Mueller Investigation pt4

Squeegee Beckenheim · 1st December 2018, 09:04 AM

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 · 1st December 2018, 09:05 AM

Originally Posted by The Big Dog

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 · 1st December 2018, 09:13 AM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

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 · 1st December 2018, 09:14 AM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

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 · 1st December 2018, 09:25 AM

Originally Posted by The Big Dog

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?

Quote:

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 · 1st December 2018, 09:36 AM

Originally Posted by Paul2

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 · 1st December 2018, 09:50 AM

Originally Posted by The Big Dog

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 · 1st December 2018, 09:52 AM

Originally Posted by The Big Dog

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 · 1st December 2018, 10:04 AM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

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 · 1st December 2018, 10:07 AM

Originally Posted by The Big Dog

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 · 1st December 2018, 10:25 AM

Originally Posted by Paul2

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 · 1st December 2018, 10:29 AM

Originally Posted by The Big Dog

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 · 1st December 2018, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 1st December 2018, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

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 · 1st December 2018, 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by Paul2

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 · 1st December 2018, 10:56 AM

Originally Posted by The Big Dog

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.

Quote:

Are you a lawyer?

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

Quote:

Hyperbole is unnecessary

If only I thought you actually believed that.

The Big Dog · 1st December 2018, 10:59 AM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

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 · 1st December 2018, 11:08 AM

Originally Posted by The Big Dog

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 · 1st December 2018, 11:25 AM

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by Paul2

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 · 1st December 2018, 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by The Big Dog

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.

The Big Dog · 1st December 2018, 11:57 AM

Originally Posted by Paul2

How am I conflating those two definitions?

lets start again, this the definition:

"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."

Now, and this is important, this does not suggest that there may be other reasons to question the witness. However here we are focusing on the specific issue raised above. This is particularly so where they ask you questions that they already know the answer to!

Do you follow?

The Shrike · 1st December 2018, 12:12 PM

FBI: "Mr. President, were you aware of a meeting between Michael Cohen and <insert Russian dude's name here> at Trump Tower on <insert date here>?"

The potential answers are:
a) yes
b) no
c) refuse to answer/don't recall

If Trump did know about it and ...

he answers yes, then there's no risk of perjury.

he answers no then there's a risk of perjury.

He can also refuse to answer.

So what's the trap part?

BobTheCoward · 1st December 2018, 12:16 PM

Originally Posted by The Shrike

FBI: "Mr. President, were you aware of a meeting between Michael Cohen and <insert Russian dude's name here> at Trump Tower on <insert date here>?"

The potential answers are:
a) yes
b) no
c) refuse to answer/don't recall

If Trump did know about it and ...

he answers yes, then there's no risk of perjury.

he answers no then there's a risk of perjury.

He can also refuse to answer.

So what's the trap part?

The concept would be the meeting was legal. So asking about it doesn't help the FBI solve a crime.

The Big Dog · 1st December 2018, 12:21 PM

Originally Posted by The Shrike

FBI: "Mr. President, were you aware of a meeting between Michael Cohen and <insert Russian dude's name here> at Trump Tower on <insert date here>?"

The potential answers are:
a) yes
b) no
c) refuse to answer/don't recall

If Trump did know about it and ...

he answers yes, then there's no risk of perjury.

he answers no then there's a risk of perjury.

He can also refuse to answer.

So what's the trap part?

That is not the way the trap is set, which should be obvious.

A typical way is that they ask you questions about information they already have.

When is the last time you met with x to discuss y?
They know it is June.
You forget and say April. You have just violated 18 usc 1001.

acbytesla · 1st December 2018, 12:42 PM

This is such a crock of crap. There is no perjury trap as far as Trump is concerned. It's not like they are coercing some 18 year old kid without legal counsel who doesn't know his rights to lie. No, this is POTUS, armed with a battalion of high priced attorneys, and Rudy.

All Trump has to do is tell the God damn truth. But as Shakespeare said 'aye, there's the rub'. Trump cannot tell the truth. Not just because telling the truth is against his nature, but because it would expose Trump as the traitor and criminal we all know him to be.

So the President, the Big Dog and the other sycophants cry 'perjury trap' as if an honest investigation of the facts is wrong.

Paul2 · 1st December 2018, 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by The Big Dog

lets start again, this the definition:

"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."

Now, and this is important, this does not suggest that there may be other reasons to question the witness. However here we are focusing on the specific issue raised above. This is particularly so where they ask you questions that they already know the answer to!

Do you follow?

Yes, and we can move on from here (but I still don’t see the conflation, nor did you spell it out.)

But, moving on, let’s clarify the perjury trap situation even more. Consider two scenarios: in one, x-1 witnessness all agree on a fact, where x = the minimum number of witnesses needed to confirm that fact. Asking Individual One about that fact is not a perjury trap, right?

In the other scenario, x witnesses all testify to a fact. Asking Individual One about that fact *is* a perjury trap, right?

But what if you ask x*2 witnesses and they are evenly divided? Doesn’t that argue for asking everyone everything (assuming they all are knowledgeable about the fact in question) and let the chips fall where they may?

The Big Dog · 1st December 2018, 12:50 PM

Originally Posted by Paul2

Yes, and we can move on from here (but I still don’t see the conflation, nor did you spell it out.)

But, moving on, let’s clarify the perjury trap situation even more. Consider two scenarios: in one, x-1 witnessness all agree on a fact, where x = the minimum number of witnesses needed to confirm that fact. Asking Individual One about that fact is not a perjury trap, right?

In the other scenario, x witnesses all testify to a fact. Asking Individual One about that fact *is* a perjury trap, right?

But what if you ask x*2 witnesses and they are evenly divided? Doesn’t that argue for asking everyone everything (assuming they all are knowledgeable about the fact in question) and let the chips fall where they may?

That does not really help to clarify anything, to be honest.

BobTheCoward · 1st December 2018, 12:57 PM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

This is such a crock of crap. There is no perjury trap as far as Trump is concerned. It's not like they are coercing some 18 year old kid without legal counsel who doesn't know his rights to lie. No, this is POTUS, armed with a battalion of high priced attorneys, and Rudy.

All Trump has to do is tell the God damn truth. But as Shakespeare said 'aye, there's the rub'. Trump cannot tell the truth. Not just because telling the truth is against his nature, but because it would expose Trump as the traitor and criminal we all know him to be.

So the President, the Big Dog and the other sycophants cry 'perjury trap' as if an honest investigation of the facts is wrong.

The FBI doesn't seem to distinguish between lying and saying something you think is true but wrong.

acbytesla · 1st December 2018, 01:00 PM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

The FBI doesn't seem to distinguish between lying and saying something you think is true but wrong.

Yes it does.

BobTheCoward · 1st December 2018, 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Yes it does.

You are correct

Captain_Swoop · 1st December 2018, 01:14 PM

Russian President Vladimir Putin's spokesman has displayed what he says are two emails from President Donald Trump's former personal lawyer asking for help getting the Trump Tower Moscow project off the ground.

https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/201...he-latest.html

varwoche · 1st December 2018, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Russian President Vladimir Putin's spokesman has displayed what he says are two emails from President Donald Trump's former personal lawyer asking for help getting the Trump Tower Moscow project off the ground.

https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/201...he-latest.html

They're rubbing Trump's face in Putin's ownership of him, for cancelling out on Putin I assume. Trump was a bad, bad dog.

Mojo · 1st December 2018, 01:22 PM

Originally Posted by The Big Dog

That is not the way the trap is set, which should be obvious.

A typical way is that they ask you questions about information they already have.

When is the last time you met with x to discuss y?
They know it is June.
You forget and say April. You have just violated 18 usc 1001.

“Knowingly and willfully”?

The Big Dog · 1st December 2018, 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by Mojo

“Knowingly and willfully”?

Unfortunately yeah, at least according to the fuzz, you dig?

Captain_Swoop · 1st December 2018, 01:29 PM

"To the best of my recollection it was in April"

Where's the trap?

The Big Dog · 1st December 2018, 01:31 PM

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

"To the best of my recollection it was in April"

Where's the trap?

They already knew the date because they had the documents you had given them.

The Shrike · 1st December 2018, 01:39 PM

Originally Posted by The Big Dog

They already knew the date because they had the documents you had given them.

But if the documents you gave them indicated the date then you knew the date, too. So why lie to say you didn't know it? If you do so it's not a perjury trap, it's just perjury.

BobTheCoward · 1st December 2018, 01:44 PM

Originally Posted by The Shrike

But if the documents you gave them indicated the date then you knew the date, too. So why lie to say you didn't know it? If you do so it's not a perjury trap, it's just perjury.

Maybe you haven't reviewed the date most recently and got mixed up.

Captain_Swoop · 1st December 2018, 01:50 PM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

Maybe you haven't reviewed the date most recently and got mixed up.

So, 'to the best of my recollection' I was telling the truth.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

If you don't know the difference between someone being wrong and someone lying, then i can't help you.

plague311 · 1st December 2018, 01:52 PM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

Maybe you haven't reviewed the date most recently and got mixed up.

It's your opinion that the FBI are that hard nosed. Trump and his cretins have changed their government documentation about meetings with the Russians several times and have faced absolutely zero penalties.

Post something solid that supports your position or just drop it.

1st December 2018, 09:05 AM	#2
Squeegee Beckenheim Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 24,122	Originally Posted by The Big Dog 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?
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

1st December 2018, 09:13 AM	#3
The Big Dog Guest Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 29,742	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim 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.
The Big Dog Guest Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 29,742

1st December 2018, 09:14 AM	#4
jimbob Uncritical "thinker" Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: UK Posts: 20,512	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim 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)?
	__________________ OECD healthcare spending Expenditure on healthcare http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm link is 2015 data (2013 Data below): UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending

1st December 2018, 09:25 AM	#5
Paul2 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 5,080	Originally Posted by The Big Dog 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? Quote: 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?
Paul2 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 5,080	__________________ It's nice to be nice to the nice. Aristotle, so far as I know, was the first man to proclaim explicitly that man is a rational animal. His reason for this view was one which does not now seem very impressive: it was, that some people can do sums. - Bertrand Russell

1st December 2018, 09:36 AM	#6
The Big Dog Guest Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 29,742	Originally Posted by Paul2 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.
The Big Dog Guest Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 29,742

1st December 2018, 09:50 AM	#7
Squeegee Beckenheim Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 24,122	Originally Posted by The Big Dog 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.
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

1st December 2018, 09:52 AM	#8
Squeegee Beckenheim Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 24,122	Originally Posted by The Big Dog 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.
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

1st December 2018, 10:04 AM	#9
The Big Dog Guest Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 29,742	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim 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.
The Big Dog Guest Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 29,742

1st December 2018, 10:07 AM	#10
Paul2 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 5,080	Originally Posted by The Big Dog 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?
Paul2 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 5,080	__________________ It's nice to be nice to the nice. Aristotle, so far as I know, was the first man to proclaim explicitly that man is a rational animal. His reason for this view was one which does not now seem very impressive: it was, that some people can do sums. - Bertrand Russell

1st December 2018, 10:25 AM	#11
The Big Dog Guest Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 29,742	Originally Posted by Paul2 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.
The Big Dog Guest Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 29,742

1st December 2018, 10:29 AM	#12
Squeegee Beckenheim Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 24,122	Originally Posted by The Big Dog 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.
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

1st December 2018, 10:32 AM	#13
Paul2 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 5,080	Originally Posted by 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. 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?
Paul2 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 5,080	__________________ It's nice to be nice to the nice. Aristotle, so far as I know, was the first man to proclaim explicitly that man is a rational animal. His reason for this view was one which does not now seem very impressive: it was, that some people can do sums. - Bertrand Russell Last edited by Paul2; 1st December 2018 at 10:34 AM.

1st December 2018, 10:34 AM	#15
The Big Dog Guest Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 29,742	Originally Posted by Paul2 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.
The Big Dog Guest Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 29,742

1st December 2018, 10:56 AM	#16
Squeegee Beckenheim Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 24,122	Originally Posted by The Big Dog 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. Quote: Are you a lawyer? I'm as much of a lawyer as you are. Quote: Hyperbole is unnecessary If only I thought you actually believed that.
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

1st December 2018, 10:59 AM	#17
The Big Dog Guest Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 29,742	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim 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?
The Big Dog Guest Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 29,742

1st December 2018, 11:08 AM	#18
Paul2 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 5,080	Originally Posted by The Big Dog 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.
Paul2 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 5,080	__________________ It's nice to be nice to the nice. Aristotle, so far as I know, was the first man to proclaim explicitly that man is a rational animal. His reason for this view was one which does not now seem very impressive: it was, that some people can do sums. - Bertrand Russell

1st December 2018, 11:25 AM	#19
The Big Dog Guest Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 29,742	Originally Posted by 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. Originally Posted by Paul2 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.
The Big Dog Guest Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 29,742

1st December 2018, 11:42 AM	#20
Paul2 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 5,080	Originally Posted by The Big Dog 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.
Paul2 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 5,080	__________________ It's nice to be nice to the nice. Aristotle, so far as I know, was the first man to proclaim explicitly that man is a rational animal. His reason for this view was one which does not now seem very impressive: it was, that some people can do sums. - Bertrand Russell

1st December 2018, 11:57 AM	#21
The Big Dog Guest Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 29,742	Originally Posted by Paul2 How am I conflating those two definitions? lets start again, this the definition: "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." Now, and this is important, this does not suggest that there may be other reasons to question the witness. However here we are focusing on the specific issue raised above. This is particularly so where they ask you questions that they already know the answer to! Do you follow?
The Big Dog Guest Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 29,742

1st December 2018, 12:12 PM	#22
The Shrike Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 4,862	FBI: "Mr. President, were you aware of a meeting between Michael Cohen and <insert Russian dude's name here> at Trump Tower on <insert date here>?" The potential answers are: a) yes b) no c) refuse to answer/don't recall If Trump did know about it and ... he answers yes, then there's no risk of perjury. he answers no then there's a risk of perjury. He can also refuse to answer. So what's the trap part?
The Shrike Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 4,862

1st December 2018, 12:16 PM	#23
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 16,597	Originally Posted by The Shrike FBI: "Mr. President, were you aware of a meeting between Michael Cohen and <insert Russian dude's name here> at Trump Tower on <insert date here>?" The potential answers are: a) yes b) no c) refuse to answer/don't recall If Trump did know about it and ... he answers yes, then there's no risk of perjury. he answers no then there's a risk of perjury. He can also refuse to answer. So what's the trap part? The concept would be the meeting was legal. So asking about it doesn't help the FBI solve a crime.

1st December 2018, 12:21 PM	#24
The Big Dog Guest Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 29,742	Originally Posted by The Shrike FBI: "Mr. President, were you aware of a meeting between Michael Cohen and <insert Russian dude's name here> at Trump Tower on <insert date here>?" The potential answers are: a) yes b) no c) refuse to answer/don't recall If Trump did know about it and ... he answers yes, then there's no risk of perjury. he answers no then there's a risk of perjury. He can also refuse to answer. So what's the trap part? That is not the way the trap is set, which should be obvious. A typical way is that they ask you questions about information they already have. When is the last time you met with x to discuss y? They know it is June. You forget and say April. You have just violated 18 usc 1001.
The Big Dog Guest Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 29,742

1st December 2018, 12:42 PM	#25
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 21,297	This is such a crock of crap. There is no perjury trap as far as Trump is concerned. It's not like they are coercing some 18 year old kid without legal counsel who doesn't know his rights to lie. No, this is POTUS, armed with a battalion of high priced attorneys, and Rudy. All Trump has to do is tell the God damn truth. But as Shakespeare said 'aye, there's the rub'. Trump cannot tell the truth. Not just because telling the truth is against his nature, but because it would expose Trump as the traitor and criminal we all know him to be. So the President, the Big Dog and the other sycophants cry 'perjury trap' as if an honest investigation of the facts is wrong.
	__________________ “ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ” ― David Hume

1st December 2018, 12:42 PM	#26
Paul2 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 5,080	Originally Posted by The Big Dog lets start again, this the definition: "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." Now, and this is important, this does not suggest that there may be other reasons to question the witness. However here we are focusing on the specific issue raised above. This is particularly so where they ask you questions that they already know the answer to! Do you follow? Yes, and we can move on from here (but I still don’t see the conflation, nor did you spell it out.) But, moving on, let’s clarify the perjury trap situation even more. Consider two scenarios: in one, x-1 witnessness all agree on a fact, where x = the minimum number of witnesses needed to confirm that fact. Asking Individual One about that fact is not a perjury trap, right? In the other scenario, x witnesses all testify to a fact. Asking Individual One about that fact is a perjury trap, right? But what if you ask x*2 witnesses and they are evenly divided? Doesn’t that argue for asking everyone everything (assuming they all are knowledgeable about the fact in question) and let the chips fall where they may?
Paul2 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 5,080	__________________ It's nice to be nice to the nice. Aristotle, so far as I know, was the first man to proclaim explicitly that man is a rational animal. His reason for this view was one which does not now seem very impressive: it was, that some people can do sums. - Bertrand Russell

1st December 2018, 12:50 PM	#27
The Big Dog Guest Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 29,742	Originally Posted by Paul2 Yes, and we can move on from here (but I still don’t see the conflation, nor did you spell it out.) But, moving on, let’s clarify the perjury trap situation even more. Consider two scenarios: in one, x-1 witnessness all agree on a fact, where x = the minimum number of witnesses needed to confirm that fact. Asking Individual One about that fact is not a perjury trap, right? In the other scenario, x witnesses all testify to a fact. Asking Individual One about that fact is a perjury trap, right? But what if you ask x*2 witnesses and they are evenly divided? Doesn’t that argue for asking everyone everything (assuming they all are knowledgeable about the fact in question) and let the chips fall where they may? That does not really help to clarify anything, to be honest.
The Big Dog Guest Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 29,742

1st December 2018, 12:57 PM	#28
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 16,597	Originally Posted by acbytesla This is such a crock of crap. There is no perjury trap as far as Trump is concerned. It's not like they are coercing some 18 year old kid without legal counsel who doesn't know his rights to lie. No, this is POTUS, armed with a battalion of high priced attorneys, and Rudy. All Trump has to do is tell the God damn truth. But as Shakespeare said 'aye, there's the rub'. Trump cannot tell the truth. Not just because telling the truth is against his nature, but because it would expose Trump as the traitor and criminal we all know him to be. So the President, the Big Dog and the other sycophants cry 'perjury trap' as if an honest investigation of the facts is wrong. The FBI doesn't seem to distinguish between lying and saying something you think is true but wrong.

1st December 2018, 01:00 PM	#29
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 21,297	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward The FBI doesn't seem to distinguish between lying and saying something you think is true but wrong. Yes it does.
	__________________ “ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ” ― David Hume

1st December 2018, 01:10 PM	#30
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 16,597	Originally Posted by acbytesla Yes it does. You are correct

1st December 2018, 01:14 PM	#31
Captain_Swoop Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 20,232	Russian President Vladimir Putin's spokesman has displayed what he says are two emails from President Donald Trump's former personal lawyer asking for help getting the Trump Tower Moscow project off the ground. https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/201...he-latest.html

1st December 2018, 01:21 PM	#32
varwoche Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Puget Sound Posts: 12,765	Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop Russian President Vladimir Putin's spokesman has displayed what he says are two emails from President Donald Trump's former personal lawyer asking for help getting the Trump Tower Moscow project off the ground. https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/201...he-latest.html They're rubbing Trump's face in Putin's ownership of him, for cancelling out on Putin I assume. Trump was a bad, bad dog.
	__________________ To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.

1st December 2018, 01:22 PM	#33
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 30,913	Originally Posted by The Big Dog That is not the way the trap is set, which should be obvious. A typical way is that they ask you questions about information they already have. When is the last time you met with x to discuss y? They know it is June. You forget and say April. You have just violated 18 usc 1001. “Knowingly and willfully”?
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 30,913	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky Last edited by Mojo; 1st December 2018 at 01:24 PM.

1st December 2018, 01:26 PM	#34
The Big Dog Guest Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 29,742	Originally Posted by Mojo “Knowingly and willfully”? Unfortunately yeah, at least according to the fuzz, you dig?
The Big Dog Guest Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 29,742

1st December 2018, 01:29 PM	#35
Captain_Swoop Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 20,232	"To the best of my recollection it was in April" Where's the trap?

1st December 2018, 01:31 PM	#36
The Big Dog Guest Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 29,742	Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop "To the best of my recollection it was in April" Where's the trap? They already knew the date because they had the documents you had given them.
The Big Dog Guest Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 29,742

1st December 2018, 01:39 PM	#37
The Shrike Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 4,862	Originally Posted by The Big Dog They already knew the date because they had the documents you had given them. But if the documents you gave them indicated the date then you knew the date, too. So why lie to say you didn't know it? If you do so it's not a perjury trap, it's just perjury.
The Shrike Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 4,862