• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump says he’s finished writing answers to questions from special counsel Robert Mueller

SLC said:
Tell that to Manafort
Click to expand...

didn't he plead guilty of his own volition

hard to see how someone who pleaded guilty was railroaded
 
What I heard is that there was about 2 dozen questions and this back-and-forth has been going on between Trump lawyers and Mueller lawyers since last January. All of the two dozen questions were in regard to things that happened prior to the 2016 election, none from after.

The bragging that Trump did about completing all the 'easy' questions himself without his lawyers may have been a bad idea, now he can't blame anyone else for the answers.
 
justabubba said:
didn't he plead guilty of his own volition

hard to see how someone who pleaded guilty was railroaded
Click to expand...
Manafort fought the charges in court and won some and lost some. He did not plead guilty. Manafort got a lot harsher sentence than is typical for his crimes.
 
justabubba said:
perjury "trap" is best avoided by telling the TRUTH. that is what scares tRump ****less
Click to expand...
That is a fallacy. As I pointed out you can tell the truth and still be indicted for perjury. It's called a trap for a reason. Trump really should not answer any questions but he wants as much transparency as possible because he knows there was no collusion.
 
Last edited:
SLC said:
They gave Mueller 1.4 million pages of documents they let White House counsel Don McGahn be interviewed by Mueller. A person can tell the FBI the truth and still indicted for perjury. All it takes is for the FBI to believe a Cohen type that would say anything to save his own ass. So Cohen cuts a deal and lies and says you are lying and the FBI believes him instead of you. Trump is smart to answer with interrogatories. His lawyers can massage the answers so a perjury trap can be avoided.
Click to expand...

That is nonsense. You can't commit perjury because the FBI believed a guy who was lying. It just does not work that way. If you commit perjury, its a lie of fact that you made that is proven by either previous statements or overwhelming evidence that showed you knew a fact but chose to bear false witness to that fact. No witness is going to be credible evidence in proof of that.

https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/perjury.html

A perjury trap exists for those that cannot tell the truth. Trump's problem is that he is a habitual liar with particular proclivity to lie to either protect himself from the perception of shame (including never admitting he is wrong) or to self-aggrandize.

Furthermore, no material witness is going to lie to the FBI. Anything that a witness says is going to be verified. If the witness lies in a plea bargin, he will have wished he just took the original jail time.

Manafort and Gates are currently in trouble because each are corrupt individuals. The only thing they have going for them (and what they cashed in) is that they apparently are strong witnesses to other corrupt individuals that are either more powerful and/or guilty of even greater crimes. So you know, witnesses serve to frame the crime and tell law enforcement where the bodies are buried. Without the bodies (the hard evidence), there will be no prosecution. Witness testimony on its own is insufficient to convict and therefore insufficient to charge.

The good thing for our justice system is that crooks tend to hang with other crooks such that a shrewd prosecutor, such as Mueller, can climb the tree of corruption to get to the fruit he wants.
 
Last edited:
SLC said:
That is a fallacy. As I pointed out you can tell the truth and still be indicted for perjury. It's called a trap for a reason. Trump really should not answer any questions but he wants as much transparency as possible because he knows there was no collusion.
Click to expand...

share an actual example of a perjury trap ocurrance with a reliable cite
 
SLC said:
STOP altering my quote you are being dishonest. Try again
Click to expand...

i take it you are unable to identify an actual instance of a perjury trap

i knew that you would be unable to do so

to avoid perjury one only has to tell the truth

amazes me how many on the right can't figure that out
 
justabubba said:
i take it you are unable to identify an actual instance of a perjury trap

i knew that you would be unable to do so

to avoid perjury one only has to tell the truth

amazes me how many on the right can't figure that out
Click to expand...

No you can take it I don't like you deceptive editing of my quote...its a dishonest technique on your part and its the second time you have done it to me. I let it go the first time but stop altering the quote to change the full context of what I said.

At risk of you deceptively altering my quote again I'll answer your question. .

Flynn is an example of a person falling into a perjury trap. The two FBI agents that interviewed him did not think he had lied and Jim Comey did not think he had lied. But Mueller's team came after him with the full force of the US government. Flynn had to sell his home for his legal fees he is still in debt. He did not have the resources to defend himself or his son. When they threatened to come after his son Flynn took a plea deal to avoid them ruining his son. That is something most good fathers would do. Flynn wasn't represented by a lawyer when he talked to the FBI likely because he was just telling them the truth and he fell into a perjury trap. Trump isn't going to do that.

The Department of Justice became involved, as Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates felt that the Flynn-Kislyak conversations were possibly illegal, prompting two FBI agents to interview Flynn on January 24, 2017. They reported back to then-FBI Director James Comey and noted that they felt Flynn did not lie to them.
Click to expand...



https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2018/02/13/waitthe-fbi-agents-who-interviewed-michael-flynn-didnt-think-he-lied-n2448344
 
SLC said:
No you can take it I don't like you deceptive editing of my quote...its a dishonest technique on your part and its the second time you have done it to me. I let it go the first time but stop altering the quote to change the full context of what I said.

At risk of you deceptively altering my quote again I'll answer your question. .

Flynn is an example of a person falling into a perjury trap. The two FBI agents that interviewed him did not think he had lied and Jim Comey did not think he had lied. But Mueller's team came after him with the full force of the US government. Flynn had to sell his home for his legal fees he is still in debt. He did not have the resources to defend himself or his son. When they threatened to come after his son Flynn took a plea deal to avoid them ruining his son. That is something most good fathers would do. Flynn wasn't represented by a lawyer when he talked to the FBI likely because he was just telling them the truth and he fell into a perjury trap. Trump isn't going to do that.





https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2018/02/13/waitthe-fbi-agents-who-interviewed-michael-flynn-didnt-think-he-lied-n2448344
Click to expand...

uh, flynn pleaded guilty
i look forward to seeing what he said which was truthful but was then used as the basis for a perjury conviction
please show us or your claim must be found bogus

regarding your allegation that i changed your post, please note that in every post - bottom left corner - there will be a triangle icon with an "!" within. press that in every instance you believe someone has broken the rules and report what you have found
 
justabubba said:
uh, flynn pleaded guilty
i look forward to seeing what he said which was truthful but was then used as the basis for a perjury conviction
please show us or your claim must be found bogus

regarding your allegation that i changed your post, please note that in every post - bottom left corner - there will be a triangle icon with an "!" within. press that in every instance you believe someone has broken the rules and report what you have found
Click to expand...
I'm sorry I didn't realize you have such poor reading comprehension. Go back and reread my last post. I explained that the TWO agents that interviewed Flynn DID NOT think he had lied, one of which was anti Trumper Peter Strozh, and Comey didn't think Flynn lied. I also explained how Flynn was pressured into pleading guilty. Flynn wasn't even informed that he was the subject of an investigation when he was interviewed and he didn't get a lawyer as a result. That's not legal. But in order to prevent the US government and its unlimited funds from ruining his only son like it did Flynn, he pled guilty to perjury. When you don't seek advice of your lawyer and did nothing illegal so you had to lie to the FBI about. And the FBI DID NOT think you lied. Its more likely than not that you didn't lie but rather caved to the immense pressure of a aggressive prosecutor with unlimited resources at his disposable.

Remember the Olympic bomber Mueller's FBI ruined him and made the country think he was the bomber when actually he was a hero. The full weight of the FBI and the government can crush an innocent person. A good prosecutor knows when to show deaccession. Apparently the prosecutors that Mueller has hired do not.

If you deceptively edit my quote again I will follow your advice. ;)
 
Last edited:
Bucky said:
Plenty of innocent people in our country pay for crimes they did not do or receive a much more severe penalty than they deserve.
Click to expand...

The innocent ones don't confess to obstruction of justice on TV and radio and Twitter in front of a national audience. Seriously if he had nothng to hide, he could just be quiet about it.
 
uptower said:
The innocent ones don't confess to obstruction of justice on TV and radio and Twitter in front of a national audience. Seriously if he had nothng to hide, he could just be quiet about it.
Click to expand...

Seriously if he had something to hide he could just be quite. If he has nothing to hide the he can say exactly what he said. The FBI director serves at the pleasure of the President and the President can choose to fire him if he wants too.
 
SLC said:
I'm sorry I didn't realize you have such poor reading comprehension.
Click to expand...
this is the kind of statement which will warrant a gig. attack the post NOT the poster

Go back and reread my last post. I explained that the TWO agents that interviewed Flynn DID NOT think he had lied, one of which was anti Trumper Peter Strozh, and Comey didn't think Flynn lied. I also explained how Flynn was pressured into pleading guilty. Flynn wasn't even informed that he was the subject of an investigation when he was interviewed and he didn't get a lawyer as a result. That's not legal. But in order to prevent the US government and its unlimited funds from ruining his only son like it did Flynn, he pled guilty to perjury. When you don't seek advice of your lawyer and did nothing illegal so you had to lie to the FBI about. And the FBI DID NOT think you lied. Its more likely than not that you didn't lie but rather caved to the immense pressure of a aggressive prosecutor with unlimited resources at his disposable.

Remember the Olympic bomber Mueller's FBI ruined him and made the country think he was the bomber when actually he was a hero. The full weight of the FBI and the government can crush an innocent person. A good prosecutor knows when to show deaccession. Apparently the prosecutors that Mueller has hired do not.

If you deceptively edit my quote again I will follow your advice. ;)
Click to expand...
and still no cite, no evidence to support your allegation that one can be subjected to perjury for making a truthful declaration
you have no argument that a reasonable person would defend
 
SLC said:
No you can take it I don't like you deceptive editing of my quote...its a dishonest technique on your part and its the second time you have done it to me. I let it go the first time but stop altering the quote to change the full context of what I said.

At risk of you deceptively altering my quote again I'll answer your question. .

Flynn is an example of a person falling into a perjury trap. The two FBI agents that interviewed him did not think he had lied and Jim Comey did not think he had lied. But Mueller's team came after him with the full force of the US government. Flynn had to sell his home for his legal fees he is still in debt. He did not have the resources to defend himself or his son. When they threatened to come after his son Flynn took a plea deal to avoid them ruining his son. That is something most good fathers would do. Flynn wasn't represented by a lawyer when he talked to the FBI likely because he was just telling them the truth and he fell into a perjury trap. Trump isn't going to do that.





https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2018/02/13/waitthe-fbi-agents-who-interviewed-michael-flynn-didnt-think-he-lied-n2448344
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what 'opinion' the interviewing agents gave. Also to have a lawyer or lawyers present was Flynn's own free choice to make. What really matters is evidence. US Intelligence had electronic intercepts of Flynn's conversations with Kislyak. When the answers he gave didn't match the evidence they had in their hands that's when he had committed a crime. How is it given his previous work experience with Defense Intelligence Agency that Flynn didn't anticipate that his conversations with the Russian Ambassador would likely be intercepted and recorded by US intelligence is a bit of a head scratcher. But nonetheless he caught in an easily provable lie and wound up having to plead guilty.
 
SLC said:
Seriously if he had something to hide he could just be quite. If he has nothing to hide the he can say exactly what he said. The FBI director serves at the pleasure of the President and the President can choose to fire him if he wants too.
Click to expand...

LOL! Have you forgotten? That's how he got into this mess. If he's innocent then when Mueller's final report bears that out then that will be the end of it. He should just shut up and let Mueller finish. But by tweeting about it and making all these moves to try derail and discredit Mueller and the DOJ he will end up creating legal exposure problems for himself where none may not have previously existed if he simply had just left things alone.
 
Trump has suddenly become bizarrely confident in his recent assertion that he won’t sit for an interview with Mueller. It’s almost as if he appointed an AG who would never sign off on a subpoena to force him to testify.
 
SLC said:
I'm sorry I didn't realize you have such poor reading comprehension. Go back and reread my last post. I explained that the TWO agents that interviewed Flynn DID NOT think he had lied,
Click to expand...
justabubba has this under control, I just wanted to elaborate a bit on OTHER ways you can identify that you are wrong.
You're pushing conspiracy theory nonsense.

The two agents told Comey their feelings during the interview.
Mueller's team gathered sufficient evidence to convince Flynn they could prove he was lying in a court, and Flynn agreed and plead guilty to avoid his son being included in the net.

Flynn didn't lie materially once, it was at least five times. You can read the details in the plea deal.
https://www.justice.gov/file/1015126/download

It appears they have hard evidence to back up with Flynn said on the phone, something the two FBI interviewers would not have.
The key of the two FBI impromptu interviewers was to get Flynn on record. He's then boxed in IF He lied. They figured he didn't. Turns out with significant investigation/evidence uncovered, Flynn believed they could prove he lied.

They did not just evidence his lies, but he does what often turns such things into a CRIMINAL matter, he tried to obfuscate and cover it up. That's blood in the water for prosecutors/investigators.
- Trump attempted to get Comey to drop the case. Why would that be needed if there was no wrong-doing? (obstruction possibly too!)
- Flynn was spinning these lies even in public:
On February 8, 2017, Flynn flatly denied having spoken to Kislyak in December 2016 about the sanctions placed on Russia by the Obama administration; however, the next day, U.S. intelligence officials shared an account indicating that such discussions did in fact take place.[105]. Following this revelation, Flynn's spokesman released a statement that Flynn "indicated that while he had no recollection of discussing sanctions, he couldn't be certain that the topic never came up".[106]
Click to expand...
His response? I don't remember! Not convincing is it.

- Flynn had also acted guilty months prior when under investigation by the IG.
On April 27, 2017, the Pentagon inspector general announced an investigation into whether Flynn had accepted money from foreign governments without the required approval.[15] Flynn initially refused to hand over subpoenaed documents to the Senate Intelligence Committee, pleading the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination, but a compromise with the committee was worked out
Click to expand...
Plead the fifth? He thought he broke the law?

- everyone was getting it wrong:
, Sean Spicer said the conversation had occurred on December 28 and thus couldn't have touched on the retaliation measures or Russia's response; Spicer later had to correct himself on the date of the conversation.[95]

Again looking for immunity...immunity from what, not lying?
Flynn had offered to testify to the FBI or the Senate and House Intelligence committees relating to the Russia probe in exchange for immunity from criminal prosecution.
That's before Mueller got a hold of him!


No, your boy is all kinds of caught up in lying, deception, cover up, and Trump even dallied in obstruction to try and shut it down.
At the end of the day, as justabubba pointed out, Flynn plead guilty.

You have NO evidence Flynn is innocent.
All evidence indicates he is guilty, including his own behavior, words, and his own admission.
Thus, you are pushing a conspiracy theory.
 
justabubba said:
this is the kind of statement which will warrant a gig. attack the post NOT the poster


and still no cite, no evidence to support your allegation that one can be subjected to perjury for making a truthful declaration
you have no argument that a reasonable person would defend
Click to expand...
The cite was in my previous post must I repeat the cite in this post for you??? Likewise the evidence is the FACT that the FBI agents interviewing Flynn did not believe Flynn had lied. Comey briefed congress that the FBI did not believe Flynn had lied. The report says his answers were not evasive and his demeanor did not change. Only the most dense people would not accept that as evidence of truthfulness. I guess I should not be surprised that a deceptively edits another’s quotes wouldn’t be forthright in his debate either. Have a nice day I’m not wasting my time with someone who will not honestly look at an issue.
 
Last edited:
Mach said:
justabubba has this under control, I just wanted to elaborate a bit on OTHER ways you can identify that you are wrong.
You're pushing conspiracy theory nonsense.

The two agents told Comey their feelings during the interview.
Mueller's team gathered sufficient evidence to convince Flynn they could prove he was lying in a court, and Flynn agreed and plead guilty to avoid his son being included in the net.

Flynn didn't lie materially once, it was at least five times. You can read the details in the plea deal.
https://www.justice.gov/file/1015126/download

It appears they have hard evidence to back up with Flynn said on the phone, something the two FBI interviewers would not have.
The key of the two FBI impromptu interviewers was to get Flynn on record. He's then boxed in IF He lied. They figured he didn't. Turns out with significant investigation/evidence uncovered, Flynn believed they could prove he lied.

They did not just evidence his lies, but he does what often turns such things into a CRIMINAL matter, he tried to obfuscate and cover it up. That's blood in the water for prosecutors/investigators.
- Trump attempted to get Comey to drop the case. Why would that be needed if there was no wrong-doing? (obstruction possibly too!)
- Flynn was spinning these lies even in public:

His response? I don't remember! Not convincing is it.

- Flynn had also acted guilty months prior when under investigation by the IG.

Plead the fifth? He thought he broke the law?

- everyone was getting it wrong:
, Sean Spicer said the conversation had occurred on December 28 and thus couldn't have touched on the retaliation measures or Russia's response; Spicer later had to correct himself on the date of the conversation.[95]

Again looking for immunity...immunity from what, not lying?
Flynn had offered to testify to the FBI or the Senate and House Intelligence committees relating to the Russia probe in exchange for immunity from criminal prosecution.
That's before Mueller got a hold of him!


No, your boy is all kinds of caught up in lying, deception, cover up, and Trump even dallied in obstruction to try and shut it down.
At the end of the day, as justabubba pointed out, Flynn plead guilty.

You have NO evidence Flynn is innocent.
All evidence indicates he is guilty, including his own behavior, words, and his own admission.
Thus, you are pushing a conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...

The fly in your ointment is the fact that Flynn was finically crushed and sold his home and could not to afford to defend his only son from the same treatment he had received. So Flynn had the choice to let the prosecutor come after him and his son or to plea to a crime he likely could defend in a long very expensive litigation process but could not afford to do so..

He chose to plea to the crime of lying to a FBI agent. The same crime hardenen criminals like Martha Stewart were convicted of. The charge would like not have stuck because Flynn was not advised the he was a subject of an investigation before he was questioned and wasn't advised of his rights.

Flynn plead guilty which means NO JUDGE OR JURY has heard his defense and decided if in fact Flynn committed the crime which he was pressured to admit to. He cut the deal to prevent more finical damage and to reduce the chance of a longer sentence if the jury got it wrong. So we just have Andrew Weissmann's word that Flynn lied not a judge or a jury. You know the same Andrew Weissmann that:

Weissmann, as deputy and later director of the Enron Task Force, destroyed the venerable accounting firm of Arthur Andersen LLP and its 85,000 jobs worldwide — only to be reversed several years later by a unanimous Supreme Court. Next, Weissmann creatively criminalized a business transaction between Merrill Lynch and Enron. Four Merrill executives went to prison for as long as a year. Weissmann’s team made sure they did not even get bail pending their appeals, even though the charges Weissmann concocted, like those against Andersen, were literally unprecedented.

Weissmann’s prosecution devastated the lives and families of the Merrill executives, causing enormous defense costs, unimaginable stress and torturous prison time. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the mass of the case.
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/356253-judging-by-muellers-staffing-choices-he-may-not-be-very-interested-in
Click to expand...

To be continued
 
Continued

Also pleading the 5th isn't an admission of guilt. If so there are several Obama Administration Democrats that are guilty.

IRS Director Lois Lerner
GSA's Jeffery Neely
Patrick Cunningham US Attorney's office [Fast and Furious]
Deputy Director of the IRS Greg Roseman
Hillary's IT guy Bryan Pagliano
Veterans Affairs officals John Sapulveda ,Kimberly Graves, Diana Rubens
EPA John Beale

So Flynn plead the 5th BIG WOOPIE! It means ZERO ZILCH NADAH. You thinking it evidence of criminality just shows how naïve you are when it comes to the law. Most good attorneys recommend taking the 5th instead of risking a perjury trap.
 
SLC said:
The point was did Manafort receive a stiffer penalty for his crime than is typical for that crime...he did.



He was not convicted for that.
Click to expand...

Typical for the crime of bank fraud, like kiting a few checks, or bank fraud , like laundering hundreds of millions of dollars?
 
Mach said:
justabubba has this under control, I just wanted to elaborate a bit on OTHER ways you can identify that you are wrong.
You're pushing conspiracy theory nonsense.

The two agents told Comey their feelings during the interview.
Mueller's team gathered sufficient evidence to convince Flynn they could prove he was lying in a court, and Flynn agreed and plead guilty to avoid his son being included in the net.

Flynn didn't lie materially once, it was at least five times. You can read the details in the plea deal.
https://www.justice.gov/file/1015126/download

It appears they have hard evidence to back up with Flynn said on the phone, something the two FBI interviewers would not have.
The key of the two FBI impromptu interviewers was to get Flynn on record. He's then boxed in IF He lied. They figured he didn't. Turns out with significant investigation/evidence uncovered, Flynn believed they could prove he lied.

They did not just evidence his lies, but he does what often turns such things into a CRIMINAL matter, he tried to obfuscate and cover it up. That's blood in the water for prosecutors/investigators.
- Trump attempted to get Comey to drop the case. Why would that be needed if there was no wrong-doing? (obstruction possibly too!)
- Flynn was spinning these lies even in public:

His response? I don't remember! Not convincing is it.

- Flynn had also acted guilty months prior when under investigation by the IG.

Plead the fifth? He thought he broke the law?

- everyone was getting it wrong:
, Sean Spicer said the conversation had occurred on December 28 and thus couldn't have touched on the retaliation measures or Russia's response; Spicer later had to correct himself on the date of the conversation.[95]

Again looking for immunity...immunity from what, not lying?
Flynn had offered to testify to the FBI or the Senate and House Intelligence committees relating to the Russia probe in exchange for immunity from criminal prosecution.
That's before Mueller got a hold of him!


No, your boy is all kinds of caught up in lying, deception, cover up, and Trump even dallied in obstruction to try and shut it down.
At the end of the day, as justabubba pointed out, Flynn plead guilty.

You have NO evidence Flynn is innocent.
All evidence indicates he is guilty, including his own behavior, words, and his own admission.
Thus, you are pushing a conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...

BAM! A savage right cross drops SLC to the mat.
 
JMR said:
Typical for the crime of bank fraud, like kiting a few checks, or bank fraud , like laundering hundreds of millions of dollars?
Click to expand...

Not hundreds of millions of dollars.

Yes, my wife was a Federal Court Reporter for over 30 years and has sat through the sentencings of many tax cases. Generally speaking the government is most interested in fines for first time offenders with little of no jail time. The government figures its better to recover money than to let the felon rot in jail generally . Mueller's team went for the maximum they could in an effort to scare him. I'd be will to bet Trump commutes Manafort's remaining sentence in a couple of years JUST LIKE Bill Clinton did for:

Stephen Smith: former Governor Clinton aide (conspiracy to misapply funds).
Susan McDougal: Clinton political supporter (multiple frauds)
Chris Wade: Whitewater real estate broker (multiple loan fraud)
Robert W. Palmer: Madison appraiser (conspiracy).
 
Last edited:
SLC said:
Yes, my wife was a Federal Court Reporter for over 30 years and has sat through the sentencing many tax cases. Generally speaking the government is most interested in fines for first time offenders with little of no jail time. Mueller's team went for the maximum they could in an effort to scare him. I'd be will to bet Trump commutes Manafort's remaining sentence in a couple of years JUST LIKE Bill Clinton did for:

Stephen Smith: former Governor Clinton aide (conspiracy to misapply funds).
Susan McDougal: Clinton political supporter (multiple frauds)
Chris Wade: Whitewater real estate broker (multiple loan fraud)
Robert W. Palmer: Madison appraiser (conspiracy).
Click to expand...


I really believe you are overlooking the magnitude of Manafort's crimes, as well as the parties involved, and the possible connections to Mueller's investigation, which we have no knowledge of as yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom