Pecker Problems (Mueller+ Investigation Thread v. 21)

[Tekk]

But you can see he has laid out the road map for his future case.

- Findings of guilt do not matter because some who are found guilty turn out to be innocent.
- admissions of guilt also do not matter (Cohen) because sometimes people admit to things they did not do
- the more people confirming something Trump is guilty the less he believes it (telephone) as its better to just get it from Trump himself
- consensus does not matter...

In the end nothing matters but what he wants to believe as he can always find a reason to dismiss any finding or fact or truth.

 

[waiguoren]

And yet again, you ignore that the President is attempting to prevent anyone from finding out if he committed crimes.

That's a bold claim. Congress can open and has opened investigations into wrongdoing by the executive branch.

So you're arguing that the President is, again, above the law (as long as he plays whack-a-mole fast enough with investigations into himself).

The president is not above the law. Your "whack-a-mole" argument only applies to executive branch investigations and is impractical for various reasons (witness the Nixon example). However, you're correct that we have a very flawed system. We should separate these investigations from the executive branch entirely. Welcome aboard.

Furthermore, the crime of obstruction DOES NOT require an underlying crime. It requires that a person with corrupt intent impedes an investigation. I'm nor sure if you're misinformed or lying but you keep repeating that and it just is not true.

Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress, Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331 ), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

I gather that you are not interested in the broad, constitutional questions of executive authority that this case touches upon. That is fine. Not everyone wants to go deep. I will respond directly based only on the language of the statute you cited.

The statue you cited is 18 U.S. Code § 1505 - Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees. This statute deals only with "pending proceedings", not criminal investigations. The word "proceeding" here is a term of art that cannot include an FBI investigation. It refers to a court or court-like proceeding to enforce federal law. This encompasses enforcement actions by federal agencies, but the FBI is not an enforcement body. It is purely an investigative body. Every court I am aware of that has examined this question has found that FBI investigations cannot be "pending proceedings" within the meaning of the obstruction of justice statutes.

 

[waiguoren]

False. He may not fire someone with a corrupt intent to impede justice.

Under what statute? 1505 is off the table. May I suggest 1510?

"interfering or endeavouring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, and Congressional Committees;"

This is in reference to the firings.

I am aware of that. However, firing Cox was a constitutionally protected act. It was also a politically foolish act. Neither you nor I know if Article I would have passed the Judiciary Committee in the absence of the other eight parts. That's a political question anyway. I assume we both recognize that Congress voting to impeach a president is not proof that a bona fide impeachable act was committed. President Johnson was impeached for violating an unconstitutional law. President Clinton was impeached for crimes that fall short of "high crimes and misdemeanors".

 

[waiguoren]

What you denied is that there was any evidence whatsoever. This expert contradicts your claim.

There is no evidence whatsoever. Whether we start from Article II or whether we narrow ourselves to the obstruction statues, there is no reasonable argument that President Trump obstructed justice by firing James Comey.

 

[waiguoren]

The arguments presented fail when held up against the Nixon standard. That case demonstrated conclusively that there are limits to the President’s ability to fire.

That's just not true, for multiple reasons. First, the House Judiciary Committee is a political body. It consists of congresspeople, not judges and jurors. There is no notion of binding precedent.

Second, you don't know what the result of the Judiciary Committee's vote would have been if President Nixon had been charged with obstructing justice merely for firing Cox. Article I of the articles of impeachment brought against Nixon contained nine parts including multiple crimes (destruction of evidence, lying to investigators, directing the payment of hush money). Remove those criminal acts and there's a good chance Article I would not have passed.

 

[waiguoren]

I am amused how many of my points waigu edited out of his replies.

Which points? I've tried to respond to them all.

 

[waiguoren]

So every case is like this guy's. I guess we should fire all the prison guards and send all the convicts home.

No sir, that is not what I wrote.

Until you acknowledge that a finding of guilt by a court is not equivalent to guilt (i.e., it is possible to be found innocent while guilty, or to be found guilty while innocent), then it will be hard to have a rational conversation with you. However, I do believe that you're a reasonable man and that you will eventually acknowledge this difference.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

Get stuffed and get fucked are two of my favorite things to say to the elderly

 

[waiguoren]

I can see why you think of a child's game as your understanding of evidence is quite child like.

I love you.

Going back to the childhood game, if your goal is to discern the truth, you NEVER take the account of one individual and certainly not the one who is known to be a pathological liar.

The only way to discern the truth is to question as many of them as possible in the telephone chain and look for the COMMUNALITIES in each account. If you have 5 or 10 people and the there are 2-3 same statements from each amongst 10 others that are scattered it is those 2-3 you rely on as the most accurate.

You would certainly end up being the dupe if you just went to the biggest liar (the source) and did not ask anyone else who may have participated or witnessed it and that seems to be what has happened to you on this topic.

My point was: if the people further down the chain had the pathological liar as their original source, and if the information flows linearly down the chain, then talking to those people further down the chain won't be expected to get you anywhere.

 

[waiguoren]

False see @ChainFlow response

Please see my response to @ChainFlow.

 

[waiguoren]

- Findings of guilt do not matter because some who are found guilty turn out to be innocent.
- admissions of guilt also do not matter (Cohen) because sometimes people admit to things they did not do
- the more people confirming something (Trump is guilty) the less he believes it (telephone) as its better to just get it from Trump himself
- consensus does not matter...

I'm quite sure you're better than this. You can make your points without mischaracterizing mine.

• Admissions of guilt do matter.
• The more independent observers who confirm an observation, the more I believe it.
• Consensus often does matter.

I hope this clarifies things for you.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

Waiguoren is like a child who needs attention.

I promise you if you all ignore him he’ll go away. When he quotes you ignore it. When he says something that is so outlandish he wants a response. Just ignore him.

He’ll eventually go away

 

[MikeMcMann]

I love you.



My point was: if the people further down the chain had the pathological liar as their original source, and if the information flows linearly down the chain, then talking to those people further down the chain won't be expected to get you anywhere.

It's a stupid point as I pointed out just upthread.


Relying solely on the habitual liar when you know they are a habitual liar again, shows a child like view of the world.

If your kid is known to lie about everything, then you need to seek out the words of their friends, their teacher and any one else who might have a corroborating or countering view.

You are NOT just asking them to retell you what your son said (telephone) and what you are doing is to look to TEST his information versus that which comes from other people who were ALSO INVOLVED in the incident.

You are trying to create a false narrative as if these other witnesses/participants are only retelling Trump's words instead of what they are doing which is relaying their own experiences and involvement which may or may not corroborate what Trump has said. And you know you are trying to do that. You're just not very good at it.

 

[MikeMcMann]

I'm quite sure you're better than this. You can make your points without mischaracterizing mine.

• Admissions of guilt do matter.
• The more independent observers who confirm an observation, the more I believe it.
• Consensus often does matter.

I hope this clarifies things for you.

It does not. Not because of what I wrote but because you conveniently change your argument from one post to the next as you try to counter anything that does not look good for Trump.

You can state those three points above but that does nothing to change your prior posts.

When Cohen plead guilty you made the argument it was not proof of guilt 'because people sometimes plead guilty for various reason who are not'. You suggest a 'finding of guilt' was what was believable and not an admission of guilt.

Now just above when it comes to a 'finding of guilt' you suggest the worth is compromised because 'some innocent people have been found guilty (here's an example).' You mock the idea of consensus being put forth above suggesting that doing so shows a weakness in the argument.

So ya, don't try and accuse me of mischaracterizing your posts when you try to play both sides at any time it suits you.

 

[waiguoren]

It's a stupid point as I pointed out just upthread.


Relying solely on the habitual liar when you know they are a habitual liar again, shows a child like view of the world.

If your kid is known to lie about everything, then you need to seek out the words of their friends, their teacher and any one else who might have a corroborating or countering view.

You are NOT just asking them to retell you what your son said (telephone) and what you are doing is to look to TEST his information versus that which comes from other people who were ALSO INVOLVED in the incident.

You are trying to create a false narrative as if these other witnesses/participants are only retelling Trump's words instead of what they are doing which is relaying their own experiences and involvement which may or may not corroborate what Trump has said. And you know you are trying to do that. You're just not very good at it.

I made the analogy under the assumption that none of Trump's PR people could have any information about why Trump fired Comey except for what Trump told them personally or through an intermediary. If you don't like that premise, then the analogy fails. If you do accept that premise, then my analysis holds. It would make no sense to talk to Sarah Sanders, for example, to try to decipher Trump's motivation for firing Comey.

If you are referring to non-PR people who have commented publicly on the firing, that's a different case and I'd like to know which people you're thinking of.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Waiguoren is like a child who needs attention.

I promise you if you all ignore him he’ll go away. When he quotes you ignore it. When he says something that is so outlandish he wants a response. Just ignore him.

He’ll eventually go away

i agree. He is a full on troll. His only goal is to counter anything bad or suggestive about Trump and if he has to contradict his own position post to post he is ok doing that. I should not get drawn in to replying to him but do because he seems to think no one sees his inconsistencies and that he is making witty and unassailable posts despite them being so transparent and dumb and easily refuted.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

Let’s remember this Friday a top trump lobbyist admitted in court that he lied to Congress, the FBI and funneled ILLEGAL Ukrainian money into the trump campaign viaba Russian national.

Just remember that you hacks

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

i agree. He is a full on troll. His only goal is to counter anything bad or suggestive about Trump and if he has to contradict his own position post to post he is ok doing that. I should not get drawn in to replying to him but do because he seems to think no one sees his inconsistencies and that he is making witty and unassailable posts despite them being so transparent and dumb and easily refuted.

Just ignore him. I know you want to respond but what does it even matter, you’re simply wasting your time. He’s an ignorant idiot trolling you.

 

[waiguoren]

try to counter anything that does not look good for Trump.

Good sir, I am opposed to Trump for a variety of reasons. Unfortunately, I perceive most of the reasons given in this thread for opposing Trump to be hollow.

You can state those three points above but that does nothing to change your prior posts.

Good sir, my prior posts do not contradict those three points.

When Cohen plead guilty you made the argument it was not proof of guilt 'because people sometimes plead guilty for various reason who are not'. You suggest a 'finding of guilt' was what was believable and not an admission of guilt.

"Proof" is a sacred word to those like me who have written thousands of genuine proofs. Please do not confuse the word "proof" with the word "evidence". Cohen's guilty plea is evidence that Cohen committed crimes. An independent finding of guilt by a jury (better, multiple juries) of fellow citizens usually represents a higher evidentiary standard than a guilty plea under the cloud of a potential cooperation agreement.

Now just above when it comes to a 'finding of guilt' you suggest the worth is compromised because 'some innocent people have been found guilty (here's an example).'

No sir. That's a misunderstanding. The "worth" is only compromised relative to the absolute standard of guilt, which is unattainable. Some guilty pleas are more suspect than others. To me, Cohen's guilty plea for "making an excessive campaign contribution at the request of a candidate or campaign" is suspect.

You mock the idea of consensus being put forth above suggesting that doing so shows a weakness in the argument.

No sir. That is a misunderstanding. I believe that arguments should be clean. Falling back on consensus (or worse---the appearance of consensus) only serves to distract and muddy an argument.

If I set out to prove to you that a particular sequence of real numbers is convergent, I should not add an extra line to my proof noting that all known real analysis textbooks contain this proof. My task is to compel belief by presenting facts and logic.

 

[waiguoren]

PAPADOPOULOS TOLD FBI HE DID NOT INFORM TRUMP CAMPAIGN OF CLINTON ‘DIRT’


George Papadopoulos told federal investigators he did not inform anyone on the Trump campaign about a mysterious professor’s claim in April 2016 that Russians had “thousands” of Hillary Clinton emails, according to court documents submitted on Friday night.

That’s just one of several new details that Papadopoulos’s lawyers revealed in the filing, which seeks probation for the former Trump campaign aide for lying about his contacts with Russians.

The lawyers also said that Papadpoulos claims that during a March 31, 2016, meeting of the Trump campaign’s national security team, then presidential candidate Donald Trump “approved” of Papadopoulos’ suggestion of a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Jeff Sessions, who now serves as attorney general, “appeared to like the idea and stated that the campaign should look into it.”

Other attendees at the meeting, including former Pentagon spokesman J.D. Gordon, have said that Sessions shut down Papadopoulos’ suggestion.


Papadopoulos, 30, pleaded guilty in the special counsel’s investigation on Oct. 5, 2017. He faces sentencing on Sept. 7.

Special counsel Robert Mueller, who is seeking up to six months in jail for Papadopoulos, has argued that the Trump aide’s lies to the FBI hampered the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, but Papadopoulos’s lawyers argued that their client’s lies did not harm the investigation. They also asserted that he “misled investigators to save his professional aspirations and preserve a perhaps misguided loyalty to his master.”

“In his hesitation, George lied, minimized, and omitted material facts. Out of loyalty to the new president and his desire to be part of the administration, he hoisted himself upon his own petard.”

One question looming over the Papadopoulos case has been whether he told anyone on the Trump campaign about comments made by a Maltese professor named Joseph Mifsud regarding Clinton’s emails.

Spoiler: Full

Papadopoulos told FBI agents during his Jan. 27, 2017, interview that Mifsud told him during an April 26, 2016, meeting in London that he had learned that the Russian government had “dirt” on Clinton in the form of thousands of her emails.

While Papadopoulos told the FBI details of his conversations with Mifsud, he lied to the FBI by claiming that the contacts occurred before he joined the Trump campaign.

Papadopoulos told federal investigators that he did not relay the Mifsud claim to anyone else on the Trump campaign.

“He told the agents he was unaware of anyone in the campaign knowing of the stolen Hillary Clinton emails prior to the emails being publicly released,” Papadopoulos’ lawyers wrote.

Papadopoulos also denied to FBI agents that he told anyone on the Trump campaign about the emails. But in interviews with prosecutors months later, “George reiterated that he does not recall ever passing the information along to the campaign.”

While Papadopoulos claims he did not tell anyone on the Trump campaign about Clinton emails, he did inform a Greek diplomat of Mifsud’s claims about Clinton dirt.

Papadopoulos’s lawyers say that he told FBI agents about a meeting in late May 2016 “where he revealed to the Greek Foreign Minister that the Russians had ‘dirt’ on Hillary Clinton. He explained that this meeting took place days before President Vladimir Putin traveled to Greece to meet with Greek officials.”

Papadopoulos also told Australian diplomat Alexander Downer during a May 10, 2016, meeting in London that Russia had derogatory information on Clinton. The FBI opened a counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign on July 31, 2016, based on Downer’s claims about his conversation with Papadopoulos.

Friday’s filing also reveals new details about the FBI’s initial interview with Papadopoulos. According to Papadopoulos’s lawyers, FBI agents showed up to interview Papadopoulos at his mother’s house in Chicago.

The agents asked Papadopoulos to accompany them to their office to answer “a couple questions” about “a guy in New York that you might know[,] [t]hat has recently been in the news.”

Papadopoulos believed that the agents wanted to ask him about Sergei Millian, a Belarus American businessman who is alleged to be a major source in the Steele dossier. Millian approached Papadopoulos in July 2016 and the pair met several times during the presidential campaign.

Papadopoulos’s lawyers asserted that the FBI agents “assured George that the topic of discussion was Mr. Millian who had been trending in the national media.”

During a car ride to the FBI’s offices, Papadopoulos expressed concern about how getting caught up in the investigation might harm his chances of getting a job in the Trump administration.

Papadopoulos “told the agents he had no knowledge of anyone on the campaign colluding with the Russians and it would not have been in anyone’s interest to undermine the democratic process.”

https://dailycaller.com/2018/09/01/george-papadopoulos-probation/