the likes of Flynn as mere "process crimes" of no consequence. And ignores Trump's perjury--and much else besides!--in his written (and sworn) testimony to Mueller, as the latter informed us during his recent hearing.

What's good for the goose is not for the gander.

For the fun of it... Here's a convenient transcript to work from. Demings' part is very close to the end.

DEMINGS:

And there were many answers that contradicted other evidence you had gathered during the investigation, isn't that correct Director Mueller?

MUELLER:

Yes.

<snip for "I can't answer that" responses>

DEMINGS:

Director Mueller, isn't it fair to say that the president's written answers were not only inadequate and incomplete because he didn't answer many of your questions, but where he did his answers show that he wasn't always being truthful.

MUELLER:

There (ph) -- I would say generally.

 

[Belz...]

The way you reference "bias and ideology" points to something that I would consider different from intent as I described above.

Something can be both intentional and based on bias and ideology. Sorry, I don't really feel like explaining this in detail. I thought it was pretty obvious.

 

[Belz...]

Trump Tweets

“One of the biggest things to come out of Mueller’s testimony was the fact that when he was asked, was there ANYTHING that impeded your investigation, the answer was a clear, unequivocal, NO.”

Yeah, he was also pretty clear that there were multiple attempts to impede the investigation, though, which is also obstruction.

 

[Belz...]

I notice a shift in the propaganda. The Left and the fake news mainstream media were claiming that Trump colluded with Russia to sway an election.

And at a minimum, Russia made pretty good efforts to do just that, and several of Trump's boys were in pretty close contact with them.

Maybe not Trump himself, but then he has a long history of laundering Russia dirty money through his properties.

Or didn't you know this?

 

[Belz...]

Just tell the truth after taking an oath to do so.

Indeed.

However, it's disheartening to see how the standard changes when it's the man on (general) your side.

 

[smartcooky]

Fringe reset indeed . I suppose people will have to keep replies to you handy so they can re-post them when you pretend to have forgotten what they've told you.

I keep a text file for each CTs/troll I encounter; a practice I started on Apollohoax.net, and continued for the JFK thread, because we get so many fringe-resets there (manifesto, I'm lookin' at you). I have a few for some of the CTs/trolls on this site as well.

When they try to pretend that they haven't been told stuff before, I copy/pasta their original post and my reply.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Indeed.

However, it's disheartening to see how the standard changes when it's the man on (general) your side.

True. I have never in my life seen such blatant hypocrisy as I’m seeing now.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

https://twitter.com/GeorgePapa19/status/1111796808492216320

America: you have been great to me! Thanks for the support! Hope you have enjoyed my new book so far. My book is a roadmap to redirect the investigation now towards the investigators. FISA declassification coming. Pick up a copy here!

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1155781022014955525

Good luck with the book George, should do well!

https://twitter.com/renato_mariotti/status/1155807950985977858

Remember when Trump said Papadopoulos was a “young, low level volunteer named George, who has already proven to be a liar”?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I assume it's a book about how to make coffee?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

It's called Deep State Target: How I Got Caught in the Crosshairs of the Plot to Bring Down President Trump .

So, yes. Covfefe.

 

[theprestige]

The Right gets its knickers in a twist over Bill's perjury, to the point of exulting over the serious business of the presidential impeachment resulting therefrom. But it excuses the convictions for same by the likes of Flynn as mere "process crimes" of no consequence.

Works for me.

Do you swing both ways, though? I do.

Flynn's perjury was a process crime. So was Clinton's.

Flynn's perjury was still a crime. So was Clinton's.

Flynn's crime merited prosecution. So did Clinton's.

Flynn's conviction was just. Clinton's impeachment was just.

This is the point where the tracks diverge. Flynn was convicted, Clinton acquitted. If Clinton had been convicted, I would have considered that just. That said, I accept the decision of the Senate, not to impeach.

---

The narratives also diverge. Flynn's conviction on a process crime has been cited here many times as a sign of progress in the Mueller investigation. Even though it really isn't. That's the point of recognizing it as a process crime. It doesn't say anything about the claim of collusion that Mueller was investigating. It doesn't even say anything about any other crime that Mueller may have uncovered during the investigation. It's a crime that arose purely from putting Flynn through the investigative process.

Celebrating Flynn's conviction as progress in the Mueller investigation is ignorant at best, dishonest at worst.

The same goes for celebrating Clinton's impeachment as progress in the Paula Jones harassment lawsuit.

Except that as far as I know, nobody is celebrating Clinton's impeachment as progress in the Paula Jones lawsuit. Mostly it's a celebration of the prosecution of the president for perjuring himself. It's mostly a partisan celebration, sure, but it's still a celebration of the thing itself. Very different from the celebration of Flynn conviction.

If you want to celebrate Flynn getting nailed on a process crime, be my guest. Just don't try to pretend it's anything more than that, or that it's anything different from celebrating Clinton's impeachment on a process crime.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

So Trump's perjury was a process crime, too?

 

[theprestige]

So Trump's perjury was a process crime, too?

Without stipulating the begged question, yes.

As I understand the term, a process crime is a crime arising from the process of investigating or trying some other crime. That is, it's a crime in and of itself, that has no bearing on the allegations actually in question.

The only time I've "dismissed" Flynn's conviction as a process crime is when it's been put forward as evidence of progress in the Mueller investigation. I've never dismissed it as a crime, nor have I ever argued that it shouldn't be prosecuted.

Just, you know, don't hold it up as evidence of collusion (or whatever we're supposed to be calling it these days).

 

[Lurch]

Works for me.

Do you swing both ways, though? I do.

Flynn's perjury was a process crime. So was Clinton's.

Flynn's perjury was still a crime. So was Clinton's.

Flynn's crime merited prosecution. So did Clinton's.

Flynn's conviction was just. Clinton's impeachment was just.

This is the point where the tracks diverge. Flynn was convicted, Clinton acquitted. If Clinton had been convicted, I would have considered that just. That said, I accept the decision of the Senate, not to impeach.

---

The narratives also diverge. Flynn's conviction on a process crime has been cited here many times as a sign of progress in the Mueller investigation. Even though it really isn't. That's the point of recognizing it as a process crime. It doesn't say anything about the claim of collusion that Mueller was investigating. It doesn't even say anything about any other crime that Mueller may have uncovered during the investigation. It's a crime that arose purely from putting Flynn through the investigative process.

Celebrating Flynn's conviction as progress in the Mueller investigation is ignorant at best, dishonest at worst.

The same goes for celebrating Clinton's impeachment as progress in the Paula Jones harassment lawsuit.

Except that as far as I know, nobody is celebrating Clinton's impeachment as progress in the Paula Jones lawsuit. Mostly it's a celebration of the prosecution of the president for perjuring himself. It's mostly a partisan celebration, sure, but it's still a celebration of the thing itself. Very different from the celebration of Flynn conviction.

If you want to celebrate Flynn getting nailed on a process crime, be my guest. Just don't try to pretend it's anything more than that, or that it's anything different from celebrating Clinton's impeachment on a process crime.

Do you *know* with certainty that Flynn could not have been charged with other crimes had he not elected to cooperate with prosecutors? Even after entering into such a cooperation agreement, the judge expressed his ire about Flynn, all but accusing him of traitorous activity. That judge saw so much that is hidden from the public. This tells me that in all likelihood Flynn's pleading down to just perjury was for him a break of great magnitude; if he held out for a Trump pardon, we'd have seen a mighty book thrown at him, putting into the shade this 'process' charge/conviction of perjury.

I *don't see it as possible* that the Feds could only have ever sought that one perjury charge, grasping in desperation for it as some small win in order to pad the books, so to speak, on the success column in the conviction ledger. 'Cause if that was all they had on Flynn, then why didn't he fight harder, or not be so quick and willing to spill the beans on others?

 

[Aridas]

'Cause if that was all they had on Flynn, then why didn't he fight harder, or not be so quick and willing to spill the beans on others?

Why even go with this hypothetical when there's several things that came out that he was pointedly not charged for, but could easily be charged for? "Kidnapping plot" and "serving as a unregistered foreign agent" for example.

 

[thaiboxerken]

"Process crime" is nonsense language used by jerkholes that want to dismiss the criminality of someone they want to defend.

 

[smartcooky]

Flynn's conviction on a process crime has been cited here many times as a sign of progress in the Mueller investigation. Even though it really isn't. That's the point of recognizing it as a process crime. It doesn't say anything about the claim of collusion that Mueller was investigating. It doesn't even say anything about any other crime that Mueller may have uncovered during the investigation. It's a crime that arose purely from putting Flynn through the investigative process..

I don't consider betraying your own country to be a process crime. It was serious enough that the judge in his case considered his actions treasonous (even if it technically cannot be treason because of the strange wording of US law as to the requirement of a state of war needing to exist)

In any other western country, a citizen doing what Flynn did could be prosecuted for High Treason.