Yet few if any of them did as far as I'd heard. Was there an intimidation factor at work here, intentional or otherwise? Were they simply throwing charges like darts hoping to get a bullseye? You have the U.S. Government breathing down your neck as they examine every aspect of your personal and professional life looking for something they can parlay into charges or information. How long could you hold out against something like that? What would you do to make it stop? How many people were driven to plead to charges because they could no longer afford to defend themselves? I'm aking this because these are questions I think need to be asked.AnalHamster wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 5:19 pmSame reason anyone commits a crime I guess, they figured they'd get away with it. There's only one way to prevent someone pleading the fifth and that's to grant immunity.Blast wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 4:56 pmYet if they knew they were going to lie up covert their ass, why did they not simply invoke the 5th amendment?AnalHamster wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 4:00 pmAn actual perjury trap would be prosecutorial misconduct and violate due process. It means there's no reason for the interview except to suborn perjury. What trump and giuliani mean by perjury trap though is that trump can't stop lying and would perjure himself in any statement under oath. Not the same thing. Mueller didn't set any perjury traps, because he had reasons for his questions. The witnesses simply lied under oath, that is what perjury is.Blast wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 3:10 pmFrom what I've read, which I will freely admit could be biased or straight up wrong since no one wants to report objectively, a number of the convictions the Mueller got were fairly dubious perjury traps and because the people he went after simply ran out of money to defend themselves.
Wut, can you go into a bit of detail about perjury traps? Have you ever had to deal with them as a lawyer? Seems to me that the 5th Amendment should protect against something like that.
As for the Mueller hearings paying for themselves, I am truly disturbed by that. That's like the policing for profit the Supreme Court just squashed. That's my 2 bits.
If I had known I was in the wrong the other day while I was snowmobiling I wouldn't have stopped and cooperated for the DNR and saved myself 230 bucks for something I had no idea about.
With such a chaotic, decentralized voting system and a media that was clearly, don't say it's not true, in bed with a canidate, how could any amount of collusion swing the vote?
Wouldn't you have a better time arguing that bevause the media was/is so one sided in their presentation of the story line that they aggravated the Contrarian streak that runs deep in the people?
Couldn't more of the influence on the election have come from Comey and his handling of the illegal email server and sensitive information?
How much did the internet trolling of a bunch of Russian bot farms really affect the election? We all know how effective internet arguments and memes are at getting people to realize their wicked ways and changing their lives.
Just some questions I'd like to see actually discussed instead of the meme wars and insults.