## 'PEOPLE WILL GO TO JAIL'...

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Grammatron
Posts: 33455
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Been thanked: 1714 times

### Re: 'PEOPLE WILL GO TO JAIL'...

Is Trump's reduction marker golden like his showers?

Doctor X
Posts: 67488
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah
Has thanked: 3374 times
Been thanked: 2144 times

### Re: 'PEOPLE WILL GO TO JAIL'...

Meanwhile . . . in Japan from a Real Lawyer:
Donald Trump Shouldn’t Talk to the Feds. And Neither Should You.
When the feds interview a subject or target, their goal is not fact-finding or "clearing a few things up." Their goal is the hunt.

The media have become obsessed with a hypothetical conversation—one that might, or might not, take place between the president of the United States and a special counsel appointed by the Department of Justice. It's a will-they-or-won't-they worthy of a rom-com, with the unusual twist that there is genuine uncertainty about the result. Special Counsel Robert Mueller is implacable and President Donald Trump is unpredictable. Everyone has an opinion, and they're being sprayed across cable news and the editorial pages.

I gave up early on predicting what this administration will do. But I say this with complete confidence, based on my 23 years in federal criminal practice: There is absolutely no good reason for Trump to talk to Robert Mueller and his investigators voluntarily.

To understand why, you have to understand the goal of a conversation like the one Mueller proposes.

The president is no mere witness. He is at least a subject, and likely a target, of the special counsel's investigation. In federal criminal parlance, a witness is someone not suspected of wrongdoing who has useful information, a subject is someone suspected of wrongdoing who may well be charged if the evidence supports it, and a target is someone whose indictment is actively sought as a purpose of the investigation. When the feds interview a subject or target, their goal is not mere information-gathering or fact-finding or "clearing a few things up." Their goal is the hunt.

["Snip!"--Ed.] One purpose, arguably the primary purpose, is to provoke the foolish interviewee into lying, thus committing a new, fresh federal crime that is easily prosecuted, rendering the original investigation irrelevant. Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001, which makes it a felony to lie to the feds, is their shiny quick-draw sidearm. This result not an exception; it is the rule. It happens again and again.

Consider George Papadopoulos. The special counsel secured his guilty plea not for improper contact with the Russians but for lying about that contact to the FBI. Consider Michael Flynn. He too pled guilty not to unlawful contact with Russians but to lying to the FBI about that contact. Consider Scooter Libby, or Martha Stewart, or Dennis Hastert, or James Cartwright, all taken down by the feds not for their alleged original misconduct but for lying about it. Even when catching someone in a lie isn't enough to force them to plead guilty, it can add charges to a case. Consider Paul Manafort and Richard Gates, charged not just with substantive crimes but with lying to the FBI about them.

The feds love this tactic because it's so effective with sophisticated, affluent, powerful people. Such people can afford teams of lawyers, yes. But being sophisticated, affluent, and powerful often means being arrogant and overconfident too. "Masters of the Universe" believe they can talk their way out of anything, just as they have talked their way to their lofty status. This is the pride that goeth before the fall, and it reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of what's happening in one of these interviews.

When special counsels or FBI agents ask questions of one of these powerful people, they are not fact-finding. They've already done their homework. They've already gathered facts—almost certainly many more facts than the interviewee knows. They are asking questions the answers to which they can already prove, hoping that the interviewee will tell a provable lie, and thus commit a crime, or at least lock themselves into a feckless story that ties their hands later. The law that makes it a crime to lie to federal investigators does not require the lie to fool the investigators for a nanosecond. A lie must be "material" to be criminal, but that only means that the lie is the kind of statement that could conceivably influence the government, not one that actually did. The FBI can roll up with irrefutable proof of something, ask the target a question hoping for a lie, collect the lie they wanted, and reap a felony conviction.

Some people say, "Well, there's an easy solution—just tell the truth." Casual acquaintance with President Trump suggests that's not an easy solution to him. I'm not saying that he constantly lies consciously and deliberately, but he certainly says untrue things constantly and gratuitously, in the way that characters on Deadwood swear. There's little reason to think he can learn to change for an interview, particularly one with a nemesis who infuriates him.

Anyway, even an honest, circumspect person faces grave peril in such an interview. FBI agents and prosecutors are adept at putting interviewees ill at ease. The pressure is immense. Human memory is fallible, and the interrogators are not disposed to view misremembered statements as accidents. You don't know the significance of everything they are asking you, and most people simply cannot sustain the sort of focus necessary to respond to complicated questions precisely and accurately for a sustained period of time. "Just tell the truth," applied to a complicated interview, assumes that the witness is extraordinarily disciplined and that questioners have an open mind and will act fairly and in good faith. Those assumptions are not warranted.

Just as there are abyssal downsides for a target or subject to submit to a government interview, there are very rarely upsides. If you are the subject or target of a federal investigation, you're not going to talk them out of it. They have the receipts already. Nothing you say, in and of itself, will end the investigation. You cannot "just clear a few things up." You cannot impress them with your honesty. If they decide they don't have a case, they will decide this based on other evidence—other witnesses, documents, and so forth—and not on your denials. Moreover, there's nothing you can say in an interview that your attorney can't convey to investigators informally. If some key fact will exonerate you, your attorneys can tell them without exposing you to charges.

["Snip!"--Ed.]

If the president refuses to submit to a voluntary interview, Special Counsel Mueller could conceivably subpoena him to testify before the grand jury. That would require Mueller to tip his hand about the president's precise status: Department of Justice regulations require prosecutors to warn targets or subjects of their Fifth Amendment rights when subpoenaing them before a grand jury, and to advise targets of their status as targets. Trump might defy such a subpoena, and Mueller might seek to enforce it in court. The Supreme Court's decision in Clinton v. Jones suggests that the president is not immune from such subpoenas, even if there may be ambiguity about the exact way they can be enforced and the precise privileges the president might assert. This would be a spectacle and a constitutional crisis. But so would a clamor for an impeachment proceeding premised on lies to the FBI or perjury under oath. Submitting voluntarily to an interview with the special counsel does not prevent the spectacle or crisis; it merely hastens it and changes its nature from a struggle over presidential privilege and immunity to a struggle over the consequences of lying.

That bring us to one final reason to cooperate often offered: politics. I am not a politician, but I don't need to be one to dispense with the notion that talking to Mueller is a political necessity. Donald Trump is not a man of mystery. He is exactly what it says on the package. He has spent his first year as president being very much himself. The people who like that have continued to like it, the people who hate it have continued to hate it, and most Republicans in the House and Senate have backed him, albeit with occasional timid throat-clearing. If he refuses to submit to an interview with Robert Mueller, under oath or not, absolutely nothing in the last year suggests that he will face debilitating political consequences. The president will crow that he has refused to cooperate with a biased and meritless investigation calculated to harass him, and he will do so with political impunity. The proverbial camel is in its cold grave; this additional straw upon its back cannot trouble it.

I submit this is not a close call. If the president were my client, I would advise him not to submit voluntarily to an interview, under oath or not, with Special Counsel Mueller. It offers him nothing but risk, even if it offers the rest of us entertainment or schadenfreude.

His Holiness Ken White
--J.D.
Mob of the Mean: Free beanie, cattle-prod and Charley Fan Club!
"Doctor X is just treating you the way he treats everyone--as subhuman crap too dumb to breathe in after you breathe out."--Don
DocX: FTW.--sparks
"Doctor X wins again."--Pyrrho
"Never sorry to make a racist Fucktard cry."--His Humble MagNIfIcence
"It was the criticisms of Doc X, actually, that let me see more clearly how far the hypocrisy had gone."--clarsct
"I'd leave it up to Doctor X who has been a benevolent tyrant so far."--Grammatron
"Indeed you are a river to your people.
Shit. That's going to end up in your sig."--Pyrrho
"Try a twelve step program and accept Doctor X as your High Power."--asthmatic camel
"just like Doc X said." --gnome

WS CHAMPIONS X3!!! NBA CHAMPIONS!! Stanley Cup! SB CHAMPIONS X5!!!!!
AL East Champs!!

shuize
Posts: 403
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2017 4:32 am
Has thanked: 19 times
Been thanked: 89 times

### Re: 'PEOPLE WILL GO TO JAIL'...

WildCat wrote:Did they do their job when they granted people around Hillary immunity for nothing at all, when they allowed a government attorney to claim attorney-client privilege, when they helped destroy hard drives, when they allowed Hillary to destroy hard drives, when Lynch met with Bill "to talk about grandchildren and golf"?
I really love the immunity part.

"Hey, want some immunity? Here, have some for free. Some for you, some for you, and some for you. No, really. We don't want anything in return."

If anyone thinks that's how it works for the little people, I've got a bridge to show you.

ed
Posts: 33011
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: Rhino of the Florida swamp
Has thanked: 438 times
Been thanked: 751 times

### Re: 'PEOPLE WILL GO TO JAIL'...

I read various posts from RCC that suggested that, given information in their possession, the FBI knew they weren't going to suggest that Hillary be indicted and, therefore, writing a document saying that before she was interviewed is not that odd.

My question is this: why did they grant immunity to the people around hillary? That one really troubles me. Did they really destroy evidence, or countenance it's destruction?

Like so much with Clinton, any individual thing seems like it can be explained away. But the stench of scandal and elitism and favoritism clings to her like a rancid pall (I invented that phrase and I like it)
Wenn ich Kultur höre, entsichere ich meinen Browning!

Skeeve
Posts: 10294
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:35 am
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 76 times

### Re: 'PEOPLE WILL GO TO JAIL'...

...
But the stench of scandal and elitism and favoritism clings to her like a rancid pall...
Then Skank Of America could start in...

WildCat
Posts: 13832
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 2:53 am
Location: The 33rd Ward, Chicago
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 327 times

### Re: 'PEOPLE WILL GO TO JAIL'...

corplinx wrote:c. a pair of rogue FBI agents enamored with their own sense of duty to protect america from DRUMPF
I wish it was that limited, but the evidence points to a more than those 2. McCabe and Ohr are up to their eyeballs in it, not sure about Comey he may just be a classic dupe who in true Peter Principle form rose to his level of incompetence in the bureaucracy. And I'd be shocked in Lynch and Obama weren't keeping close tabs on things.
Do you have questions about God?

you sniveling little right-wing nutter - jj

WildCat
Posts: 13832
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 2:53 am
Location: The 33rd Ward, Chicago
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 327 times

### Re: 'PEOPLE WILL GO TO JAIL'...

Holy fucking shit...
After months of secret negotiations, a shadowy Russian bilked American spies out of $100,000 last year, promising to deliver stolen National Security Agency cyberweapons in a deal that he insisted would also include compromising material on President Trump, according to American and European intelligence officials. The cash, delivered in a suitcase to a Berlin hotel room in September, was intended as the first installment of a$1 million payout, according to American officials, the Russian and communications reviewed by The New York Times. The theft of the secret hacking tools had been devastating to the N.S.A., and the agency was struggling to get a full inventory of what was missing.

Several American intelligence officials said they made clear that they did not want the Trump material from the Russian, who was suspected of having murky ties to Russian intelligence and to Eastern European cybercriminals. He claimed the information would link the president and his associates to Russia. Instead of providing the hacking tools, the Russian produced unverified and possibly fabricated information involving Mr. Trump and others, including bank records, emails and purported Russian intelligence data.

The United States intelligence officials said they cut off the deal because they were wary of being entangled in a Russian operation to create discord inside the American government. They were also fearful of political fallout in Washington if they were seen to be buying scurrilous information on the president.
So the intelligence agencies finally figured out that there was a Russian effort to "create discord inside the American government" - and using fake info on Trump to do so, yet the FBI never considered that the "salacious and unverified" Steele dossier, compiled from information provided by Russians working for Putin, was part of that?

Putin must be laughing hysterically at how well this has worked out for him, and it was all made possible by Democrats and never-Trump Republicans and the never-ending Mueller witch hunt that is apparently failing to see the forest for the trees.
Do you have questions about God?

you sniveling little right-wing nutter - jj

WildCat
Posts: 13832
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 2:53 am
Location: The 33rd Ward, Chicago
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 327 times

### Re: 'PEOPLE WILL GO TO JAIL'...

And btw here's the less-redacted version of the Senate Judiciary memo that confirms the Nunes memo: https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/me ... erral).pdf

Note that according to this the Steele dossier was "confirmed" by "other sources" which turned out to be Steele himself leaking to the press, so it was completely circular. When the Schiff memo is released watch it attempt to rationalize the wiretap by claiming the Steele dossier wasn't the sole justification for the wiretap. What it won't say is that the "other sources" were articles fed to the press by Steele.
Last edited by WildCat on Mon Feb 12, 2018 4:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Do you have questions about God?

you sniveling little right-wing nutter - jj

corplinx
Posts: 20005
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:49 am
Title: Moderator
Has thanked: 210 times
Been thanked: 656 times

### Re: 'PEOPLE WILL GO TO JAIL'...

Nunes is now asking for the FISA hearing minutes so it will be known what was or was not considered.

Will Nunes/Trump finally expose the rubber stamp that is FISA? LOL.

Civil libertarians have been railing on the 100% (within margin of error) acceptance rate for FISA requests for years.

What if the malicious investigation of a political outsider is what finally proves the suspicion of FISA being a rubber stamp to be true?

shuize
Posts: 403
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2017 4:32 am
Has thanked: 19 times
Been thanked: 89 times

### Re: 'PEOPLE WILL GO TO JAIL'...

Again, I'm slow on the memo scandal. As posted above, the claim is that FBI was using evidence it knew was garbage (paid for by Democrats?) to get FISA warrants to spy on Trump and his people during the campaign in order to swing things for Clinton?

Filling in some of the blanks, if I have this right, Democrats (the Clinton campaign?) paid Fusion GPS for opposition research on Trump. Fusion GPS paid ex-British spy Christopher Steele. Steele either made up the information on Trump or was handed "information" by his Russian friends. Steele leaked news of the dossier to the media. At some point the FBI took this "information" to a secret FISA court and used the media "corroboration" to bolster its warrant application to spy on a presidential candidate and his people. They later went back to the FISA court to extend the surveillance after Trump won the election. Special prosecutor Mueller's investigation so far has found no evidence of Trump or his people colluding with Russians.

If all that is accurate, one would think the MSM would be going crazy with the story.

Ha. Ha. Just kidding.

Also, I meant to ask, does anyone know how the FBI ended up with the dossier?

corplinx
Posts: 20005
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:49 am
Title: Moderator
Has thanked: 210 times
Been thanked: 656 times

### Re: 'PEOPLE WILL GO TO JAIL'...

Steele also received information from a person at the State Department who confessed this was true.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 06945d8450

Jonathan Winer.
In late September, I spoke with an old friend, Sidney Blumenthal, whom I met 30 years ago when I was investigating the Iran-contra affair for then-Sen. Kerry and Blumenthal was a reporter at The Post. At the time, Russian hacking was at the front and center in the 2016 presidential campaign. The emails of Blumenthal, who had a long association with Bill and Hillary Clinton, had been hacked in 2013 through a Russian server.

While talking about that hacking, Blumenthal and I discussed Steele’s reports. He showed me notes gathered by a journalist I did not know, Cody Shearer, that alleged the Russians had compromising information on Trump of a sexual and financial nature.

What struck me was how some of the material echoed Steele’s but appeared to involve different sources.
So, one of Hillary's hatchet men Sidney Blumenthal is also involved.

WildCat
Posts: 13832
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 2:53 am
Location: The 33rd Ward, Chicago
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 327 times

### Re: 'PEOPLE WILL GO TO JAIL'...

corplinx wrote:Civil libertarians have been railing on the 100% (within margin of error) acceptance rate for FISA requests for years.
The actual rate is not 100%, it's 99.97%. A blatantly false claim, 4 Pinocchios!
/FactCheck
Do you have questions about God?

you sniveling little right-wing nutter - jj

Abdul Alhazred
Posts: 70748
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:33 pm
Title: Yes, that one.
Location: Chicago
Has thanked: 3162 times
Been thanked: 1169 times

### Re: 'PEOPLE WILL GO TO JAIL'...

I wonder what was the one they turned down?
Any man writes a mission statement spends a night in the box.
-- our mission statement plappendale

Giz
Posts: 1111
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: UK
Has thanked: 141 times
Been thanked: 239 times

### Re: 'PEOPLE WILL GO TO JAIL'...

Abdul Alhazred wrote:I wonder what was the one they turned down?
Maybe they wanted to surveil Clinton?

RCC: Act II
Posts: 837
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:56 am
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 87 times

### Re: 'PEOPLE WILL GO TO JAIL'...

I guess the thing that cracks me up about this is that it really doesn't matter. No matter how well the Schiff memo may or may not rebut these memos, all of this is pretty silly.

The Trump campaign fell over itself saying that Page wasn't more than a low level volunteer. Now, somehow a warrant application against him is important because there was faulty evidence to support it. Which may or may not matter seeing probable cause isn't the toughest hurdle to clear. Even so, if Page had no real connection to Trump, so what?

As Rep. Gowdy says, liberal stooge that he is, it has nothing to do with the Mueller probe. Even assuming Mueller used some of the wiretap information, which is a stretch, nobody but Page would be able to contest the use of it in court. Standing and all that. Mueller can build his own sources and case independent of what an earlier warrant application relied on.

WildCat
Posts: 13832
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 2:53 am
Location: The 33rd Ward, Chicago
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 327 times

### Re: 'PEOPLE WILL GO TO JAIL'...

RCC: Act II wrote:I guess the thing that cracks me up about this is that it really doesn't matter. No matter how well the Schiff memo may or may not rebut these memos, all of this is pretty silly.

The Trump campaign fell over itself saying that Page wasn't more than a low level volunteer. Now, somehow a warrant application against him is important because there was faulty evidence to support it. Which may or may not matter seeing probable cause isn't the toughest hurdle to clear. Even so, if Page had no real connection to Trump, so what?

As Rep. Gowdy says, liberal stooge that he is, it has nothing to do with the Mueller probe. Even assuming Mueller used some of the wiretap information, which is a stretch, nobody but Page would be able to contest the use of it in court. Standing and all that. Mueller can build his own sources and case independent of what an earlier warrant application relied on.
What crime is Mueller investigating?
Do you have questions about God?

you sniveling little right-wing nutter - jj

WildCat
Posts: 13832
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 2:53 am
Location: The 33rd Ward, Chicago
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 327 times

### Re: 'PEOPLE WILL GO TO JAIL'...

Rumor is that FBI Director of CoIntel, Bill Priestap, is singing like a canary to Horowitz, the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the House Intelligence Committee. Priestap is Peter Strzok's direct supervisor, he would necessarily been centrally involved in this entire fiasco. Yet his name is mysteriously absent from virtually all of this, the logical assumption is that he is cooperating. House Intelligence Committee member Chris Stewart carefully danced around his name a few days ago when asked directly about him.

I bet he has a lot to do with "Phase 2" of Nunes' investigation.

Kamala Harris is so desperate and scared she is pushing a petition to remove Nunes from the Intel Committee: https://secure.kamalaharris.org/page/s/kdh-nunes-ads

How odd is that?
Do you have questions about God?

you sniveling little right-wing nutter - jj

Giz
Posts: 1111
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: UK
Has thanked: 141 times
Been thanked: 239 times

### Re: 'PEOPLE WILL GO TO JAIL'...

WildCat wrote: What crime is Mueller investigating?
Hilary's butt hurts, and we know it wouldn't have been Bill, so the parsimonious* explanation is Russians.

* DNC logic.

Abdul Alhazred
Posts: 70748
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:33 pm
Title: Yes, that one.
Location: Chicago
Has thanked: 3162 times
Been thanked: 1169 times

### Re: 'PEOPLE WILL GO TO JAIL'...

WildCat wrote: What crime is Mueller investigating?
Some prohibited form of pussy-grabbing, right?
Any man writes a mission statement spends a night in the box.
-- our mission statement plappendale

ed
Posts: 33011
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: Rhino of the Florida swamp
Has thanked: 438 times
Been thanked: 751 times

### Re: 'PEOPLE WILL GO TO JAIL'...

RCC: Act II wrote: The Trump campaign fell over itself saying that Page wasn't more than a low level volunteer. Now, somehow a warrant application against him is important because there was faulty evidence to support it. Which may or may not matter seeing probable cause isn't the toughest hurdle to clear. Even so, if Page had no real connection to Trump, so what?
If they are surveilling someone are they not, ipso facto (<---latin!!), surveilling everyone that that person comes into contact with either face to face, via email or via phone (or any other electronic communication)?

And given the somewhat elastic bases that getting a FISA warrant appears to require, would such communications with a person like paige not serve as the basis for a warrant against such people?

Let me ask this: who represents our best interests?
Wenn ich Kultur höre, entsichere ich meinen Browning!