Mueller Investigation pt4 - Page 4

Frank Newgent · 2nd December 2018, 07:10 AM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

It's because they know he in not capable of telling the truth. It's unfair to ask him to do so.

That actually sounds extremely unfair when you put it that way. It is targeting a disability.

Then wait for the doughnut to finish frying.

Mojo · 2nd December 2018, 07:31 AM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

It's because they know he in not capable of telling the truth.

Would that be a valid defence?

timhau · 2nd December 2018, 07:58 AM

Originally Posted by Mojo

Would that be a valid defence?

Would it be grounds for invoking the 25th amendment?

The Great Zaganza · 2nd December 2018, 08:02 AM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

That actually sounds extremely unfair when you put it that way. It is targeting a disability.

Yeah, but I think it's reasonable to discriminate against a Factually disabled person when it comes to filling the position of POTUS.

BobTheCoward · 2nd December 2018, 08:10 AM

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Yeah, but I think it's reasonable to discriminate against a Factually disabled person when it comes to filling the position of POTUS.

But that shouldn't guide the FBI decisions

The Big Dog · 2nd December 2018, 08:31 AM

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

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. .

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.”

The Shrike · 2nd December 2018, 08:34 AM

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?

varwoche · 2nd December 2018, 08:37 AM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

That actually sounds extremely unfair when you put it that way. It is targeting a disability.

I'm not sure if it's your intention, but that is spectacularly hilarious.

We need to grant Trump an ADA exception!!

WilliamSeger · 2nd December 2018, 08:58 AM

Originally Posted by The Big Dog

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.

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.

The Big Dog · 2nd December 2018, 09:04 AM

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger

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.

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

no one is obligated to talk to the Fuzz, you dig?

WilliamSeger · 2nd December 2018, 09:07 AM

Originally Posted by The Big Dog

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

no one is obligated to talk to the Fuzz, you dig?

You're not obligated to answer -- not the same thing.

Ladewig · 2nd December 2018, 09:09 AM

Originally Posted by The Big Dog

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?

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.

Quote:

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

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.

BobTheCoward · 2nd December 2018, 09:10 AM

Originally Posted by varwoche

I'm not sure if it's your intention, but that is spectacularly hilarious.

We need to grant Trump an ADA exception!!

I could see literally being unable to tell the truth qualify.

BobTheCoward · 2nd December 2018, 09:11 AM

Originally Posted by The Shrike

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?

His opponents are the ones saying he has it,so they bring it on themselves.

Ladewig · 2nd December 2018, 09:11 AM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

That actually sounds extremely unfair when you put it that way. It is targeting a disability.

Laughing heartily.

BobTheCoward · 2nd December 2018, 09:16 AM

Originally Posted by Ladewig

Laughing heartily.

It's like the cops arresting a person who uses a wheelchair for dui because they can't walk a straight line.

WilliamSeger · 2nd December 2018, 09:37 AM

Originally Posted by The Big Dog

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.”

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.

BobTheCoward · 2nd December 2018, 09:40 AM

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger

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.

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.

The Big Dog · 2nd December 2018, 09:45 AM

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger

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.

That had literally nothing at all to do with what I posted...

Paul2 · 2nd December 2018, 09:55 AM

Originally Posted by The Big Dog

That had literally nothing at all to do with what I posted...

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.

DallasDad · 2nd December 2018, 09:56 AM

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

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....

There's also a (very remote) possibility that, during the questioning, the person of interest can present additional facts of which the FBI was unaware, thus changing the criminal activity to non-criminal activity. For a (very wild and completely unbelievable) example, Trump could produce evidence that he'd been working with the CIA on a sting operation against Putin, and all of his suspicious behavior was part of a long con, not against the US, but against Russia. Trump would obviously not have been able to admit to this until the con ended, and his behavior during the long con would be consistent with someone guilty of criminal conspiracy.

I'm throwing this out because an FBI interview is not always a foregone conclusion of guilt; it's often a fact-finding portion of an ongoing investigation. It's a crazily-ridiculous example of how Trump could be dismissed as a person of interest, but it's theoretically possible.

In general, when questioned by the FBI, only four answers to any question are advisable:

Yes (truthfully),

No (truthfully),

I don't recall (truthfully), or,

Plead the 5th (and force the FBI to prove their case)

The Big Dog · 2nd December 2018, 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by Paul2

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.

I suppose moving the goalposts but staying inside the stadium is a thing

WilliamSeger · 2nd December 2018, 10:06 AM

Originally Posted by The Big Dog

That had literally nothing at all to do with what I posted...

Are you admitting that what you posted -- "not one of the things admitted to lying about last week was even the slightest bit illegal" -- has literally nothing to do with the issue of knowingly and willfully lying about a material fact?

WilliamSeger · 2nd December 2018, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

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.

Read my definition again: "a reasonable person..."

It's a material fact because it's part of a larger pattern of contacts with Russians that were lied about, which is circumstantial evidence of "collusion." It's also a material fact because the Russians knew Trump was lying about the deal, and that's kompromat that could be used as leverage.

Paul2 · 2nd December 2018, 10:21 AM

Originally Posted by The Big Dog

I suppose moving the goalposts but staying inside the stadium is a thing

Without any details about what the goalposts represent, it's impossible to reply, as I'm sure you'll understand.

BobTheCoward · 2nd December 2018, 10:22 AM

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger

Read my definition again: "a reasonable person..."

It's a material fact because it's part of a larger pattern of contacts with Russians that were lied about, which is circumstantial evidence of "collusion." It's also a material fact because the Russians knew Trump was lying about the deal, and that's kompromat that could be used as leverage.

Larger pattern of contacts? Since when is normal work a larger pattern of contacts?

The Big Dog · 2nd December 2018, 10:24 AM

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger

Are you admitting that what you posted -- "not one of the things admitted to lying about last week was even the slightest bit illegal" -- has literally nothing to do with the issue of knowingly and willfully lying about a material fact?

HI! Here is the thing, repeating your total non sequitor in response to my post does not actually make your non sequitor a "sequitor," you dig?

He plead guilty to lying about activities that were not illegal, so typing "material fact" again is actually quite silly.

Focus like a laser on TBD's posts and y'all might learn something.

WilliamSeger · 2nd December 2018, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by The Big Dog

HI! Here is the thing, repeating your total non sequitor in response to my post does not actually make your non sequitor a "sequitor," you dig?

He plead guilty to lying about activities that were not illegal, so typing "material fact" again is actually quite silly.

Focus like a laser on TBD's posts and y'all might learn something.

The meaning of irony?

sts60 · 2nd December 2018, 11:45 AM

Trump is in trouble because of his vanity, greed, dishonesty, and lack of regard for anything other than himself.

He’s in more trouble because he’s been able to get away with stuff up to now, enthusiastically aided and abetted by a cynical coalition of criminals, kleptocrats, crackpots, con men, Klansmen, wife-beaters, assorted nincompoops, trolls, and traitors. But he’s never had to deal with a team of smart, disciplined, incorruptible prosecutors and investigators like Mueller’s. These aren’t cheaply-bought mooks like Bondi and Paxton. They’re not interested in owning Twitter for the day, or cable ratings or book deals. They’re all about getting to the bottom of it. Trump thinks he can out-Fox them. That’s precious.

smartcooky · 2nd December 2018, 12:21 PM

Originally Posted by The Big Dog

He plead guilty to lying about activities that were not illegal, so typing "material fact" again is actually quite silly.

For someone who gives out unsolicited law "pro-tips" and claims to be an expert in US Law, y'all do come out with some howlers. Fantastic!

You do understand, don't you, that doing something that is on its face, legal, can still be illegal if it is materially connected with the commission of a crime? e.g. Provided you are fully licenced to drive, then driving a car is perfectly legal. However, if that car is a getaway car, and you are driving two perps away from a bank robbery they have just committed, then what you are doing is illegal.

There was nothing per se illegal about Trump negotiating a building project in Russia; it wasn't even illegal for him to do so while he was on the campaign trail - there was nothing wrong or illegal about him hedging his bets against losing the election.

However, if that project was in furtherance of gaining a quid-pro-quo for Putin and his people to hack into computers and servers to steal documents, then that is conspiracy to commit a crime.

If he then fires people who wont stop an investigation into what he has done, that's obstruction of justice (18 USC § 1510).
If he dangles pardons in front of people who would testify against him, that is witness tampering (18 USC § 1512 ) and obstruction of justice (18 U.S. Code § 1510).
If part of the quid pro quo was Russia interfering in the 2016 Presidential election, then that is defrauding the United States of America (18 USC § 371).

Also, I hear and read some people saying that lying to the American people might be scummy and bad form, it is not actually a crime. That might be correct, however, it is an impeachable offence for a President to do so when he has done so in order to mislead the public over a criminal act that he was involved in, and this has precedent in the impeachment of President Richard M. Nixon.

Article 1

.....

The means used to implement this course of conduct or plan included one or more of the following:

Clause 8: making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation had been conducted with respect to allegations of misconduct on the part of personnel of the executive branch of the United States and personnel of the Committee for the Re-election of the President, and that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct

W.D.Clinger · 2nd December 2018, 01:09 PM

Having been questioned by the FBI in connection with matters that have absolutely nothing to do with Mueller's investigation, I can report that the following statement is quite silly:

Originally Posted by DallasDad

In general, when questioned by the FBI, only four answers to any question are advisable:

Yes (truthfully),

No (truthfully),

I don't recall (truthfully), or,

Plead the 5th (and force the FBI to prove their case)

Not all FBI questions are yes/no questions. Most of the questions I was asked were along the lines of "What can you tell me about ____?" or "Concerning ____, did you notice anything unusual?"

Of course, my experience with the FBI might be quite different from DallasDad's experience. I have no reason to think the FBI has ever suspected me of committing a crime.

PhantomWolf · 2nd December 2018, 01:56 PM

Originally Posted by The Big Dog

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.”

I see you are still having issues with the what a plea deal is.

The Big Dog · 2nd December 2018, 02:23 PM

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

I see you are still having issues with the what a plea deal is.

But you said that the FBI had the criminal activity totally documented! Yet the plea agreement does not show that what he lied about was criminal activity. You think the FBI is hiding it from us?

a_unique_person · 2nd December 2018, 02:45 PM

Originally Posted by The Big Dog

But you said that the FBI had the criminal activity totally documented! Yet the plea agreement does not show that what he lied about was criminal activity. You think the FBI is hiding it from us?

Yes. The FBI and police always hide details from possible colleagues in crime out in the public during an investigation.

The Big Dog · 2nd December 2018, 02:57 PM

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

Yes. The FBI and police always hide details from possible colleagues in crime out in the public during an investigation.

Say, but this was a plea bargain, not an investigation. And we were confidently informed that the FBI had documented evidence of criminal conduct, although the only criminal conduct mentioned was “lying” about legal activity.

Although I am a bit jealous that people can argue that there is totally secret “facts” that totally support your argument.

Lol

smartcooky · 2nd December 2018, 03:55 PM

Originally Posted by The Big Dog

But you said that the FBI had the criminal activity totally documented! Yet the plea agreement does not show that what he lied about was criminal activity. You think the FBI is hiding it from us?

Originally Posted by The Big Dog

Say, but this was a plea bargain, not an investigation. And we were confidently informed that the FBI had documented evidence of criminal conduct, although the only criminal conduct mentioned was “lying” about legal activity.

Although I am a bit jealous that people can argue that there is totally secret “facts” that totally support your argument.

Lol

I'm a bit jealous of people who, rather that admit Dear Leader did something wrong, can twist and contort themselves in their efforts to excuse his rancid behaviour, so that they more resemble a pretzel than a person. Adorable! Fantastic even!

Hooboy!

DallasDad · 2nd December 2018, 04:33 PM

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

Having been questioned by the FBI in connection with matters that have absolutely nothing to do with Mueller's investigation, I can report that the following statement is quite silly:

Not all FBI questions are yes/no questions. Most of the questions I was asked were along the lines of "What can you tell me about ____?" or "Concerning ____, did you notice anything unusual?"

Of course, my experience with the FBI might be quite different from DallasDad's experience. I have no reason to think the FBI has ever suspected me of committing a crime.

I've sat in on an FBI questioning, but my experience may not be typical. What the lawyer told my acquaintance was that leading or exploratory questions don't have to be answered directly. For example, if asked, "What can you tell me about___?" one can either respond by asking for a more specific question, or just offer some general information you know about ___.

Say, for example, one is asked, "What can you tell me about Vladimir Putin?" one could answer, "There are probably a lot of people named that. I wouldn't know. If you mean the current ruler of Russia, he appears to be around 60 in my judgment, has short hair, likes to be photographed doing sportsy things shirtless, and is rumored to be pretty rich." This would force the investigator to reformulate his question a series of questions like, "Have you ever met Vladimir Putin in person?" "When did you meet him?" "Where did you meet?" etc., each of which could be answered yes/no or simple declarative. Even "What did you discuss?" can generate an honest, "I'm not sure. It was a long time ago. What do you mean?" which would force the investigator to ask, "Did you discuss Brexit?" -- reducing again to a yes/no type of answer.

In the one experience I had, the respondent never got a chance to answer leading or exploratory questions, because the lawyer jumped in immediately to force the investigator to narrow the scope.

I've never been on the receiving end of an FBI investigation, so my one experience may be way off. I was only allowed to be present for a few minutes, to attest to a written statement that I had seen my acquaintance sign the week before. He was never charged with anything, as far as I know, and this was at least 20 years ago. Rules may have changed, or maybe the type of investigation controls the amount of fishing they can do.

If there are any experts here, I'd enjoy learning more.

W.D.Clinger · 2nd December 2018, 06:16 PM

Originally Posted by DallasDad

I've sat in on an FBI questioning, but my experience may not be typical. What the lawyer told my acquaintance was that leading or exploratory questions don't have to be answered directly. For example, if asked, "What can you tell me about___?" one can either respond by asking for a more specific question, or just offer some general information you know about ___.

Say, for example, one is asked, "What can you tell me about Vladimir Putin?" one could answer, "There are probably a lot of people named that. I wouldn't know. If you mean the current ruler of Russia, he appears to be around 60 in my judgment, has short hair, likes to be photographed doing sportsy things shirtless, and is rumored to be pretty rich."

That's the kind of answer you'd want to give if you were the kind of clueless idiot who, having committed a crime, cannot resist inflating your ego by daring the FBI to make something of it.

So yes, your experience and advice, albeit atypical, is definitely more relevant to this thread than my experience.

Aridas · 2nd December 2018, 07:53 PM

Trump administration 'had a secret plan to lift Russian sanctions' and cede Ukraine territory to Moscow.

I wonder if we'll be hearing more about this on the Mueller front.

varwoche · 2nd December 2018, 08:10 PM

wrong thread!?*

2nd December 2018, 07:10 AM	#121
Frank Newgent Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 6,512	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward Originally Posted by thaiboxerken It's because they know he in not capable of telling the truth. It's unfair to ask him to do so. That actually sounds extremely unfair when you put it that way. It is targeting a disability. Then wait for the doughnut to finish frying.
	__________________ Disturbances of the semantic reactions in connection with faulty education and ignorance must be considered as sub-microscopic colloidal lesions - Alfred O. Korzybski

2nd December 2018, 07:31 AM	#122
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 30,759	Originally Posted by thaiboxerken It's because they know he in not capable of telling the truth. Would that be a valid defence?
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 30,759	__________________ "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

2nd December 2018, 07:58 AM	#123
timhau NWO Litter Technician Join Date: May 2004 Location: Looks like Finland. Smells like Finland. Quacks like Finland. Where the hell am I? Posts: 13,018	Originally Posted by Mojo Would that be a valid defence? Would it be grounds for invoking the 25th amendment?
	__________________ When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord, in his wisdom, doesn't work that way. I just stole one and asked Him to forgive me. - Emo Philips

2nd December 2018, 08:02 AM	#124
The Great Zaganza Maledictorian Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 6,844	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward That actually sounds extremely unfair when you put it that way. It is targeting a disability. Yeah, but I think it's reasonable to discriminate against a Factually disabled person when it comes to filling the position of POTUS.
	__________________ Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isn’t.

2nd December 2018, 08:31 AM	#126
The Big Dog Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 29,059	Originally Posted by PhantomWolf 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. . 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.”
	__________________ I'm your obsession

2nd December 2018, 08:10 AM	#125
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 15,721	Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza Yeah, but I think it's reasonable to discriminate against a Factually disabled person when it comes to filling the position of POTUS. But that shouldn't guide the FBI decisions

2nd December 2018, 08:34 AM	#127
The Shrike Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 4,800	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 Shrike Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 4,800

2nd December 2018, 08:37 AM	#128
varwoche Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Puget Sound Posts: 12,505	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward That actually sounds extremely unfair when you put it that way. It is targeting a disability. I'm not sure if it's your intention, but that is spectacularly hilarious. We need to grant Trump an ADA exception!!
	__________________ To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.

2nd December 2018, 08:58 AM	#129
WilliamSeger Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 4,225	Originally Posted by The Big Dog 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. 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.
	__________________ ^{"We're done! We're done! GET OUT!"}

2nd December 2018, 09:04 AM	#130
The Big Dog Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 29,059	Originally Posted by WilliamSeger 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. well one of us doesn't understand.... no one is obligated to talk to the Fuzz, you dig?
	__________________ I'm your obsession

2nd December 2018, 09:07 AM	#131
WilliamSeger Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 4,225	Originally Posted by The Big Dog well one of us doesn't understand.... no one is obligated to talk to the Fuzz, you dig? You're not obligated to answer -- not the same thing.
	__________________ ^{"We're done! We're done! GET OUT!"}

2nd December 2018, 09:09 AM	#132
Ladewig I lost an avatar bet. Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 26,185	Originally Posted by The Big Dog 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? 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. Quote: Because a cheap conviction under 18 usc 1001 is better than nothing. 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.
	__________________ I lost an avatar bet to Doghouse Reilly.

2nd December 2018, 09:10 AM	#133
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 15,721	Originally Posted by varwoche I'm not sure if it's your intention, but that is spectacularly hilarious. We need to grant Trump an ADA exception!! I could see literally being unable to tell the truth qualify.

2nd December 2018, 09:11 AM	#134
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 15,721	Originally Posted by The Shrike 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? His opponents are the ones saying he has it,so they bring it on themselves.

2nd December 2018, 09:11 AM	#135
Ladewig I lost an avatar bet. Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 26,185	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward That actually sounds extremely unfair when you put it that way. It is targeting a disability. Laughing heartily.
	__________________ I lost an avatar bet to Doghouse Reilly.

2nd December 2018, 09:16 AM	#136
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 15,721	Originally Posted by Ladewig Laughing heartily. It's like the cops arresting a person who uses a wheelchair for dui because they can't walk a straight line.

2nd December 2018, 09:37 AM	#137
WilliamSeger Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 4,225	Originally Posted by The Big Dog 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.” 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.
	__________________ ^{"We're done! We're done! GET OUT!"}

2nd December 2018, 09:40 AM	#138
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 15,721	Originally Posted by WilliamSeger 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. 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.

2nd December 2018, 09:45 AM	#139
The Big Dog Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 29,059	Originally Posted by WilliamSeger 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. That had literally nothing at all to do with what I posted...
	__________________ I'm your obsession

2nd December 2018, 09:55 AM	#140
Paul2 Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 4,908	Originally Posted by The Big Dog That had literally nothing at all to do with what I posted... 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.
Paul2 Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 4,908	__________________ 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

2nd December 2018, 09:56 AM	#141
DallasDad Muse Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 805	Originally Posted by PhantomWolf 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.... There's also a (very remote) possibility that, during the questioning, the person of interest can present additional facts of which the FBI was unaware, thus changing the criminal activity to non-criminal activity. For a (very wild and completely unbelievable) example, Trump could produce evidence that he'd been working with the CIA on a sting operation against Putin, and all of his suspicious behavior was part of a long con, not against the US, but against Russia. Trump would obviously not have been able to admit to this until the con ended, and his behavior during the long con would be consistent with someone guilty of criminal conspiracy. I'm throwing this out because an FBI interview is not always a foregone conclusion of guilt; it's often a fact-finding portion of an ongoing investigation. It's a crazily-ridiculous example of how Trump could be dismissed as a person of interest, but it's theoretically possible. In general, when questioned by the FBI, only four answers to any question are advisable: Yes (truthfully), No (truthfully), I don't recall (truthfully), or, Plead the 5th (and force the FBI to prove their case)
DallasDad Muse Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 805

2nd December 2018, 09:59 AM	#142
The Big Dog Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 29,059	Originally Posted by Paul2 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. I suppose moving the goalposts but staying inside the stadium is a thing
	__________________ I'm your obsession

2nd December 2018, 10:06 AM	#143
WilliamSeger Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 4,225	Originally Posted by The Big Dog That had literally nothing at all to do with what I posted... Are you admitting that what you posted -- "not one of the things admitted to lying about last week was even the slightest bit illegal" -- has literally nothing to do with the issue of knowingly and willfully lying about a material fact?
	__________________ ^{"We're done! We're done! GET OUT!"}

2nd December 2018, 10:19 AM	#144
WilliamSeger Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 4,225	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward 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. Read my definition again: "a reasonable person..." It's a material fact because it's part of a larger pattern of contacts with Russians that were lied about, which is circumstantial evidence of "collusion." It's also a material fact because the Russians knew Trump was lying about the deal, and that's kompromat that could be used as leverage.
	__________________ ^{"We're done! We're done! GET OUT!"}

2nd December 2018, 10:21 AM	#145
Paul2 Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 4,908	Originally Posted by The Big Dog I suppose moving the goalposts but staying inside the stadium is a thing Without any details about what the goalposts represent, it's impossible to reply, as I'm sure you'll understand.
Paul2 Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 4,908	__________________ 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

2nd December 2018, 10:22 AM	#146
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 15,721	Originally Posted by WilliamSeger Read my definition again: "a reasonable person..." It's a material fact because it's part of a larger pattern of contacts with Russians that were lied about, which is circumstantial evidence of "collusion." It's also a material fact because the Russians knew Trump was lying about the deal, and that's kompromat that could be used as leverage. Larger pattern of contacts? Since when is normal work a larger pattern of contacts?

2nd December 2018, 10:24 AM	#147
The Big Dog Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 29,059	Originally Posted by WilliamSeger Are you admitting that what you posted -- "not one of the things admitted to lying about last week was even the slightest bit illegal" -- has literally nothing to do with the issue of knowingly and willfully lying about a material fact? HI! Here is the thing, repeating your total non sequitor in response to my post does not actually make your non sequitor a "sequitor," you dig? He plead guilty to lying about activities that were not illegal, so typing "material fact" again is actually quite silly. Focus like a laser on TBD's posts and y'all might learn something.
	__________________ I'm your obsession

2nd December 2018, 11:12 AM	#148
WilliamSeger Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 4,225	Originally Posted by The Big Dog HI! Here is the thing, repeating your total non sequitor in response to my post does not actually make your non sequitor a "sequitor," you dig? He plead guilty to lying about activities that were not illegal, so typing "material fact" again is actually quite silly. Focus like a laser on TBD's posts and y'all might learn something. The meaning of irony?
	__________________ ^{"We're done! We're done! GET OUT!"}

2nd December 2018, 12:21 PM	#150
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 10,399	Originally Posted by The Big Dog He plead guilty to lying about activities that were not illegal, so typing "material fact" again is actually quite silly. For someone who gives out unsolicited law "pro-tips" and claims to be an expert in US Law, y'all do come out with some howlers. Fantastic! You do understand, don't you, that doing something that is on its face, legal, can still be illegal if it is materially connected with the commission of a crime? e.g. Provided you are fully licenced to drive, then driving a car is perfectly legal. However, if that car is a getaway car, and you are driving two perps away from a bank robbery they have just committed, then what you are doing is illegal. There was nothing per se illegal about Trump negotiating a building project in Russia; it wasn't even illegal for him to do so while he was on the campaign trail - there was nothing wrong or illegal about him hedging his bets against losing the election. However, if that project was in furtherance of gaining a quid-pro-quo for Putin and his people to hack into computers and servers to steal documents, then that is conspiracy to commit a crime. If he then fires people who wont stop an investigation into what he has done, that's obstruction of justice (18 USC § 1510). If he dangles pardons in front of people who would testify against him, that is witness tampering (18 USC § 1512 ) and obstruction of justice (18 U.S. Code § 1510). If part of the quid pro quo was Russia interfering in the 2016 Presidential election, then that is defrauding the United States of America (18 USC § 371). Also, I hear and read some people saying that lying to the American people might be scummy and bad form, it is not actually a crime. That might be correct, however, it is an impeachable offence for a President to do so when he has done so in order to mislead the public over a criminal act that he was involved in, and this has precedent in the impeachment of President Richard M. Nixon. Article 1 ..... The means used to implement this course of conduct or plan included one or more of the following: Clause 8: making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation had been conducted with respect to allegations of misconduct on the part of personnel of the executive branch of the United States and personnel of the Committee for the Re-election of the President, and that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct
	__________________ _{As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron. - Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920} Last edited by smartcooky; 2nd December 2018 at 01:39 PM.

2nd December 2018, 01:09 PM	#151
W.D.Clinger Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 3,503	Having been questioned by the FBI in connection with matters that have absolutely nothing to do with Mueller's investigation, I can report that the following statement is quite silly: Originally Posted by DallasDad In general, when questioned by the FBI, only four answers to any question are advisable: Yes (truthfully), No (truthfully), I don't recall (truthfully), or, Plead the 5th (and force the FBI to prove their case) Not all FBI questions are yes/no questions. Most of the questions I was asked were along the lines of "What can you tell me about ____?" or "Concerning ____, did you notice anything unusual?" Of course, my experience with the FBI might be quite different from DallasDad's experience. I have no reason to think the FBI has ever suspected me of committing a crime.
W.D.Clinger Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 3,503

2nd December 2018, 01:56 PM	#152
PhantomWolf Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 18,023	Originally Posted by The Big Dog 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.” I see you are still having issues with the what a plea deal is.
	__________________ It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

2nd December 2018, 02:23 PM	#153
The Big Dog Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 29,059	Originally Posted by PhantomWolf I see you are still having issues with the what a plea deal is. But you said that the FBI had the criminal activity totally documented! Yet the plea agreement does not show that what he lied about was criminal activity. You think the FBI is hiding it from us?
	__________________ I'm your obsession

2nd December 2018, 02:45 PM	#154
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open. Posts: 39,644	Originally Posted by The Big Dog But you said that the FBI had the criminal activity totally documented! Yet the plea agreement does not show that what he lied about was criminal activity. You think the FBI is hiding it from us? Yes. The FBI and police always hide details from possible colleagues in crime out in the public during an investigation.
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

2nd December 2018, 02:57 PM	#155
The Big Dog Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 29,059	Originally Posted by a_unique_person Yes. The FBI and police always hide details from possible colleagues in crime out in the public during an investigation. Say, but this was a plea bargain, not an investigation. And we were confidently informed that the FBI had documented evidence of criminal conduct, although the only criminal conduct mentioned was “lying” about legal activity. Although I am a bit jealous that people can argue that there is totally secret “facts” that totally support your argument. Lol
	__________________ I'm your obsession

2nd December 2018, 03:55 PM	#156
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 10,399	Originally Posted by The Big Dog But you said that the FBI had the criminal activity totally documented! Yet the plea agreement does not show that what he lied about was criminal activity. You think the FBI is hiding it from us? Originally Posted by The Big Dog Say, but this was a plea bargain, not an investigation. And we were confidently informed that the FBI had documented evidence of criminal conduct, although the only criminal conduct mentioned was “lying” about legal activity. Although I am a bit jealous that people can argue that there is totally secret “facts” that totally support your argument. Lol I'm a bit jealous of people who, rather that admit Dear Leader did something wrong, can twist and contort themselves in their efforts to excuse his rancid behaviour, so that they more resemble a pretzel than a person. Adorable! Fantastic even! Hooboy!
	__________________ _{As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron. - Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920}