ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Andrew McCabe , donald trump , George Papadopoulos , Michael Cohen , Paul Manafort , Robert Mueller , Trump controversies , Trump-Russia connections

Reply
Old 1st December 2018, 09:04 AM   #1
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 22,285
Mueller Investigation pt4

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



Mod InfoThread continued from here; you may quote or reply to any post from that or previous portions of this thread.
Posted By:zooterkin
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

Last edited by zooterkin; 1st December 2018 at 10:25 AM.
Squeegee Beckenheim is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2018, 09:05 AM   #2
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 22,285
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
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.
Squeegee Beckenheim is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2018, 09:13 AM   #3
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,817
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
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.
__________________
Very legal and very cool!
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2018, 09:14 AM   #4
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 19,463
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
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
jimbob is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2018, 09:25 AM   #5
Paul2
Illuminator
 
Paul2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,710
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
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?
__________________
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
Paul2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2018, 09:36 AM   #6
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,817
Originally Posted by Paul2 View Post
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.
__________________
Very legal and very cool!
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2018, 09:50 AM   #7
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 22,285
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
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.
Squeegee Beckenheim is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2018, 09:52 AM   #8
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 22,285
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
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.
Squeegee Beckenheim is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2018, 10:04 AM   #9
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,817
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
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.
__________________
Very legal and very cool!
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2018, 10:07 AM   #10
Paul2
Illuminator
 
Paul2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,710
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
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?
__________________
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
Paul2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2018, 10:25 AM   #11
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,817
Originally Posted by Paul2 View Post
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.
__________________
Very legal and very cool!
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2018, 10:29 AM   #12
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 22,285
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
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.
Squeegee Beckenheim is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2018, 10:32 AM   #13
Paul2
Illuminator
 
Paul2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,710
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
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?
__________________
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.
Paul2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2018, 10:32 AM   #14
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,817
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
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
__________________
Very legal and very cool!
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2018, 10:34 AM   #15
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,817
Originally Posted by Paul2 View Post
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.
__________________
Very legal and very cool!
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2018, 10:56 AM   #16
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 22,285
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
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.
Squeegee Beckenheim is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2018, 10:59 AM   #17
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,817
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
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?
__________________
Very legal and very cool!
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2018, 11:08 AM   #18
Paul2
Illuminator
 
Paul2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,710
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
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.
__________________
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
Paul2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2018, 11:25 AM   #19
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,817
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
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 View Post
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.
__________________
Very legal and very cool!
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2018, 11:42 AM   #20
Paul2
Illuminator
 
Paul2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,710
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
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.
__________________
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
Paul2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2018, 11:57 AM   #21
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,817
Originally Posted by Paul2 View Post
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?
__________________
Very legal and very cool!
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2018, 12:12 PM   #22
The Shrike
Illuminator
 
The Shrike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,728
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2018, 12:16 PM   #23
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 14,901
Originally Posted by The Shrike View Post
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.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2018, 12:21 PM   #24
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,817
Originally Posted by The Shrike View Post
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.
__________________
Very legal and very cool!
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2018, 12:42 PM   #25
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 19,393
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
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2018, 12:42 PM   #26
Paul2
Illuminator
 
Paul2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,710
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
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?
__________________
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
Paul2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2018, 12:50 PM   #27
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,817
Originally Posted by Paul2 View Post
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.
__________________
Very legal and very cool!
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2018, 12:57 PM   #28
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 14,901
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
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.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2018, 01:00 PM   #29
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 19,393
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
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
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2018, 01:10 PM   #30
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 14,901
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Yes it does.
You are correct
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2018, 01:14 PM   #31
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 18,067
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
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2018, 01:21 PM   #32
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 11,950
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
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.
varwoche is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2018, 01:22 PM   #33
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 30,610
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
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”?
__________________
"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.
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2018, 01:26 PM   #34
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,817
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
“Knowingly and willfully”?
Unfortunately yeah, at least according to the fuzz, you dig?
__________________
Very legal and very cool!
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2018, 01:29 PM   #35
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 18,067
"To the best of my recollection it was in April"

Where's the trap?
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2018, 01:31 PM   #36
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,817
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
"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.
__________________
Very legal and very cool!
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2018, 01:39 PM   #37
The Shrike
Illuminator
 
The Shrike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,728
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2018, 01:44 PM   #38
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 14,901
Originally Posted by The Shrike View Post
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.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2018, 01:50 PM   #39
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 18,067
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
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.

Last edited by Captain_Swoop; 1st December 2018 at 02:50 PM.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2018, 01:52 PM   #40
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 4,645
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
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.
__________________
"All acts performed in the world begin in the imagination."--Barbara Grizzuti Harrison

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:23 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.