Indictments coming...

[fskimospy]

Fski is mistaken wrt the 5th amendment. WRT criminal investigations, we all have the right to remain silent unless a grant of immunity is forced upon us.

This is incorrect. Mueller can request the grand jury issue a subpoena for Trump's testimony which would absolutely compel him to testify unless he was a defendant in the case or that testimony would incriminate him. No immunity, compelled testimony.

 

[woolfe9998]

Well my argument would be that in this situation, the entire point of the interview is to catch me in a lie. I could point out the stats indicating the number of times that FBI has convicted on nothing except a lie told to them. I am not perfect and neither is my memory. If I misremember any detail no matter how small, I am going down. Basically a forced interview by the FBI is barely above entrapment. I am not aware of a case were the FBI were going after somebody where they didn't eventually get them via this method if they were unable to get them for the purported reason for the interview. This method appears escape proof. Even if I was completely innocent of any criminal wrongdoing, I would be terrified of a forced interview by the FBI where they were trying to nail me for something I did not do. Pretty sure they would get me on the lying bit.





http://www.newsweek.com/michael-flynn-martha-stewart-charged-lying-fbi-728874

Further to what Eski said, they have to prove intent in order to convict you of perjury. An erroneous statement is not intentional. Furthermore, perjury carries a requirement of materiality, which means not only to they have to prove you intentionally lied, but they also have to prove that what you lied about was actually important, not some insignificant detail. Perjury is actually pretty hard to prove in most cases.

 

[Pens1566]

This is incorrect. Mueller can request the grand jury issue a subpoena for Trump's testimony which would absolutely compel him to testify unless he was a defendant in the case or that testimony would incriminate him. No immunity, compelled testimony.

He can still invoke the 5th however. Not to mention assert some refusals based on being POTUS.

 

[UNCjigga]

He can still invoke the 5th however. Not to mention assert some refusals based on being POTUS.

I believe the two words we're looking for here are "executive privilege".

 

[bshole]

The idea that if you say anything to the FBI that later turns out incorrect that you're going to prison is nonsense. You're correct to be concerned about an interview with the FBI as that's serious business, but let's not be hysterical here.

Regardless, your reasoning here is circular. You can't say what amounts to 'If I answer this question I'm going to lie to you, thus incriminating myself, therefore I plead the fifth.' You do not get a blanket immunity on all statements because you plan on being dishonest.

Remember that Mueller is the same dipshit who hounded Hatfill for SIX FUCKING YEARS, driving him to the brink of suicide. And Hatfill was completely innocent. His life was destroyed none the less. I was actually shocked that everybody associated with that disaster were not fired for such incompetence and for such blatant disregard for personal rights. Read up on the Hatfill case, it will certainly piss you off.

If Trump goes down, I am 100% convinced it will have nothing to do with Russia. It will be some financial crime or lying to the FBI. If he actually answers questions by Mueller, he will be go down for lying and I disagree with you, even a minor ticky tacky lie will be enough. I am certain Mueller would prefer multiple big lies, but he will certainly take a minor lie (Kenneth Starr settled for a lie about a blow job). This is an enormous feather in his cap, a career maker.

When Bush administration officials were worried about the quality of the case Mueller and Comey had, the two men assured them. “Comey was ‘absolutely certain’ that it was Hatfill,” Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said.

“Such certitude seems to be Comey’s default position in his professional life,” Cannon wrote. He shouldn’t have been certain in this case. After the six years the FBI spent destroying his life, they settled a $4.6 million lawsuit he filed and officially exonerated him.

http://thefederalist.com/2017/06/12/james-comey-long-history-questionable-obstruction-cases/

 

[Jhhnn]

This is incorrect. Mueller can request the grand jury issue a subpoena for Trump's testimony which would absolutely compel him to testify unless he was a defendant in the case or that testimony would incriminate him. No immunity, compelled testimony.

Incorrect.

Outside the context of lawful detention or arrest, a person has no duty to answer any questions of the police.[74] If judicial compulsion is sought by the State, the person can still invoke his or her Fifth Amendment right against compulsory self-incrimination, and refuse to testify if answers to questions posed are potentially self-incriminating.[75] Only if granted immunity by the state, in a formal proceeding, from having any testimony or evidence derived from the testimony used against him or her, can a person be compelled to answer over an assertion of this right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence#United_States

Any questions beyond name, rank & serial are "potentially self incriminating".

 

[fskimospy]

I believe the two words we're looking for here are "executive privilege".

Not sure how well that would apply considering the precedent of Nixon v. United States. Nixon tried to claim his taped conversations were covered by executive privilege but SCOTUS ruled that privilege did not extend to evidence related to criminal activity.

 

[fskimospy]

Incorrect.

{quote]Outside the context of lawful detention or arrest, a person has no duty to answer any questions of the police.[74] If judicial compulsion is sought by the State, the person can still invoke his or her Fifth Amendment right against compulsory self-incrimination, and refuse to testify if answers to questions posed are potentially self-incriminating.[75] Only if granted immunity by the state, in a formal proceeding, from having any testimony or evidence derived from the testimony used against him or her, can a person be compelled to answer over an assertion of this right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence#United_States

Any questions beyond name, rank & serial are "potentially self incriminating".

This is once again, incorrect.

https://www.fbi.gov/resources/victi...ption-of-the-federal-criminal-justice-process

A grand jury is an impartial body of citizens drawn from the community that has the responsibility to investigate whether a crime has been committed and by whom. In order to make that determination, a grand jury may issue subpoenas to whoever may have evidence relevant to the grand jury’s investigation. As part of its investigation, the grand jury also has power to compel testimony, including the testimony of a crime victim.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_juries_in_the_United_States#Rubber_stamp_for_the_prosecution

Grand juries have such broad subpoena power that they can investigate alleged crimes very thoroughly and often assist the prosecutor in his or her job. Grand juries sometimes compel witnesses to testify without the presence of their attorneys. Evidence uncovered during the grand jury investigation can be used by the prosecutor in a later trial.

As to the idea that any testimony beyond your name and SSN are potentially self-incriminating I'm not aware of any court in the US that has ever used that standard. Can you provide any evidence of this?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

And so it begins

 

[Pens1566]

I believe the two words we're looking for here are "executive privilege".

I think that would only apply to others, not POTUS himself. IIRC, Bill Clinton didn't assert executive privilege during the Lewinsky GJ. It was a more nuanced defense and some gray area about sitting presidents, etc..

 

[bshole]

This is once again, incorrect.

As to the idea that any testimony beyond your name and SSN are potentially self-incriminating I'm not aware of any court in the US that has ever used that standard. Can you provide any evidence of this?

Yup... the idea that we are anywhere remotely near a free country is becoming progressively more laughable. If the government wants you to talk, you are gonna talk even if that compelled speech puts you behind bars. This is why it is really fucking scary when the federal government comes after you. There is a reason for their 93% conviction rate and it has nothing to do with your guilt or innocence. What should terrify most Americans is that the conviction rate was 75% as late as the early 70s and has risen steadily ever since. I am sure that rate will eventually reach 100% and thus signify that we are officially a fascist state where trials are all foregone conclusions.

 

[skull]

Yup... the idea that we are anywhere remotely near a free country is becoming progressively more laughable. If the government wants you to talk, you are gonna talk even if that compelled speech puts you behind bars. This is why it become really fucking scary when the federal government comes after you. There is a reason for their 93% conviction rate and it has nothing to do with your guilt or innocence. What should terrify most Americans is that the convictions rate was 75% as late as the early 70s. I am sure that rate will eventually reach 100% and thus signify that we are officially a fascist state where trials are all foregone conclusions.

Is that when the whole plea down thing came about? If you plead guilty to this minor felony and a year in jail we wont try you on this felony where we will seek life in prison.

 

[bshole]

Is that when the whole plea down thing came about? If you plead guilty to this minor felony and a year in jail we wont try you on this felony where we will seek life in prison.

Shit dude I was wrong, I think we are there already. The data is:

The conviction rate has been above 99% since 2003, above 98% since 1995, above 97% since 1985

Basically if they bring charges against you, you are convicted already 99.8%...... ROFLMAO!! Would love to know how many of those fuckers were actually innocent. If you believe the organization that hounded Hatfill for 6 years gets the right guy 998 times out of 1000, I have a bridge for sale...


http://justicedenied.org/wordpress/archives/3190

 

[Puffnstuff]

It appears that more indictments are coming soon.

 

[Jhhnn]

This is once again, incorrect.

https://www.fbi.gov/resources/victi...ption-of-the-federal-criminal-justice-process



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_juries_in_the_United_States#Rubber_stamp_for_the_prosecution



As to the idea that any testimony beyond your name and SSN are potentially self-incriminating I'm not aware of any court in the US that has ever used that standard. Can you provide any evidence of this?

Which would apply to Trump in what way, exactly?

He's obviously a suspect & not a witness.

The name, rank & serial# remark was a euphemism for "say nothing".

 

[Commodus]

It appears that more indictments are coming soon.

That doesn't seem to be insider info so much as just a logical prediction based on what we've seen and his position. Still, it's a reminder that this definitely isn't over yet.

 

[fskimospy]

Which would apply to Trump in what way, exactly?

He's obviously a suspect & not a witness.

The name, rank & serial# remark was a euphemism for "say nothing".

I don’t think it’s at all obvious that’s the way Mueller is going and major news sources agree with me. His choices are basically the fifth amendment or complying.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/ju...use-mueller-subpoena-answer-questions-n835921

 

[Jhhnn]

I don’t think it’s at all obvious that’s the way Mueller is going and major news sources agree with me. His choices are basically the fifth amendment or complying.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/ju...use-mueller-subpoena-answer-questions-n835921

That's what I said. Trump is obviously in the position where could take the fifth if called upon to testify.

 

[fskimospy]

That's what I said. Trump is obviously in the position where could take the fifth if called upon to testify.

No, you said this:

Fski is mistaken wrt the 5th amendment. WRT criminal investigations, we all have the right to remain silent unless a grant of immunity is forced upon us.

Trump does not have a right to remain silent if he is subpoenaed for testimony. He might be able to plead the fifth about certain questions but the idea that he has some blanket ability not to answer is just flat out wrong. The right to remain silent is entirely different in that defendants do not have to provide any testimony at all, regardless of whether or not it is incriminating. That is not the case for subpoenas witnesses, who do not have the right to remain silent and can in fact be jailed for doing so.

No shame in being wrong sometimes.

 

[Paratus]

@Jhhnn & @fskimospy I think you two are talking past each other.

I think Jhhnn is saying if Mueller indictes Trump, he can not be compelled to make statements that will incriminate himself.

I think fski is saying Mueller can subpoena Trump to provide testimony about other matters For example about Paul Manafort. As long as his testimony would not incriminate himself he can be compelled to testify.

 

[fskimospy]

@Jhhnn & @fskimospy I think you two are talking past each other.

I think Jhhnn is saying if Mueller indictes Trump, he can not be compelled to make statements that will incriminate himself.

I think fski is saying Mueller can subpoena Trump to provide testimony about other matters For example about Paul Manafort. As long as his testimony would not incriminate himself he can be compelled to testify.

That’s fine and all but if that’s the case why did he say I was wrong to begin with considering I explicitly mentioned how you couldn’t be forced to self-incriminate repeatedly? It doesn’t make any sense.

 

[Paratus]

That’s fine and all but if that’s the case why did he say I was wrong to begin with considering I explicitly mentioned how you couldn’t be forced to self-incriminate repeatedly? It doesn’t make any sense.

It make sense if you both are making different assumptions about the scenario.

I think the faulty assumption here is that being compelled to testify is the same as being compelled to testify against yourself.

It’s not.

 

[Fenixgoon]

allies and advisors warn trump not to talk to mueller.

does this mean it's going to happen?

 

[Puffnstuff]

allies and advisors warn trump not to talk to mueller.

does this mean it's going to happen?

Trump is so arrogant that he'd say anything and expect to not be held accountable for it.

 

[jpeyton]

Things are going better than I could have ever imagined.

If you told me 356 days ago that Trump would have four former campaign or administration officials either convicted or indicted by the end of 2017, I wouldn't have believed you.

Mueller assembled a "Dream Team" of prosecutors and investigators, and they are moving quickly.