Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Kapture1]

So is today one of the days where you think it's outrageous that the FBI was keeping tabs on Carter Page? And tomorrow will be a "Carter Page was working for the FBI as a spy" day?

Can either you or crash explain why you think the govt had no business surveilling Page's activities even after Russian spies were convicted of trying to recruit him?

Carter Page as an undercover FBI employee was an educated guess based on NYTimes reporting and a previous court case.

mind answering my question?

[Kapture1]

w_3Tgx10sYLFXytNjQirMn-n6IkeK7wB443qGnhnpjc.jpg?w=700&s=3badf07a67e9eff2575c428f4f79df23.jpg

[CGVT]

*yawn*

[Dr. Strangelove]

Carter Page as an undercover FBI employee was an educated guess based on NYTimes reporting and a previous court case.

mind answering my question?

An educated guess that was dead wrong. Until you decide you're right again. Whatever's convenient for the counter-narrative.

You didn't address any questions towards me as far as I can see but if you're talking about the Page/GP timeline it's not terribly difficult. The FBI was keeping tabs on Page for years because it's a concrete fact that he was once recruited by Russian intelligence. Carter Page appears to be the only person Halper approached before August. After the official investigation into the Trump campaign was opened at the end of July 2016, based on the Australian ambassador stuff, Halper reached out to both GP and Clovis. Halper's only contact with Clovis, btw, appears to have been to basically ask for GP's phone number.

The idea that there was no reason to be concerned that a former Russian Intelligence recruit had made his way onto the Trump foreign policy team is ABSURD.

BTW, since we're on the subject, you Trump gobblers claim the "Deep State" was clearly trying to sabotage Trump's election and help Hillary. So why did absolutely nothing about this FBI investigation leak to the media while a bunch of Clinton investigation stuff did? Why did Comey hold multiple press conference to discuss Clinton being under investigation and never once mention that there was an active investigation into the Trump campaign until after the Election? Pretty odd behavior if they were trying to make Trump lose.

[SeattleLionsFan]

2. ANY lawyer, whether a right wing constitutional lawyer, or one on the far left, would advise their client to state they don't remember if they don't remember every detail 100%. Ask ANY lawyer, an unreliable memory is no defense against perjury. It's why Hillary used the phrase over three dozen times in her off the record interview with the FBI, it's why Bill Clinton offered up 156 such statements in his deposition. NOT whataboutism, they have as much relevance in this conversation as Reagan, which I'm not sure why he was brought up. Mueller has clearly set a perjury trap based on the questions, as all of them were directly related to what Mueller has been investigating.

This is very specifically wrong.

[Kapture1]

An educated guess that was dead wrong. Until you decide you're right again. Whatever's convenient for the counter-narrative.

You didn't address any questions towards me as far as I can see but if you're talking about the Page/GP timeline it's not terribly difficult. The FBI was keeping tabs on Page for years because it's a concrete fact that he was once recruited by Russian intelligence. Carter Page appears to be the only person Halper approached before August. After the official investigation into the Trump campaign was opened at the end of July 2016, based on the Australian ambassador stuff, Halper reached out to both GP and Clovis. Halper's only contact with Clovis, btw, appears to have been to basically ask for GP's phone number.

The idea that there was no reason to be concerned that a former Russian Intelligence recruit had made his way onto the Trump foreign policy team is ABSURD.

BTW, since we're on the subject, you Trump gobblers claim the "Deep State" was clearly trying to sabotage Trump's election and help Hillary. So why did absolutely nothing about this FBI investigation leak to the media while a bunch of Clinton investigation stuff did? Why did Comey hold multiple press conference to discuss Clinton being under investigation and never once mention that there was an active investigation into the Trump campaign until after the Election? Pretty odd behavior if they were trying to make Trump lose.

why tho? Page has never committed a crime, Christ he was under a Title I FISA warrant for a year and they found NOTHING. keeping tabs on for years doesn't encompass random SPYING, does it? very odd to me that the FBI's spy reached out to Page around the time the FBI became aware of the first draft of the dossier, but we have been told that the fake dossier wasn't what kicked off this investigation. Sorry, but the deputy FBI director was fired and about to be prosecuted for lying. the former FBI director has a sorted past, and has leaked classified material to the press. also lied to congress. sorry for not taking their word.

and to clear this up for you and yours once and for all, I don't believe for a second that ANY of this was done to help Hillary win. Unless there were obvious crimes or evidence of impropriety with Russia. this wasn't ever going to see the light of day. This entire thing was kept under wraps as like an insurance policy, in the unlikely event you die before your 40 ;-)

[Kapture1]

so would you agree that it's time to shut down Mueller?

[Kapture1]

This is very specifically wrong.

what specifically then? are you telling me that an unreliable memory IS a valid defense against perjury.

[iam416]

The NYT writes on ex-Spartan Keith Mumphrey's sexual assault allegation that will never die: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/30/s...mentsContainer

I'm modestly encouraged that the NYT would actually write on a dude fucked over by an obviously unfair system. The fact that a black athlete is getting shafted surely helped the NYT take the leap, but it's also a fairly obvious by-product of the aggressive Title IX idiocy that PDJT is trying to undo. I'm even more heartened by comments -- most of which seem to support him. I wasn't sure -- I know AA > womyn in the Prog hierarchy, but I wasn't sure if AA ATHLETE would drop him below womyn/#MeToo. Perhaps there's some hope.

In any event, Mumphrey is fucked. Fortunately, as I've been told, things that happen at Universities are just isolated events.

[iam416]

what specifically then? are you telling me that an unreliable memory IS a valid defense against perjury.

First, perjury is an intent-based crime. So, technically speaking, trying to answer something on an unreliable memory may not evince an "intent to lie" -- criminally speaking.

Second, you're assessment on unreliable memory is pretty much how I advised clients to prepare for depositions. They are testifying under oath to their personal knowledge. If they can't remember, they can't remember. I also advised them that if something wasn't within their personal knowledge, then it was perfectly fine to say they didn't know. I always used a sunrise -- "Did the sun rise in the East today?" Answer: I don't know. I wasn't up to see it. [I assume it did.] (ok to add on).

Now, at trial you need to be a little more forthcoming because your credibility is at stake in front of the jury. You want to be as truthful and forthcoming as you can be on 90-95% of the questions. Then when you fight or say you can't remember on the 5%/10% you have some credibility in so doing.

But, yes -- I can't imagine any good trial attorney telling a witness testifying in his individual capacity to speculate, guess or otherwise testify to matters outside that person's knowledge and/or memory. Ever.

[Dr. Strangelove]

I'd think that Trump may have some trouble pulling off "I can't remember" when he's kept a very public diary of his thoughts for years.

[Kapture1]

First, perjury is an intent-based crime. So, technically speaking, trying to answer something on an unreliable memory may not evince an "intent to lie" -- criminally speaking.

Second, you're assessment on unreliable memory is pretty much how I advised clients to prepare for depositions. They are testifying under oath to their personal knowledge. If they can't remember, they can't remember. I also advised them that if something wasn't within their personal knowledge, then it was perfectly fine to say they didn't know. I always used a sunrise -- "Did the sun rise in the East today?" Answer: I don't know. I wasn't up to see it. [I assume it did.] (ok to add on).

Now, at trial you need to be a little more forthcoming because your credibility is at stake in front of the jury. You want to be as truthful and forthcoming as you can be on 90-95% of the questions. Then when you fight or say you can't remember on the 5%/10% you have some credibility in so doing.

But, yes -- I can't imagine any good trial attorney telling a witness testifying in his individual capacity to speculate, guess or otherwise testify to matters outside that person's knowledge and/or memory. Ever.

i mean especially and specifically as it relates to sitting down with a prosecutor like Mueller in the given circumstance.

[iam416]

If you were interview by Mueller, you would treat it like a deposition, IMO, and answer only that which you remember. I don't think there's any other approach, especially with the preposterous "gotcha" game they're playing.

DSL:

No doubt, PDJT has a lengthy journal. He's also an idiot. So, it's perfectly acceptable for him to say he doesn't remember saying "X on this DATE." Then Mueller can put something in front of him, asks if this refreshes his recollection, and then PDJT can either say yes or no and proceed from there. Pretty standard. In a civil case of significance lawyers pour over thousands upon thousands of emails and then depose various witnesses using them (and other documents). No one remembers the email of May 17, 2016, but they may remember it if you put the document in front of them. And they may or may not remember what they were thinking when they wrote it (I've spent 30 minutes asking about a two paragraph email). Good times.

[iam416]

Here's a good example of why you say "I can't recall." A favorite tactic of attorneys to look at these emails, pick out some damaging statement -- perhaps out of context -- and ask "Did you ever say X". If the witness sits and thinks about and can't remember saying X, he has two options -- "I may have, but I can't remember ever saying it" or "No" -- if it's the former, then when the attorney puts the document in front of you then you say, "Yes, -- I didn't remember this but I guess I did" as opposed to being stuck with "No" and looking like a liar.

[AlabamAlum]

Is Talent a jackwagon?

I can't recall.