Mueller Investigation pt4

Status
Not open for further replies.
PhantomWolf said:
You realise that if the FBI already have the criminal activity documented, then all they are doing in the questioning is giving the person the chance to come clean. If they want to get them, they already have them, remember that Manafort found that out the hard way. .
Click to expand...

That is so tenderly naive I can hardly believe it! Adorable.

Case in point, not one of the things admitted to lying about last week was even the slightest bit illegal. Pull the plea if you don’t believe me.

The fbi wants to give the perp the “chance to come clean.”
 
Have we seriously moved on to the FBI is still bad because their questions give them unfair advantage over a person with a neuropathology that prevents him from telling the truth, and that person just happens to be the President of the United States of America?
 
The Big Dog said:
Well, you were the one who has made the declarations in the first place, but the real problem is that you don’t seem to understand that the issue typically arises when the fbi already knows the answers through documents or other tangible sources generated by the target, not other people as you suggested.
Click to expand...

You don't seem to understand that "perjury trap" is a weak defense after the (alleged) fact, not an excuse to not testify. You can't play "ask me no questions, I'll tell you no lies" with the FBI.
 
WilliamSeger said:
You don't seem to understand that "perjury trap" is a weak defense after the (alleged) fact, not an excuse to not testify. You can't play "ask me no questions, I'll tell you no lies" with the FBI.
Click to expand...

well one of us doesn't understand....

no one is obligated to talk to the Fuzz, you dig?
 
The Big Dog said:
If they wanted to “verify” an answer they would give the person they are questioning the documents to refresh their memory and clarify their testimony.

Guess why they do not do that?
Click to expand...


But that is not what is happening They gave him written questions and told him to take as much time as he wanted. If he can’t check the documents, it is because he deleted the emails or shredded the documents. He can talk to anyone he wants to in order to refresh his memory. There is no perjury trap.

Because a cheap conviction under 18 usc 1001 is better than nothing.
Click to expand...

How can they set a perjury trap against someone who claimed to have one the best memories in the world and claimed to have “high levels of intelligence”? Wouldn’t he see through anything an ordinary person would think of?

But I’m open-minded enough to say that if the very best Mueller can do is catch him getting a date wrong or forgetting who was present in a meeting, then I will support any Senator that votes not guilty and condemn any Representative that votes for impeachment.
 
The Shrike said:
Have we seriously moved on to the FBI is still bad because their questions give them unfair advantage over a person with a neuropathology that prevents him from telling the truth, and that person just happens to be the President of the United States of America?
Click to expand...

His opponents are the ones saying he has it,so they bring it on themselves.
 
The Big Dog said:
That is so tenderly naive I can hardly believe it! Adorable.

Case in point, not one of the things admitted to lying about last week was even the slightest bit illegal. Pull the plea if you don’t believe me.

The fbi wants to give the perp the “chance to come clean.”
Click to expand...

But that's not the definition of "material fact," is it. The legal definition says that it's a fact that a reasonable person would consider important in reaching a conclusion. If the subject of the investigation is whether or not TrumpCo colluded with Russia, then whether or not Trump was trying to negotiate a deal in Russia is a material fact, just like all the other contacts with Russians that TrumpCo lied about.
 
WilliamSeger said:
But that's not the definition of "material fact," is it. The legal definition says that it's a fact that a reasonable person would consider important in reaching a conclusion. If the subject of the investigation is whether or not TrumpCo colluded with Russia, then whether or not Trump was trying to negotiate a deal in Russia is a material fact, just like all the other contacts with Russians that TrumpCo lied about.
Click to expand...

Why would that be a material fact? Sounds irrelevant to me. Sounds like trying to say I helped Walmart violate SEC regulations and asking if I shop at Walmart.
 
WilliamSeger said:
But that's not the definition of "material fact," is it. The legal definition says that it's a fact that a reasonable person would consider important in reaching a conclusion. If the subject of the investigation is whether or not TrumpCo colluded with Russia, then whether or not Trump was trying to negotiate a deal in Russia is a material fact, just like all the other contacts with Russians that TrumpCo lied about.
Click to expand...


That had literally nothing at all to do with what I posted...
 
The Big Dog said:
That had literally nothing at all to do with what I posted...
Click to expand...

If trying to make a perfectly legal real estate deal in Moscow is part of a larger criminal conspiracy, then it is fair game for prosecutors to question a witness about that legal activity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom