Politicspoliticsfbilyingperjurytrap

Sun Dec 17, 2017, 10:53 AM

Trump administration going to go down for lying to the FBI

This DU theory makes sense to me.

Mueller has had the transition emails for a while. They were obtained so he could interview various Trump staffers. The idea was to go over the emails in great detail (to catch them in a lie). Exactly what happened to Flynn.

Not a single one of us could stand up to that type of scrutiny. Imagine if I had your last 100 emails and went through them line by line when interviewing you. You be caught in a lie too.

Cobb is an idiot he needs to be fired. He should never have advised Trump and his staff to cooperate. He should have stonewalled everything, and forced Mueller to take everything to the Supreme court.

And folks always remember never talk to the cops. Have em call your attorney.

35 replies, 916 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 35 replies Author Time Post
Reply Trump administration going to go down for lying to the FBI (Original post)
def_con5 Dec 2017 OP
turquoise Dec 2017 #1
def_con5 Dec 2017 #3
Carl Dec 2017 #5
DavesNotHere Dec 2017 #35
Carl Dec 2017 #4
turquoise Dec 2017 #7
def_con5 Dec 2017 #8
turquoise Dec 2017 #12
Carl Dec 2017 #15
turquoise Dec 2017 #17
Carl Dec 2017 #18
turquoise Dec 2017 #19
Carl Dec 2017 #20
turquoise Dec 2017 #22
Carl Dec 2017 #23
turquoise Dec 2017 #24
Carl Dec 2017 #25
Phlegm Monger Dec 2017 #14
Carl Dec 2017 #9
turquoise Dec 2017 #13
Bob the Bilderberger Dec 2017 #2
JaimeBondoJr Dec 2017 #6
Muddling Through Dec 2017 #10
JaimeBondoJr Dec 2017 #11
turquoise Dec 2017 #21
Carl Dec 2017 #26
turquoise Dec 2017 #27
Carl Dec 2017 #28
turquoise Dec 2017 #29
Carl Dec 2017 #31
Let it go Dec 2017 #16
batcat Dec 2017 #30
Carl Dec 2017 #32
batcat Dec 2017 #33
Iron Condor Dec 2017 #34

Response to def_con5 (Original post)

Sun Dec 17, 2017, 11:04 AM

1. None of my last 100 emails contains a lie. Or the last 1000, for that matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to turquoise (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 17, 2017, 11:10 AM

3. You're missing the point

If i had you last 100 email, you would not remember them exactly. So when there is a difference between the email and your memory, you are lying.

In the field reports they even annotated that Flynn was lying when he said he couldn't recall.

Everytime you tell a story it's a little different, you aren't lying it's just the way memory works.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to def_con5 (Reply #3)

Sun Dec 17, 2017, 11:12 AM

5. Which is exactly why in the white wash of hills investigation they made sure she was never under

oath or held to that standard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #5)

Mon Dec 18, 2017, 10:20 AM

35. And her interview was not recorded, so there would be no actual record of what she actually told

the FBI.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to turquoise (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 17, 2017, 11:10 AM

4. That was not what was said.

What was said is that without your looking at them if you were grilled on minute details of what they contained you likely would make a false statement at some point.
Not out of desire but in error.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #4)

Sun Dec 17, 2017, 11:12 AM

7. If I my memory failed me as to their contents, that would not be a lie.

The word "lie" was used.


"You be caught in a lie too."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to turquoise (Reply #7)

Sun Dec 17, 2017, 11:16 AM

8. Yes it is

Let's say in the email you say lets meet for lunch and provide an address. During the interview the FBI asks what address did you provide in the email. If you answer doesn't agree you are lying to the FBI.

That's what they are doing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to def_con5 (Reply #8)

Sun Dec 17, 2017, 11:20 AM

12. No, it is not. A "lie" requires intent to deceive. Look it up.

If someone asks me a question about the past and I sincerely believe my recollection is correct, that is not a lie. It is only failure to have an eidectic memory, which is not a crime. In court, someone would have to prove intent before a crime was proven "beyond a reasonable doubt." Good luck with that. Jurors understand memory failure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Carl (Reply #15)

Sun Dec 17, 2017, 11:32 AM

17. Actually, I'm talking conviction. And your point is?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to turquoise (Reply #17)

Sun Dec 17, 2017, 11:38 AM

18. The point is that the threat of indictment creates a nightmare scenario for the accused.

It is not cost free and easy to get to where a jury says this is stupid and baseless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #18)

Sun Dec 17, 2017, 11:44 AM

19. Sorry, but remedies for nightmares are not part of our legal system.

Even our medical system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to turquoise (Reply #19)

Sun Dec 17, 2017, 11:46 AM

20. Then you get why the perjury trap is used.

Your argument just fell apart.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #20)

Sun Dec 17, 2017, 11:50 AM

22. Your subject line does not follow from what I said. As a separate point,

nothing I posted on this topic fell apart. Nothing I posted on this thread was false or based on subjective opinion. The only thing you might quibble about was my claim that my emails contain no lies. However, you'd be wrong. They don't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to turquoise (Reply #22)

Sun Dec 17, 2017, 11:53 AM

23. You just smirked at the fact that fighting an indictment for perjury even if just an honest mistake

is expensive and exhausting.

That is the reason a prosecutor will do it so copping a plea is a better choice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #23)

Sun Dec 17, 2017, 11:58 AM

24. No, I didn't and now you're flailing spuriously in an attempt to have the last word

and/or to speciously discredit something I've posted, all of which was accurate. Not to mention pretending you can see my facial expressions. I'm out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to turquoise (Reply #24)

Sun Dec 17, 2017, 12:28 PM

25. Run away,your post above stands in the context it was written.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to def_con5 (Reply #8)

Sun Dec 17, 2017, 11:25 AM

14. more likely along the line of:

Email: I met with so and so to discuss x.

Investigator : Have you ever met with so and so?

Subject: No.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to turquoise (Reply #7)

Sun Dec 17, 2017, 11:17 AM

9. Sorry but that is not how it works in FBI land.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #9)

Sun Dec 17, 2017, 11:21 AM

13. Actually, it's how it works everywhere. See my reply to your equally mistaken friend.

ETA. In the subject line, between "everywhere" and the period, add "in common law jurisdictions."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to def_con5 (Original post)

Sun Dec 17, 2017, 11:05 AM

2. Except for that 4th amendment violation

They had no warrant. Which is the REAL reason Mueller fired FBI Agent Peter Strzok when he found out about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to def_con5 (Original post)

Sun Dec 17, 2017, 11:12 AM

6. "Ya know, I really don't remember those emails we'll enough to testify about 'em."

"Not sure"

"Maybe"

"Might have"

"I said WHAT?"

"Sorry I couldn't be of more help, fellas."

Worked for Al Gore, dinnit?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaimeBondoJr (Reply #6)

Sun Dec 17, 2017, 11:19 AM

10. "No controlling legal authority".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Muddling Through (Reply #10)

Sun Dec 17, 2017, 11:19 AM

11. Zactly.

"No specific recollection."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaimeBondoJr (Reply #6)

Sun Dec 17, 2017, 11:47 AM

21. It really takes moxie to name only Gore when talking about "I don't recollect."

Two of the worst have been Gonzo and Sessions, both while holding the spot of the nation's number 1 officer of our entire legal system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to turquoise (Reply #21)

Sun Dec 17, 2017, 12:29 PM

26. And hill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #26)

Sun Dec 17, 2017, 12:31 PM

27. She wasn't a sitting Attorney General when she testified. However, the point is

that the one-sided nonsense from "both" sides on this board is bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to turquoise (Reply #27)

Sun Dec 17, 2017, 12:37 PM

28. She was a former SOS and that position has far more impact on US affairs worldwide then AG.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #28)

Sun Dec 17, 2017, 02:05 PM

29. Exactly: She was not AG. You must think the last word is really meaningful or

you would not insist on it in every encounter. That makes you tedious, in addition to your other issues. Have the last word and welcome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to turquoise (Reply #29)

Sun Dec 17, 2017, 02:20 PM

31. Surrender again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to def_con5 (Original post)

Sun Dec 17, 2017, 11:30 AM

16. Fruit of the poison tree...and a seditious tree at that.

The more they overstep the more exposed they are.

The closer they come to pulling their coup, the more evidence of collusion and treason.

They’re exposing themselves.

Drain the swamp.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to def_con5 (Original post)

Sun Dec 17, 2017, 02:14 PM

30. If a cop wants to give you a ticket he just has to follow your car for a while. ...

Sooner or later you will do something he can pull you over for.

If a government investigator wants to charge you with something he just has to interview you and the chances are he will find something he can label as a lie.

In a small town it is wise for the local cop to not give a ticket to the mayors son or other "important" people in that town.

It seems obvious that government investigations handled Hillary and her close associates with kid gloves as they are very important people at the highest levels of our nation. Trump and his associates are like people traveling through a small town as they are outsiders and therefore fair game for unfair treatment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to batcat (Reply #30)

Sun Dec 17, 2017, 02:22 PM

32. Perfect analogy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #32)

Sun Dec 17, 2017, 02:28 PM

33. I live in a small town. ...

One of the local cops got into a world of shit because he pulled the major's son over because he was drunk. He was a good cop and treated everyone equally. He is no longer on the force in this town for some reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to def_con5 (Original post)

Sun Dec 17, 2017, 02:50 PM

34. It depends on what the word is, is....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Politicspoliticsfbilyingperjurytrap