Cont: Mueller Investigation pt3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Babbylonian said:
And, finally, who the **** cares? The only way your objection makes any sense is if somehow these criminals were forced into making false statements. If one can't tell the truth, one should shut their stupid Republican mouth.
Click to expand...

This is naive. First off, the FBI can charge you with lying even if you tell the truth, because there's no guarantee that what the FBI thinks is true actually is. It's not a guarantee that you will win such a case, but even if you do, the costs can be ruinous. Second, shutting your mouth may prevent a false statement charge, but given the FBI's record of hounding innocent people (Richard Jewell, for example), it can leads to problems of its own. Third, the FBI has a record of going after people for process crimes when not only is there no underlying crime, but no cooperation is needed from the subject either (for example, Martha Stewart).
 
River said:
For those that think that Trump may have colluded with Russia to gather dirt on his opponent, I'd like to ask how they feel about HRC and the DNC hiring an ex foreign agent to travel to Russia and speak with Russian agents and contacts to get dirt on Trump? Are the two comparable? Would that be considered collusion if it were Trump? (explain why if so)
Click to expand...

Look, I realize you're just here for the entertainment value (and it's hard to argue that the Trump enablers, apologists and smoke-blowers aren't doing a tremendous job in that respect) but this goes under "Asked and Answered". About fifty times.
 
Ziggurat said:
This is naive. First off, the FBI can charge you with lying even if you tell the truth, because there's no guarantee that what the FBI thinks is true actually is. It's not a guarantee that you will win such a case, but even if you do, the costs can be ruinous.
Click to expand...
Cry me a ******* river. If the possibility of making a mistake is enough to stop charging particular crimes, the entire system should be shut down.
Second, shutting your mouth may prevent a false statement charge, but given the FBI's record of hounding innocent people (Richard Jewell, for example), it can leads to problems of its own.
Click to expand...
Jewell was "hounded" for less than 3 months. It doesn't make it better, but in any case the real mistake the FBI made wasn't investigating him but releasing his name to the press. It was the media that truly "hounded" him despite there being no evidence that he had done wrong.

Third, the FBI has a record of going after people for process crimes when not only is there no underlying crime, but no cooperation is needed from the subject either (for example, Martha Stewart).
Click to expand...
Martha Stewart was not charged only with "process crimes" unless you consider securities fraud and conspiracy to commit same (she was convicted of the latter) to be mere "process crimes."


Finally, congrats on avoiding the other questions I asked. Well done.
 
Babbylonian said:
Martha Stewart was not charged only with "process crimes" unless you consider securities fraud and conspiracy to commit same (she was convicted of the latter) to be mere "process crimes."


Finally, congrats on avoiding the other questions I asked. Well done.
Click to expand...

I think Trumpistas believe that white-collar crimes are just process crimes.......
 
Babbylonian said:
Martha Stewart was not charged only with "process crimes" unless you consider securities fraud and conspiracy to commit same (she was convicted of the latter) to be mere "process crimes."
Click to expand...

The "securities fraud" charge was indeed a process charge. The allegation was that by lying about the ImClone stock sales, she was illegally trying to prop up stock prices for her own company. And it was a complete bull **** process charge, which the judge promptly threw out. She was not convicted of conspiracy to commit securities fraud, she was convicted of conspiracy to obstruct justice, which was quite obviously a process crime.

The investigation into Stewart began because of an allegation of insider trading in her sale of ImClone stock. But Stewart was never charged with insider trading, because there was no underlying crime.
 
Ziggurat said:
The "securities fraud" charge was indeed a process charge. The allegation was that by lying about the ImClone stock sales, she was illegally trying to prop up stock prices for her own company. And it was a complete bull **** process charge, which the judge promptly threw out. She was not convicted of conspiracy to commit securities fraud, she was convicted of conspiracy to obstruct justice, which was quite obviously a process crime.

The investigation into Stewart began because of an allegation of insider trading in her sale of ImClone stock. But Stewart was never charged with insider trading, because there was no underlying crime.
Click to expand...
So people involved in coverups of criminal activity shouldn't be prosecuted? Because that's what the conspiracy to obstruct was. She lied about why the stock was sold and her broker dummied up records in an attempt to back her story. Granted, the super-rich usually manage to get away with this sort of thing, but they shouldn't. Again, not a "process crime."
 
River said:
For those that think that Trump may have colluded with Russia to gather dirt on his opponent, I'd like to ask how they feel about HRC and the DNC hiring an ex foreign agent to travel to Russia and speak with Russian agents and contacts to get dirt on Trump? Are the two comparable? Would that be considered collusion if it were Trump? (explain why if so)
Click to expand...

kellyb said:
Trump took (or planned/conspired to take) the dirt as a gift, which is where the illegality lies.

It sets up a quid pro quo relationship with a foreign national.

Going to the open market and paying someone to go out and find similar dirt is not illegal.
Click to expand...

It is also worth noting that River's depiction of the relation between Hillary, the DNC, and Steele pointedly ignores Fusion GPS and that much of the research was done on the behalf of a Republican client. It's so convenient when one can just ignore facts like that that mess up one's narrative, after all.
 
Ziggurat said:
This is naive. First off, the FBI can charge you with lying even if you tell the truth, because there's no guarantee that what the FBI thinks is true actually is. It's not a guarantee that you will win such a case, but even if you do, the costs can be ruinous. Second, shutting your mouth may prevent a false statement charge, but given the FBI's record of hounding innocent people (Richard Jewell, for example), it can leads to problems of its own. Third, the FBI has a record of going after people for process crimes when not only is there no underlying crime, but no cooperation is needed from the subject either (for example, Martha Stewart).
Click to expand...


You keep referring to other cases and saying that happened in this case. No evidence at all.


We have the evidence from Alexander Downer that Papadopoulos was acting criminally that he passed on to the FBI and we have the evidence that he lied about people he was in contact with while engaged in that criminal activity.
 
Last edited:
The Big Dog said:
It amazes me that after a poster provides links to the actual sources where the data can be confirmed using second grade math and other posters deliberately refuse to do so, that the original poster is falsely accused of not providing sources “honestly.”
Click to expand...

Well, be less disingenuous next time, and I won't say that you're disingenuous. You'll be amazed by that, too.
 
River said:
For those that think that Trump may have colluded with Russia to gather dirt on his opponent, I'd like to ask how they feel about HRC and the DNC hiring an ex foreign agent to travel to Russia and speak with Russian agents and contacts to get dirt on Trump? Are the two comparable? Would that be considered collusion if it were Trump? (explain why if so)
Click to expand...

Well, first off, the fact-finding expedition was initiated by Republicans, and only later taken over by Clinton. Republicans seem to forget that.

Secondly, it wasn't about finding "dirt", it was looking to Russia to find facts. That the facts being found were troubling enough to be of interest to the FBI is not down to Clinton.

Thirdly, Clinton didn't hire Steele, know he had been hired, or know what he was doing.

Fourthly, Steele was hired, perfectly legally, to find these facts, in exchange for money. The Trump campaign offered to change policy re Russia, which is a crime.

Fifthly, Steele's information was not stolen, unlike the "dirt" on Clinton.

Sixthly, neither Steele nor his sources were working as agents of the Kremlin, while the Trump campaign's sources were.

Seventhly, Steele went to the FBI himself, and the key figures at Fusion GPS have testified to having hired Steele and having been hired by Clinton. Trump's team didn't inform the FBI (despite having had a briefing from the FBI saying that Russia was a threat and that they were obliged to provide any information they had), and have lied about the whole process many times, including under oath.

That's probably not an exhaustive list, but it'l do for starters.
 
Forgot a biggie, Squeegee:

CLINTON ISNT THE PRESIDENT!
If Hillary had won, making the Steele/Fusion GPS/DNC connection investigation a priority would have made sense.
But she lost in the EC.

This Whataboutism is especially stupid if the consequences in one case are negligible and in the other case a matter of National Security.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Forgot a biggie, Squeegee:

CLINTON ISNT THE PRESIDENT!
If Hillary had won, making the Steele/Fusion GPS/DNC connection investigation a priority would have made sense.
But she lost in the EC.

This Whataboutism is especially stupid if the consequences in one case are negligible and in the other case a matter of National Security.
Click to expand...

Ehh... that would actually miss the point, honestly. If Hillary's team had done what Trump's team did, it would be well worth making a priority, win or lose. That Republicans keep trying to falsely equate the situations actually in play, though, is frequently rooted in nothing more than a pathetic attempt to maintain a conception that the Democrats are at least as bad as Republicans and that the criticisms being leveled are completely deserving of being hand waved away because they're partisan and biased in nature. As it is, I've repeatedly been shown that they're throwing fact and critical thinking as far away from them as they can with dismissals like simply invoking the "fact" that one can find links to back up pretty much any position to hand wave away anything they don't like.
 
Last edited:
The Great Zaganza said:
Forgot a biggie, Squeegee:

CLINTON ISNT THE PRESIDENT!
If Hillary had won, making the Steele/Fusion GPS/DNC connection investigation a priority would have made sense.
But she lost in the EC.

This Whataboutism is especially stupid if the consequences in one case are negligible and in the other case a matter of National Security.
Click to expand...

The question wasn't whether it should be a priority, it was whether or not it was illegal.
 
River said:
For those that think that Trump may have colluded with Russia to gather dirt on his opponent, I'd like to ask how they feel about HRC and the DNC hiring an ex foreign agent to travel to Russia and speak with Russian agents and contacts to get dirt on Trump? Are the two comparable? Would that be considered collusion if it were Trump? (explain why if so)
Click to expand...

Well, they didn't do that, so the premise of your question is false.
 
Ziggurat said:
No. I'm saying that nailing people for lying to the FBI shouldn't be one of the primary tools in the FBI's toolkit. It shouldn't dominate the number of convictions they obtain, particularly in these sort of fishing expedition investigations. There's a very strong aspect of "show me the man and I'll show you the crime" with how the FBI operates.
Click to expand...

How about you don't lie to the FBI instead?

I really don't get what your objection is. If you don't find it untoward that it's a crime to lie to the FBI, then there's no issue, here.

River said:
For those that think that Trump may have colluded with Russia to gather dirt on his opponent, I'd like to ask how they feel about HRC and the DNC hiring an ex foreign agent to travel to Russia and speak with Russian agents and contacts to get dirt on Trump? Are the two comparable? Would that be considered collusion if it were Trump? (explain why if so)
Click to expand...

I feel neutral about it. Barely. No. Respectively.

Hiring an investigator to get info is one thing. Collaborating with an enemy power to do it is quite a bit different.
 
It amazes me that after a poster provides links to the actual sources where the data can be confirmed using second grade math and other posters deliberately refuse to do so, that the original poster is falsely accused of being "disingenuous."

permit me to rebut
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom