• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Mueller Investigation pt4

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Big Dog said:
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, :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

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?
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
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.
Click to expand...

Won't that only be the House and not the Senate intelligence committees (sorry if I've got the names wrong)?
 
The Big Dog said:
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, :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Did you fully understand what a perjury trap is from your first link?
A "perjury trap" is narrow -- it's when the government subpoenas you to the grand jury not to gather evidence, but to catch you in perjury and prosecute you for it.
Click to expand...
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 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well, you believe that, and that's what counts.
 
The Big Dog said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 said:
I was using the definition in one of the links you provided.
Click to expand...

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 said:
Well, you believe that, and that's what counts.
Click to expand...

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.
 
The Big Dog said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Last edited:
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Paul2 said:
Are you ignoring everything else I wrote? Hopefully you will come back to the issues I brought up.
Click to expand...

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

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

Are you a lawyer?
Click to expand...

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

Hyperbole is unnecessary
Click to expand...

If only I thought you actually believed that.
 
The Big Dog said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Paul2 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 said:
How am I conflating those two definitions?
Click to expand...

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?
 
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 said:
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?
Click to expand...

The concept would be the meeting was legal. So asking about it doesn't help the FBI solve a crime.
 
The Shrike said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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 Big Dog said:
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?
Click to expand...
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 said:
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?
Click to expand...

That does not really help to clarify anything, to be honest.
 
acbytesla said:
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.
Click to expand...

The FBI doesn't seem to distinguish between lying and saying something you think is true but wrong.
 
The Big Dog said:
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.
Click to expand...


“Knowingly and willfully”?
 
Last edited:
"To the best of my recollection it was in April"

Where's the trap?
 
The Shrike said:
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.
Click to expand...

Maybe you haven't reviewed the date most recently and got mixed up.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Maybe you haven't reviewed the date most recently and got mixed up.
Click to expand...

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:
BobTheCoward said:
Maybe you haven't reviewed the date most recently and got mixed up.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom