Cont: Mueller Investigation pt3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Trebuchet said:
I'd like her better if she'd just take a damn DNA test and, if it shows no Native American heritage just say so and move on.

Back on topic, does Trump really think that Papa's short sentence is some sort of victory for him? Can he really be that stupid, or is it just spin?
Click to expand...

DNA tests don't really work like that.
 
The Big Dog said:
HI! Seth is lying again. The $7.7 million figure was through March of 2018, and does not take into account the $9 million plus spent by other Justice Department groups assisting the investigation, again only through MARCH. Note that Seth failed to mention these facts, probably because he is a totally incompetent conman.
Click to expand...

If you want to dispute the facts, you should provide a citation. If you want to discuss the credibility or otherwise of Abramson, you should do so in the dedicated thread, rather than posting off-topic in this one.
 
The Big Dog said:
HI! Seth is lying again. The $7.7 million figure was through March of 2018, and does not take into account the $9 million plus spent by other Justice Department groups assisting the investigation, again only through MARCH. Note that Seth failed to mention these facts, probably because he is a totally incompetent conman.
Click to expand...

Of course the amount vs the length of the sentence is irrelevant. The goal of any investigation is not to 'get' people. It is to see if laws were broken and to get at the truth. This is an investigation to understand the depth and breadth of the Russian interference in our elections and if they had people in the US were conspiring with them.

Papadopoulos was impeding that investigation by lying to the FBI. That cannot be tolerated. But everyone knows that his sentence took into account his eventual cooperation.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Wait. If there is no underlying criminal activity we should ignore the overt criminal activity?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

He was lying in an attempt to derail the investigation into a foreign power interfering in the US electoral process.

I don't think you can say there was no criminal activity other than that - that is what he was charged with but he had entered into a plea bargain.
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
Of course the amount vs the length of the sentence is irrelevant. The goal of any investigation is not to 'get' people. It is to see if laws were broken and to get at the truth.
Click to expand...

That is what the goal should be, but it often isn't. The whole Plame thing with Scooter Libby is a textbook example. They found out very early on who leaked her name, and it wasn't Libby. They never went after the actual leaker, but they kept up the investigation anyways until they could nail someone, even if it required creating the crime to nail them with.
 
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...

NO they ******* didn't. HOW UTTERLY DISHONEST AND VACUOUS.

Papadopoulos wasn't tricked into lying to the FBI. And you don't know if Papadopoulos committed other crimes, only what he was convicted of.
 
jimbob said:
He was lying in an attempt to derail the investigation into a foreign power interfering in the US electoral process.

I don't think you can say there was no criminal activity other than that - that is what he was charged with but he had entered into a plea bargain.
Click to expand...

I think I very much CAN say that there was no other criminal activity on his part. And yes, he should get punished for lying to the FBI. But it's also appropriate that the sentence is light.
 
Ziggurat said:
That is what the goal should be, but it often isn't. The whole Plame thing with Scooter Libby is a textbook example. They found out very early on who leaked her name, and it wasn't Libby. They never went after the actual leaker, but they kept up the investigation anyways until they could nail someone, even if it required creating the crime to nail them with.
Click to expand...

Oh BULL. Scooter Libby outed Valerie Plame out of pure unadulterated vengeance and I'd bet a $1,000 that he did it on Cheney's orders.
 
Ziggurat said:
I think I very much CAN say that there was no other criminal activity on his part. And yes, he should get punished for lying to the FBI. But it's also appropriate that the sentence is light.
Click to expand...

No you can't!

That which can be asserted without evidence can be refuted without evidence. And good luck disproving a 'null' proposition.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
If you want to dispute the facts, you should provide a citation. If you want to discuss the credibility or otherwise of Abramson, you should do so in the dedicated thread, rather than posting off-topic in this one.
Click to expand...

Wait, now hold on just a dog gone minute. Seth did not provide a citation to support his lie, and suddenly you are holding me to a higher standard than you hold this... person.... whose tweets are incessantly inflicted upon the readers of this thread. Gotta ask you, did you do anything to confirm the content of the tweet to which you exposed the innocent readers of this thread, some of whom might not know any better?

Here is the second report. https://www.justice.gov/file/1067341/download?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

Say, why don’t you regale us with a citation that the Poet is correct?
 
Last edited:
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...

Papadopoulos "created a crime" by choosing to lie to the FBI.
 
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...


No. Not the case at all.


US District Judge Randolph Moss said Papadopoulos deserved prison time because he had deceived investigators probing "a matter of grave national importance." He also fined him $US9500 ($13,000) and ordered him to complete 200 hours of community service and one year of probation after his release.
Prosecutors argued that Papadopoulos' repeated lies during a January 2017 interview with investigators stymied the inquiry at a critical moment. In part because Papadopoulos misled authorities, they said in court papers, they failed to arrest a London-based professor — suspected of being a Russian operative — before he left the United States in the following month, never to return.
Click to expand...


If I lie about criminal investigation to deliberately impede it and hide my involvement it's not just a 'process' crime.
 
The Big Dog said:
Seth did not provide a citation to support his lie, and suddenly you are holding me to a higher standard than you hold this... person.... whose tweets are incessantly inflicted upon the readers of this thread.
Click to expand...

What did I actually say about the tweet in question?

Here is the second report. https://www.justice.gov/file/1067341/download?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
Click to expand...

That says $4.5m. Neither the figures of $7.7m nor $9m appear anywhere. Can you quote the part that you think supports your assertion?
 
Libby was charged with lying to FBI agents and to the grand jury about two conversations with reporters, Tim Russert of NBC News and Matt Cooper of Time magazine. According to the Indictment, the obstruction of justice count alleges that while testifying under oath before the grand jury on March 5, and March 24, 2004, Libby knowingly and corruptly endeavored to influence, obstruct and impede the grand jury's investigation by misleading and deceiving the grand jury as to when, and the manner and means by which, he acquired, and subsequently disclosed to the media, information concerning the employment of Valerie Wilson by the CIA.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom