Mueller investigation

[hurtinbuckaroo]

Mueller charges Manafort with repeatedly lying; plea agreement is void; he’s going to die in prison:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...85fd44449f5_story.html?utm_term=.aa2d78125604

I don't get it. You're for all intents and purposes under the thumb of the most relentless g-man in modern times, and you think you can get away with lying to him? Manafort is either an idiot, or arrogant, or some combination of both.

He has obviously been offered a pardon by the Shitgibbon. This is going to look great; MONEY LAUNDERING PRESIDENT PARDONS MONEY LAUNDERER! if the pardon comes right away it will effect the 2020 elections somewhat, but the closer those elections get the more impact it will have. Maybe the Shitgibbon is scrambling to get his own ass covered so he can run away - pardons often come in the last couple of days of a Presidency.
I'd say that if the pardon doesn't come quick, there will be no Shitgibbon on the 2020 presidential ticket. Manafort might wait for a while, but at his age...six years? Not likely.

Manafort faces state charges. SCROTUS has no power there.

 

[Elixir]

He has obviously been offered a pardon by the Shitgibbon. This is going to look great; MONEY LAUNDERING PRESIDENT PARDONS MONEY LAUNDERER! if the pardon comes right away it will effect the 2020 elections somewhat, but the closer those elections get the more impact it will have. Maybe the Shitgibbon is scrambling to get his own ass covered so he can run away - pardons often come in the last couple of days of a Presidency.
I'd say that if the pardon doesn't come quick, there will be no Shitgibbon on the 2020 presidential ticket. Manafort might wait for a while, but at his age...six years? Not likely.

Manafort faces state charges. SCROTUS has no power there.

But he has not been convicted on State charges, has he?
Perhaps he's counting on Cheato to overthrow the government by 2020 ...

 

[barbos]

Here’s why ‘Whitaker won’t be able to suppress’ Robert Mueller’s report after Manafort proceedings: Intel analyst

Wheeler, however, offered a specific theory on how Mueller outmaneuvered the Trump team.

She explains that Mueller made the revelation only after President Donald Trump had turned in his written answers on collusion to the special prosecutor.

“Just about the only explanation for Manafort’s actions are that — as I suggested — Trump was happy to have Manafort serve as a mole in Mueller’s investigation,” Wheeler argued. “But Mueller’s team appears to have no doubt that Manafort was lying to them. That means they didn’t really need his testimony, at all.”

“It also means they had no need to keep secrets — they could keep giving Manafort the impression that he was pulling a fast one over the prosecutors, all while reporting misleading information to Trump that he could use to fill out his open book test,” she continued. “Which increases the likelihood that Trump just submitted sworn answers to those questions full of lies.”

So Trump lied in his sworn testimony, and Mueller can prove it. Is that enough to get Trump fired?

 

[Keith&Co.]

You know, I learned real quick that whenever my Dad asked a question, there was a good chance he already knew the answer.
Who left the back door unlocked last night, who used the last beer for beer bread, why are two pages of the credit card bill in Portuguese?

This knowledge stood me in good stead in the Military. Assume that the Chief already knows most of the answers to any question, so either come clean, or make sure there is no physical evidence to disprove your lies. I wasn't there, I didn't do it, no one saw me, I never even knew that hatch could be removed with the door access wrench and a pair of pliers... No, not the needle nose, these other ones.

I have to believe if I were ever investigated by Feds, it would be best to assume they already know at least half the answers to anything they ask. The trick is knowing which half.

Manafort seems to have assumed that any question they asked was borne of ignorance. Thus, the investigation was a blank page waiting for him to tell them anything he wanted. It appears that Mueller, however, attended the same questioning training as Chief Boyle. And Chief Rivera. And Chief Magoon. And Chief Sommerville.

Lieutenant Eicenhower. Lt. Crews. Lt. Boris. Lt. Miller.

Captain Reuthinger. Captain Scala.

Admiral Haley.


Mom.


Mrs. &Co.


Pretty much anyone that's ever said, "Do you know why I pulled you over?"



Come to think of it, it's not all that rare of a skill, is it? It must be REALLY embarrassing to be caught out that way... Especially after telling your friend YOUR lies so HIS lies will match.

Now I gotta wonder if Trump is really going to pardon the guy that got him to commit perjury? ...in writing?

 

[Gun Nut]

Why is it that when someone stands accused of a crime in criminal court (and they are in reality guilty of exactly what is charged), it is not illegal to lie and claim you are not guilty.. your plea of not guilty is a lie... "I didn't do it", even though you know you did and you are intentionally trying to avoid getting penalized for it by intentionally not coming clean, even after being asked how you plea...
But, when Mueller asks a question, it all of a sudden is illegal to protect yourself, like you are allowed to do in court.

That seems a bit unfair.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Why is it that when someone stands accused of a crime in criminal court (and they are in reality guilty of exactly what is charged), it is not illegal to lie and claim you are not guilty.. your plea of not guilty is a lie... "I didn't do it", even though you know you did and you are intentionally trying to avoid getting penalized for it by intentionally not coming clean, even after being asked how you plea...
But, when Mueller asks a question, it all of a sudden is illegal to protect yourself, like you are allowed to do in court.

That seems a bit unfair.

You're saying that if you make a plea agreement which includes your testimony about criminal activities, it's unfair for the courts to insist that the testimony you give in exchange for leniency be honest?

 

[blastula]

A not guilty plea is not under oath, and all it's saying is that the prosecution has to prove its case.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Corsi is almost certainly blowing smoke.

He won't accept a plea "DEAL" for one count. "Deal" implies that he can actually be charged with multiple counts.
Can anyone recall hearing this kind of noise from anyone else under heat from Mueller? And what was the outcome?

You can deal even on a single count.

Happens all the time here with traffic tickets.

 

[Gun Nut]

Why is it that when someone stands accused of a crime in criminal court (and they are in reality guilty of exactly what is charged), it is not illegal to lie and claim you are not guilty.. your plea of not guilty is a lie... "I didn't do it", even though you know you did and you are intentionally trying to avoid getting penalized for it by intentionally not coming clean, even after being asked how you plea...
But, when Mueller asks a question, it all of a sudden is illegal to protect yourself, like you are allowed to do in court.

That seems a bit unfair.

You're saying that if you make a plea agreement which includes your testimony about criminal activities, it's unfair for the courts to insist that the testimony you give in exchange for leniency be honest?

No, I am saying that it is unfair that making a plea (not agreement - a statement to the court about your actions) is not bound by truthfulness , but making a statement to Mueller is bound by truthfulness.

This, perhaps, is what is meant by a "perjury trap".

- - - Updated - - -

A not guilty plea is not under oath, and all it's saying is that the prosecution has to prove its case.

and the penalty for lying to the court by claiming innocence to something you know perfectly well you are not innocent of is... what now? a Trial. And the penalty to lying to Meuller about these same activities is... what now? Life in prison.

 

[ZiprHead]

This, perhaps, is what is meant by a "perjury trap".

There's no such thing as a perjury trap. To say there is is like saying a bank is a robbery trap.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

Why is it that when someone stands accused of a crime in criminal court (and they are in reality guilty of exactly what is charged), it is not illegal to lie and claim you are not guilty.. your plea of not guilty is a lie... "I didn't do it", even though you know you did and you are intentionally trying to avoid getting penalized for it by intentionally not coming clean, even after being asked how you plea...
But, when Mueller asks a question, it all of a sudden is illegal to protect yourself, like you are allowed to do in court.

That seems a bit unfair.

A "not guilty" plea is simply a declaration that you don't believe the prosecution can prove your guilt. Making a statement under oath (which a plea is not) is an acknowledgement that you're committing a crime if you lie. Lying under oath while being interviewed as part of a plea agreement is a double whammy.

- - - Updated - - -

This, perhaps, is what is meant by a "perjury trap".

There's no such thing as a perjury trap. To say there is is like saying a bank is a robbery trap.

Willie Sutton would beg to differ (Reporter: "Why do you rob banks?" Willie: "Because that's where the money is.").

 

[Tom Sawyer]

No, I am saying that it is unfair that making a plea (not agreement - a statement to the court about your actions) is not bound by truthfulness , but making a statement to Mueller is bound by truthfulness.

This, perhaps, is what is meant by a "perjury trap".

And I just don't get what the "unfair" or "trap" parts are. Manafort entered into a voluntary agreement with Mueller where he agreed to provide information in exchange for a more lenient sentence. If he lied while providing this information, he broke this agreement and therefore no longer qualifies for the more lenient sentence. There's nothing unfair about that.

Also, a "perjury trap" isn't actually a trap. All you need to do to avoid it is tell the truth. If you fall into one, it's not because the prosecutor was being sneaky or anything, it's because you were trying to be sneaky and failed.

These are just weird things to be complaining about.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No, I am saying that it is unfair that making a plea (not agreement - a statement to the court about your actions) is not bound by truthfulness , but making a statement to Mueller is bound by truthfulness.

This, perhaps, is what is meant by a "perjury trap".

To Trump, a "perjury trap" means being caught lying. For most other people, it is about being tripped up into an irrelevant misstatement.

A not guilty plea is not under oath, and all it's saying is that the prosecution has to prove its case.

and the penalty for lying to the court by claiming innocence to something you know perfectly well you are not innocent of is... what now? a Trial. And the penalty to lying to Meuller about these same activities is... what now? Life in prison.

Corsi is old... which is why it'd be "life in prison".

 

[blastula]

No, I am saying that it is unfair that making a plea (not agreement - a statement to the court about your actions) is not bound by truthfulness , but making a statement to Mueller is bound by truthfulness.

This, perhaps, is what is meant by a "perjury trap".

- - - Updated - - -

A not guilty plea is not under oath, and all it's saying is that the prosecution has to prove its case.

and the penalty for lying to the court by claiming innocence to something you know perfectly well you are not innocent of is... what now? a Trial. And the penalty to lying to Meuller about these same activities is... what now? Life in prison.

Yeah, if you're old or ill enough it could be life, if they're found guilty. So what?

And they wouldn't prosecuted for a simple mistake or something honestly forgotten, it would have to be a falsehood proven to be deliberate and material. Boo hoo.

 

[Artemus]

No, I am saying that it is unfair that making a plea (not agreement - a statement to the court about your actions) is not bound by truthfulness , but making a statement to Mueller is bound by truthfulness.

This, perhaps, is what is meant by a "perjury trap".

- - - Updated - - -

A not guilty plea is not under oath, and all it's saying is that the prosecution has to prove its case.

and the penalty for lying to the court by claiming innocence to something you know perfectly well you are not innocent of is... what now? a Trial. And the penalty to lying to Meuller about these same activities is... what now? Life in prison.

It's a fifth amendment right. You cannot be forced to testify against yourself, so, as blastula said, a plea is not considered testimony. Now, if you decide to testify anyway and lie, you can be still be prosecuted for perjury even if you were acquitted of the original charge. Similarly, any of the accused people could have invoked their fifth amendment rights and not talked to Mueller. But they chose to lie instead. Perfectly consistent and perfectly fair.

 

[Keith&Co.]

And I just don't get what the "unfair" or "trap" parts are.

It must be the whole 'candid camera' aspect, with Mueller as Allen Funt.
Didn't know that he was under oath, that his remarks were on the record, that flat out denying you said something, which works in the tabloids, don't matter a damn for legal testimony....

Gosh, if only they had read him his rights, allowed him legal counsel, and let him know he was On The Record. Then he wouldn't have fallen into a trap.

Of his own making.

 

[bilby]

A not guilty plea by a defendant subsequently convicted is treated as a lie, and is punished with a harsher sentence than would have been handed down had the defendant pleaded guilty to begin with.

 

[Gun Nut]

This, perhaps, is what is meant by a "perjury trap".

There's no such thing as a perjury trap. To say there is is like saying a bank is a robbery trap.

Banks have signs that tell you not to go through that door that has the vault. They have locks on those doors. They have locks on the vault. They have alarms, and monitoring tools.
If the bank removes the signs, unlocks the doors, leaves the vault door open, turns off the alarm and cameras.. then yes, that is the definition of Entrapment.... or, a "robbery trap".

 

[Gun Nut]

A not guilty plea by a defendant subsequently convicted is treated as a lie, and is punished with a harsher sentence than would have been handed down had the defendant pleaded guilty to begin with.

Best explanation provided... Thank you, bilby. Makes more sense now.

 

[ZiprHead]

A "not guilty" plea is simply a declaration that you don't believe the prosecution can prove your guilt. Making a statement under oath (which a plea is not) is an acknowledgement that you're committing a crime if you lie. Lying under oath while being interviewed as part of a plea agreement is a double whammy.

- - - Updated - - -

There's no such thing as a perjury trap. To say there is is like saying a bank is a robbery trap.

Willie Sutton would beg to differ (Reporter: "Why do you rob banks?" Willie: "Because that's where the money is.").

Heh heh. Cute but not apropos to the topic. Besides, Sutton denies he ever said it.