Mid-air Collusion (Mueller Thread v. 19)

[DIDM]

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your post?

Where’s the proof?

 

[DIDM]

You said "if I did a job for 15 months without figuring anything out" it should be "when I do a job".

I’m talking about Mueller

My job isn’t in the government, I’m not reliant on taxpayers to fund my job.

 

[DIDM]

You said "if I did a job for 15 months without figuring anything out" it should be "when I do a job".

Liberals are the jobless living off their parents leeches.

 

[Teen Wolf]

Liberals are the jobless living off their parents leeches.

Which banned poster are you?

 

[computer fogie]

Where’s the proof?

Yeah I'm definitely not understanding you. I"m saying that a prosecutor needs proof of perjury, not speculation. You apparently agreed. What are you disagreeing with now?

 

[LangfordBarrow]

If I did a job for 15 months without figuring anything out, I’d fire myself

Would you give yourself a raise if you had evidence for over 100 charges in that time?

 

[computer fogie]

Which banned poster are you?

BrotherClaudio

 

[DIDM]

Would you give yourself a raise if you had evidence for over 100 charges in that time?

Where’s the convictions?

 

[DIDM]

Yeah I'm definitely not understanding you. I"m saying that a prosecutor needs proof of perjury, not speculation. You apparently agreed. What are you disagreeing with now?

Not disagreeing with anything

In a court, speculation, is just that

 

[computer fogie]

Not disagreeing with anything

In a court, speculation, is just that

You posted "Where's the proof?" I asked what you're talking about, you can't even say.

Please stop derailing this thread with nonsense posts, thanks.

 

[DIDM]

You posted "Where's the proof?" I asked what you're talking about, you can't even say.

Please stop derailing this thread with nonsense posts, thanks.

Muller

Where’s his proof? It seems like an insanely drawn out nothingburger

Thought that was clear

 

[7437]

Imagine yourself as a defense lawyer. Your client is party to a criminal investigation. Your client has made a statement under oath that contradicts the sworn statement of another person on matters deemed material to the case. You and your client both are 100% certain that your client told the truth and the other person lied. Nevertheless, the prosecutor on the case indicts your client for perjury, believing he can secure a conviction. Even if the prosecutor fails to secure a conviction, the legal process does significant damage to your client's reputation, finances, work productivity, and physical health. Worse there is a non-trivial chance the prosecutor could secure a conviction on a crime for which your client is innocent---especially if some jury members have animus toward your client.

Holy fuck. You actually believe that?

Trump can't be indicted. Full stop. So your little theory is retarded.

 

[tonni]

Which banned poster are you?

We found another one.

 

[tonni]

Muller

Where’s his proof? It seems like an insanely drawn out nothingburger

Thought that was clear

 

[DIDM]

15 months, Trump still is winning, and all these bitches, are still crying

It’s going to be a fun 8 years

 

[Limbo Pete]

Make sure you listen to the end.

Now there's a speech i've never watched before

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Where’s the convictions?

Where's the shit you're going to take next week?

 

[Darkballs]

This is where I have to ask, wouldn't the prosecutor have to supply a reason for choosing who to believe, rather than flip a rhetorical coin? A jury needs to hear evidence, not just "I have nothing more than a hunch that the defendant is lying, so I'm charging him with perjury", don't they? I don't know criminal law, but that doesn't make sense to me. If I were on the jury I'd never accept anything with no evidence to support it. Mueller would need to provide something to them, to use to make their decision. A judge would have to throw out such a BS case presented by a prosecutor, wouldn't they?

@Darkballs would know, he's an experienced prosecutor.

If I'm understanding the flow of this conversation correctly:

A prosecutor could file perjury charges just based on contradictory statements by a witness, but that would be a very weak case unless you had one superstar unimpeachable witness. Usually perjury charges aren't filed alone unless they are rock solid. Usually you see them as a tool to elicit cooperation from a smaller fish. But that's usually because the smaller fish act as a blocker for the main target. Or usually, they're the first ones an investigator talks to, and thus are usually the first to lie.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

I don't believe that Mueller would, or even could, choose whose testimony to believe in the complete absence of evidence one way or the other. Trump seems worried that he can't keep himself from lying, which has always been his problem. If he tells the truth, how could he possibly perjure himself? Perjury is deliberate lying. How would it be possible for him to perjure himself if he tells the truth? If he doesn't want to answer an incriminating question, and doesn't want to plead the 5th, he can say he doesn't recall. That's how it's always been done.

I really don't understand how Trump can convince people that it's impossible for him to avoid perjury. Who has ever said that, and why did they say it? Legit question.

The general idea is to establish in people's minds that the trap is Mueller trying to trick Trump into a lie by using confusing wording the way lawyers do.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

If I did a job for 15 months without figuring anything out, I’d fire myself

What's been figured out? What's still left?
Be specific since you're obviously on the Mueller team