Cont: Mueller Investigation pt3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stacyhs said:
.....
Warren may well have NA ancestry that does not show up in her results.
Click to expand...

And suppose she didn't? So what? She's not running for President of the Cherokee Nation. She's never run for any office claiming to be Native American. If she repeated childhood family lore, so what? The whole controversy goes back to her 2012 Senate opponent looking for a way to smear her.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...behind-elizabeth-warren-and-her-native-ameri/
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/elizabeth-warren-wealthy-native-american/

I suspect that if you stopped 100 people on the street and asked them about their ethnic heritage five generations back, and then gave them DNA tests, there would be plenty of discrepancies. Some might find that their parents aren't really who they think. Can Trump be tested for Russian DNA? Or Martian?
 
Trebuchet said:
He doesn't, and is no fan of Trump. What he does suggest is just keep your mouth shut.
https://twitter.com/popehat
Click to expand...
Absolutely. Which I'm certain is part of the advice all these Republican douchebags have gotten from their lawyers. How many advantages do these guys need in terms of status, money, and lawyers before people stop pretending that they're left with no choice but to lie to the authorities?
 
Babbylonian said:
Absolutely. Which I'm certain is part of the advice all these Republican douchebags have gotten from their lawyers. How many advantages do these guys need in terms of status, money, and lawyers before people stop pretending that they're left with no choice but to lie to the authorities?
Click to expand...

Welp, I read that about three times, and can quite confidently state that this post makes no sense.

No one is of course pretending anything of the sort. Just silliness at this point.
 
Ziggurat said:
I think you may misunderstand what I mean by "underlying". I don't mean hidden. There WAS no criminal activity on Papadopoulos' part, overt or otherwise, prior to his investigation by the FBI. The FBI essentially created a crime through their interactions with him.
Click to expand...
Who lied?
 
Here's the actual law straight from Wikipedia. So, if you tell the FBI you turned left to get into their parking lot and they can prove that no, you turned left onto FBI Drive for 25 feet, then turned right into their parking lot, that's a felony worth five years in prison. If you happen to be a terrorist, it will get you eight years. Looks like it applies to any fed, so it's best to never talk to them under any circumstances.

The statute spells out this purpose in subsection 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a), which states:

(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—

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device[ , ] a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331),[11] imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both....
 
BrooklynBaby said:
Here's the actual law straight from Wikipedia. So, if you tell the FBI you turned left to get into their parking lot and they can prove that no, you turned left onto FBI Drive for 25 feet, then turned right into their parking lot, that's a felony worth five years in prison. If you happen to be a terrorist, it will get you eight years. Looks like it applies to any fed, so it's best to never talk to them under any circumstances.

(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—

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device[ , ] a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331),[11] imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both....
Click to expand...

Some important language
 
The Big Dog said:
Barry bonds conviction for obstructing was reversed.

He was prosecuted for giving a long winded answer.

Seriously.
Click to expand...

I can only assume that you and Zig are indignant and horrified by Clinton’s impeachment and have said so on this forum.

Oh, wait, it’s only if it’s a Republican.

Reading these posts I can feel what hypocrisy tastes like. I don’t like it, apparently y’all do.
 
BrooklynBaby said:
Here's the actual law straight from Wikipedia. So, if you tell the FBI you turned left to get into their parking lot and they can prove that no, you turned left onto FBI Drive for 25 feet, then turned right into their parking lot, that's a felony worth five years in prison. If you happen to be a terrorist, it will get you eight years. Looks like it applies to any fed, so it's best to never talk to them under any circumstances.

The statute spells out this purpose in subsection 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a), which states:

(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—

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device[ , ] a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331),[11] imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both....
Click to expand...

That's why you should never talk to the police.



Liberals already know this. Now, you do too.
 
Elagabalus said:
That's why you should never talk to the police.



Liberals already know this. Now, you do too.
Click to expand...


I see your point, but I've done a lot of work in police departments around the country, so I've talked to a lot of cops over the years, usually sergeants. They're really no different than any other customer in that they don't act like cops, just like doctors don't act like doctors if you're there to solve their computer problems, you're on a first name basis.
 
Bob001 said:
And suppose she didn't? So what? She's not running for President of the Cherokee Nation. She's never run for any office claiming to be Native American. If she repeated childhood family lore, so what? The whole controversy goes back to her 2012 Senate opponent looking for a way to smear her.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...behind-elizabeth-warren-and-her-native-ameri/
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/elizabeth-warren-wealthy-native-american/

I suspect that if you stopped 100 people on the street and asked them about their ethnic heritage five generations back, and then gave them DNA tests, there would be plenty of discrepancies. Some might find that their parents aren't really who they think. Can Trump be tested for Russian DNA? Or Martian?
Click to expand...

I agree that it's immaterial. Trump is, per his usual, just being a nasty, name-calling bully regarding Warren. I was just confirming what was said about DNA tests not necessarily showing every ethnicity in our heritage.
 
autumn1971 said:
I can only assume that you and Zig are indignant and horrified by Clinton’s impeachment and have said so on this forum.

Oh, wait, it’s only if it’s a Republican.

Reading these posts I can feel what hypocrisy tastes like. I don’t like it, apparently y’all do.
Click to expand...

Mmmmmm, that is some fine tu quoque/whataboutism right there I can tell you!

The hilarious thing? Unless y’all think that Clinton’s impeachment was proper, the reason one can taste the hypocrisy is no doubt because you have bitten your own tongue.

Sensational.
 
The Big Dog said:
Mmmmmm, that is some fine tu quoque/whataboutism right there I can tell you!

The hilarious thing? Unless y’all think that Clinton’s impeachment was proper, the reason one can taste the hypocrisy is no doubt because you have bitten your own tongue.

Sensational.
Click to expand...

I think that the Starr investigation was politically motivated ********, but Clinton’s perjury merited a trial. He broke a law.
 
Stacyhs said:
I agree that it's immaterial. Trump is, per his usual, just being a nasty, name-calling bully regarding Warren. I was just confirming what was said about DNA tests not necessarily showing every ethnicity in our heritage.
Click to expand...
It's immaterial, except that if she runs for President the R's and Faux News will be all Pocahantas 24/7. She'd be better off to put it to bed, one way or the other.

On topic: A certain former federal prosecutor on Pappa's sentence: Pretty much normal. Not necessarily a win for Trump or Mueller. I still think he's singing like a canary.
 
Trebuchet said:
It's immaterial, except that if she runs for President the R's and Faux News will be all Pocahantas 24/7. She'd be better off to put it to bed, one way or the other.

On topic: A certain former federal prosecutor on Pappa's sentence: Pretty much normal. Not necessarily a win for Trump or Mueller. I still think he's singing like a canary.
Click to expand...

No, it's also immaterial if she runs. I'd ignore it since it doesn't prove a damn thing.
 
Ziggurat said:
I'm not excusing anyone's behavior. I'm criticizing the FBI's. Do you understand the difference? Do you not get why the FBI shouldn't be routinely pursuing people on process charges when there's no underlying crime?
Click to expand...

What if you found out your cousin Vinnie held up a liquor store, but you lie to investigators about it? Until that point you had committed no *active* crime yourself (leaving out for the moment the matter of the requirement to report crime). Your lying in order to steer the Law off the trail is not just a "process crime".

Impeding investigations is a serious matter. Besides delaying justice, it could lead to justice denied, or even false conviction.

So lay off this "process crime bull" bull.
 
acbytesla said:
I don't and can't understand why you or anyone would care about this. Even if it could be proved, (and it is questionable that it could) what does it prove beyond her being mistaken about something entirely irrelevant.
Click to expand...


I don't care about it.

Trebuchet seems to.

All I was doing was pointing out that the solution he proposed wouldn't necessarily prove anything.

Since there appears to be no evidence worth crediting that Warren ever used her ancestry, whatever it may be, to gain advantages she didn't earn on her own, I think the whole thing is just more totally unfounded Republican slime throwing.
 
Bob001 said:
Those are not magic words, especially if the feds produce documents and other testimony about his activity.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/25/washington-defense-trump-russia-239914
Click to expand...

If they have documents and other witnesses, why do they need Manafort's testimony?

Are you aware of any cases where the court found "I don't believe the witness can't recall"? Sessions was obviously lying in a number of his 'can't recall' statements in his confirmation hearing. No one did anything about it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom