Mueller Investigation pt4

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

This article breaks down the alleged draft Corsi Statement of Offence and how it provides more evidence of collusion

Thread continued from here; you may quote or reply to any post from that or previous portions of this thread.

Posted By: zooterkin

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

God almighty, the analogies in those examples are beyond insipid particularly the coffee cup one and do not address the concrete examples, particularly the Bonds example, brought up by Popehat.

Great googling tho,

Then appeals to authority don't automatically mean that those authorities are right, even if they're actual authorities? Huh. Who'd have thought, eh?

 

[The Big Dog]

Then appeals to authority don't automatically mean that those authorities are right, even if they're actual authorities? Huh. Who'd have thought, eh?

Exactly, which is why I informed our correspondent about fallacies.

I am pleased to see that people are learning, although you managed to find two knucklehead experts and I commend you for finding them as a cautionary tale.

 

[jimbob]

I've seen it said (although I forget now where) that the Democrats have already met and decided that action 1, day 1 will be passing on all relevant transcripts to Mueller.

Won't that only be the House and not the Senate intelligence committees (sorry if I've got the names wrong)?

 

[Paul2]

God almighty, the analogies in those examples are beyond insipid particularly the coffee cup one and do not address the concrete examples, particularly the Bonds example, brought up by Popehat.

Great googling tho,

Did you fully understand what a perjury trap is from your first link?

A "perjury trap" is narrow -- it's when the government subpoenas you to the grand jury not to gather evidence, but to catch you in perjury and prosecute you for it.

Care to demonstrate how Mueller is not trying to gather evidence from Trump about whether the Trump campaign had anything to do with Russian interference in our election? Wouldn't the candidate be a prime source of information about what happened in his own campaign? How could you NOT interview the candidate?

 

[The Big Dog]

Did you fully understand what a perjury trap is from your first link?
Care to demonstrate how Mueller is not trying to gather evidence from Trump about whether the Trump campaign had anything to do with Russian interference in our election? Wouldn't the candidate be a prime source of information about what happened in his own campaign? How could you NOT interview the candidate?

Rubs temples vigorously.

Is there some basis to believe that people using that phrase were using the narrow legal meaning that he gave, as opposed to THIS ONE:

“Colloquially, people use "perjury trap" to refer not just to grand jury subpoenas, but any time that the government seeks to question a witness in hopes that they will be able to prosecute the witness for lying -- not just for perjury, but for obstruction or lying to the feds.”

Answer, no, there is absolutely no basis at all. He and we are using the latter definition, please see to it that you do so as well.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Exactly, which is why I informed our correspondent about fallacies.

I am pleased to see that people are learning, although you managed to find two knucklehead experts and I commend you for finding them as a cautionary tale.

Well, you believe that, and that's what counts.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Rubs temples vigorously.

Is there some basis to believe that people using that phrase were using the narrow legal meaning that he gave, as opposed to THIS ONE:

“Colloquially, people use "perjury trap" to refer not just to grand jury subpoenas, but any time that the government seeks to question a witness in hopes that they will be able to prosecute the witness for lying -- not just for perjury, but for obstruction or lying to the feds.”

Answer, no, there is absolutely no basis at all. He and we are using the latter definition, please see to it that you do so as well.

You're absolutely right - Giuliani is a terrible lawyer, and we can't expect him to know what the legal terms he uses mean.

 

[The Big Dog]

You're absolutely right - Giuliani is a terrible lawyer, and we can't expect him to know what the legal terms he uses mean.

Well, you believe that, and that's what counts.

 

[Paul2]

Rubs temples vigorously.

Is there some basis to believe that people using that phrase were using the narrow legal meaning that he gave, as opposed to THIS ONE:

“Colloquially, people use "perjury trap" to refer not just to grand jury subpoenas, but any time that the government seeks to question a witness in hopes that they will be able to prosecute the witness for lying -- not just for perjury, but for obstruction or lying to the feds.”

Answer, no, there is absolutely no basis at all. He and we are using the latter definition, please see to it that you do so as well.

I was using the definition in one of the links you provided. But the colloquial definition is hopelessly muddled, it obfuscates whether the prosecutor has legitimate reasons to question a witness. To wit:

A prosecutor may have no legitimate reason to question a witness, and in that case, the perjury trap is improper because of the lack of legitimate reasons to question the witness from the beginning.

A prosecutor may have legitimate reasons for questioning a witness, and it won't matter what the prosecutor hopes for, separate from actual improper behavior that might be driven by the hope. If there's no improper behavior, it doesn't matter what the prosecutor hopes for.

What questions that Mueller asked Trump were improper?

 

[The Big Dog]

I was using the definition in one of the links you provided.

I know, don't. You are conflating the original narrow definition, with the broader definition which has broadened and evolved to cover situations like 18 U.S.C. § 1001.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Well, you believe that, and that's what counts.

You're free to think that someone who has acted against the interest of their client as Giuliani has¹ is a good lawyer, should you so choose. You are, after all, the forum's legal expert who knows the law better than every lawyer who ever lived.

¹ Like, for example, revealing the existence of a "pre-meeting" to discuss strategy before the infamous Trump Tower meeting, or admitting that Trump reimbursed Cohen for the hush payment to Stormy Daniels.

 

[Paul2]

I know, don't. You are conflating the original narrow definition, with the broader definition which has broadened and evolved to cover situations like 18 U.S.C. § 1001.

Are you ignoring everything else I wrote? Hopefully you will come back to the issues I brought up.

ETA: Sorry, I now understand your last sentence above. But can you be more specific? Which part of 18 U.S.C. 1001 relate to what I wrote, and how?

 

[The Big Dog]

You're free to think that someone who has acted against the interest of their client as Giuliani has¹ is a good lawyer, should you so choose. You are, after all, the forum's legal expert who knows the law better than every lawyer who ever lived.
¹ Like, for example, revealing the existence of a "pre-meeting" to discuss strategy before the infamous Trump Tower meeting, or admitting that Trump reimbursed Cohen for the hush payment to Stormy Daniels.

Curious, you are declaring that it was against the interests of his client, yet fail to cite any basis for that assertion. Are you a lawyer?

Hyperbole is unnecessary

 

[The Big Dog]

Are you ignoring everything else I wrote? Hopefully you will come back to the issues I brought up.

No, I explained that it is wrong. The fact you don't understand the definition we are actually working with ain't the big dog's problem.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Curious, you are declaring that it was against the interests of his client, yet fail to cite any basis for that assertion.

No offence, but if I ever get in trouble with the law, I will not be asking you to represent me.

Are you a lawyer?

I'm as much of a lawyer as you are.

Hyperbole is unnecessary

If only I thought you actually believed that.

 

[The Big Dog]

No offence, but if I ever get in trouble with the law, I will not be asking you to represent met.

Smart, because don’t you live outside the United States?

 

[Paul2]

No, I explained that it is wrong. The fact you don't understand the definition we are actually working with ain't the big dog's problem.

And I explained some things to you, too. If you think that "ain't the big dog's problem," then you have no interest in explaining your perspective, which is called actual communication.

If you'd like to explain your view on the issues I raised, I'm all ears.

ETA: What you offered was not an explanation.

 

[The Big Dog]

I know, don't. You are conflating the original narrow definition, with the broader definition which has broadened and evolved to cover situations like 18 U.S.C. § 1001.

And I explained some things to you, too. If you think that "ain't the big dog's problem," then you have no interest in explaining your perspective, which is called actual communication.

If you'd like to explain your view on the issues I raised, I'm all ears.

ETA: What you offered was not an explanation.

It is an explanation, a very clear one. Tell me what part of “You are conflating the original narrow definition, with the broader definition which has broadened and evolved to cover situations like 18 U.S.C. § 1001” you are hiving trouble understanding.

 

[Paul2]

It is an explanation, a very clear one. Tell me what part of “You are conflating the original narrow definition, with the broader definition which has broadened and evolved to cover situations like 18 U.S.C. § 1001” you are hiving trouble understanding.

How am I conflating those two definitions?

How can I even be conflating definitions when my last post was a critique of your broad definition?

Specifics are always advantageous in an explanation.