Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #551  
Old 11-06-2017, 10:36 AM
GrandWino's Avatar
GrandWino is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Evanstonia
Posts: 9,642
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Holy shit. I'm torn about this. On the one hand, threatening someone's child in order to get them to cooperate is a typical villain move.

On the other hand, if you're threatening the child with legal consequences for the crimes that the parent got them to commit, the parent doesn't get to complain, nor does the child, so I guess it's no longer a villain move.

And if you get your kid to commit a crime, and you refuse to cooperate even though that sends your kid to jail, you win a Worst Dad of the Decade award.
He's hardly a "kid" he's 34.
  #552  
Old 11-06-2017, 10:48 AM
elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,986
The President is somewhat uncertain about this Donald Trump, Jr. fellow. He has an excellent, excellent memory, so we can be assured when he tell us he doesn't remember this fellow. Maybe a coffee-felching volunteer, of no particular significance. Might have met him once or twice, not really sure....

"Coffee-fetching". Sorry.
__________________
Law above fear, justice above law, mercy above justice, love above all.
  #553  
Old 11-06-2017, 11:14 AM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,415
FBI Looking into Flynn's efforts in getting a Turkish cleric handed over to Turkey. This of course had a pricetag in the millions. Gotta stock up on popcorn.
  #554  
Old 11-06-2017, 11:26 AM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
"Coffee-fetching". Sorry.
*covfefe
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #555  
Old 11-06-2017, 12:36 PM
Fiveyearlurker is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrandWino View Post
He's hardly a "kid" he's 34.
Speaking of kids who aren't kids. There is quid and there is quo. The pro seems obvious, but is it provable:

"A Russian lawyer who met with President Donald Trump’s oldest son last year says he indicated that a law targeting Russia could be re-examined if his father won the election and asked her for written evidence that illegal proceeds went to Hillary Clinton’s campaign."
  #556  
Old 11-06-2017, 12:53 PM
elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,986
Rex Tillerson, Prime Minister of Exxon, worked in happy cooperation with Putin to make a multi-billion dollar deal for Russia's Arctic oil reserves. He was lauded, medaled and praised for this. Then the sanctions came down, and the deal went poof!

Then, due Sexy Rexy's vast experience in international diplomacy, he is selected as SecState. Right. Sure. Hugh Betcha.

If I were on a jury, sworn to the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, it would be different. I'm not. Guilty.
  #557  
Old 11-06-2017, 01:07 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,109
And the ExxonMobil board gave him a $27 million going-away present when he took the nomination, purely as a token of their thanks.
  #558  
Old 11-06-2017, 01:15 PM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,415
Holy cow. You can't tell your scandals without a program.

Quote:
Among the Trump administration officials implicated in the leaks is Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, who according to the documents concealed his ties to a Russian energy company that is partly owned by Russian President Vladimir Putin’s judo partner Gennady Timchenko and Putin’s son-in-law, Kirill Shamalov. Through offshore investments, Ross held a stake in Navigator Holdings, which had a close business relationship with the Russian firm. Ross did not disclose that connection during his confirmation process on Capitol Hill.
Quote:
Top White House adviser Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, is also implicated. The documents reveal that Russian tech leader Yuri Milner invested $850,000 in a startup called Cadre that Kushner co-founded in 2014.
  #559  
Old 11-06-2017, 04:38 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
Lawyer: Mr. Trump, I'm afraid you are the most corrupt president in United States history. Your administration has everything.
Mr. Trump: You mean I have money laundering?
Lawyer: Yes.
Mr. Trump: Sexual assault?
Lawyer: Yes.
Mr. Trump: Theft of a bulldozer from a federal construction site?
Lawyer: Uh, a little bit, yes. You also have several crimes that have just been discovered - in your cabinet.
Mr. Trump: I see. You sure you haven't just made thousands of mistakes?
Lawyer: Uh, no, no, I'm afraid not.
Mr. Trump: This sounds like bad news.
Lawyer: Well, you'd think so, but all of your crimes are in perfect balance. If you have a moment, I can explain.
Mr. Trump: Well...[looks at his watch]
Lawyer: Here's the door to your administration, see? [brings up cute little fuzz balls with funny faces from under his desk]
Lawyer: And these are oversized novelty crimes. This one's destruction of evidence, that's trespassing at a daycare center, and this cute little cuddle-bug is triple murder with a pitchfork! Here's what happens when they all try to get through the door at once.
[Stooge-like] Woo-woo-woo-woo-woo-woo-woo. Move it, chowderhead!
Lawyer: We call it, "Three Stooges Syndrome".
Mr. Trump: So what you're saying is, I'm indestructible.
Lawyer: Oh, no, no, in fact, even slight breeze could...
Mr. Trump: Indestructible!
I get that reference now! (I wasn't allowed to watch the Simpsons growing up.) Nice to inject a bit of happiness in this horribleness.

Edit: video.

Last edited by BigT; 11-06-2017 at 04:40 PM.
  #560  
Old 11-06-2017, 07:06 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 16,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fubaya View Post
That female Russian lawyer is publicly saying that DonJr asked for fort on Hillary and told her they'd be willing to reexamine the Magnitsky Act of they won.

https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/a...ow-lawyer-says
Quote:
… The lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, said in a two-and-a-half-hour interview in Moscow that she would tell these and other things to the Senate Judiciary Committee on condition that her answers be made public, something it hasn’t agreed to.…
I see the strategy now. They are doing everything they can to make our heads hurt so long and hard that we will have to throw up our hands and say fuuuuck just to make the pain stop.
  #561  
Old 11-06-2017, 07:12 PM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 16,205
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
I see the strategy now. They are doing everything they can to make our heads hurt so long and hard that we will have to throw up our hands and say fuuuuck just to make the pain stop.
Funny you should say that. That's precisely what some are planning to do on Nov. 8.

Thousands of Americans Will Scream Helplessly at the Sky on Trump's Election Anniversary
Quote:
Updated | Thousands of concerned citizens will take part in a new ritual of sorts: commemorating the anniversary of Donald Trump's election by screaming at the sky.

Over 4,000 Facebook users have RSVP'd—another 33,000 are interested in attending—to the Nov. 8 event being held in Boston that is literally titled "Scream helplessly at the sky on the anniversary of the election." ....
  #562  
Old 11-06-2017, 07:48 PM
Fair Rarity's Avatar
Fair Rarity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
You can't tell your scandals without a program.
You jest, but I can't any more. Since I read about so many whispers BEFORE things are actually confirmed, half my time ingesting the news is like "Didn't I already know that?" In my head I have far-fetched rumors, well-reasoned speculation, pretty-solid rumors, breaking news, old news, fake "fake news".
  #563  
Old 11-06-2017, 09:12 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fubaya View Post
That female Russian lawyer is publicly saying that DonJr asked for fort on Hillary and told her they'd be willing to reexamine the Magnitsky Act of they won.

https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/a...ow-lawyer-says
Legally, this is potentially a big deal. This corroborates the testimony of that dude who got busted for lying to the FBI/DOJ and who's now working with the Mueller investigation. Two sources, one a witness for the Feds and the other a Russian lawyer, now saying the same thing: there was an attempt by individuals in the Trump campaign to influence foreign policy in exchange for something of value. "Collusion" is not a crime. Getting political dirt for free is probably not really all that criminal. But trying to undermine US foreign policy is indeed a criminal act. We're getting into Logan Act territory here - one of the oldest statutes on the books.

But it won't end there; there are probably multiple people who have perjured themselves and otherwise obstructed justice, who all could be feeling the heat right now. Sen. Al Franken is of the opinion that among them is none other than Buford T Just -- I mean General Beauregard himself. I can't believe that a former US attorney would be that fucking stupid to actually knowingly violate such laws and probably took care to cover his tracks but you never know what hubris will enable a man to do when he's drunk on power, or the though of having it. If Sessions is indeed in legal jeopardy, it occurred to me that now, finally, his own self-interests are aligned with Trump's. Who's to say that Mueller doesn't just get shut down? Or maybe the counter-offensive against Comey starts in earnest.

We're getting closer to the moment of truth in terms of whether Trump will allow this investigation to continue. More and more evidence points to criminal conduct committed by Donald Trump Jr (and perhaps Jared Kushner as well), who likely violated the Logan Act. I find it hard to believe that Trump would just sit back and watch his family get prosecuted.
  #564  
Old 11-06-2017, 09:20 PM
Fiveyearlurker is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,586
Carter Page's House testimony is out. Carter Page is equally dumb, crazy and fucked.

There's a lot of fun stuff, but this might be one of my favorites (keep in mind Page has no lawyer):



Mr. Schiff: So it's your position that you can selectively invoke the Fifth Amendment to provide certain documents but withhold other documents?

Mr. Page: […]

Mr. Schiff: Dr. Page, is it your position that you have a Fifth Amendment right to provide nonincriminating emails or documents to the committee but withhold incriminating documents from the committee and selectively comply with the subpoena?

Mr. Page: I — there are no incriminating — nothing I have done is incriminating or even unethical in any way. The only thing — the only thing that —

Mr. Schiff: Dr. Page, if nothing you have is incriminating, then on what basis are you invoking the Fifth Amendment right?

Last edited by Fiveyearlurker; 11-06-2017 at 09:21 PM.
  #565  
Old 11-06-2017, 09:44 PM
Fiveyearlurker is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,586
Page: I can get you that email.
Adam Schiff: We have it.
(drops mic, presumably)
  #566  
Old 11-06-2017, 10:43 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
We're getting closer to the moment of truth in terms of whether Trump will allow this investigation to continue. More and more evidence points to criminal conduct committed by Donald Trump Jr (and perhaps Jared Kushner as well), who likely violated the Logan Act. I find it hard to believe that Trump would just sit back and watch his family get prosecuted.


This is Trump, the one we are talking about. His record of dumping people under the bus does include relatives, I will not find it hard to believe.
  #567  
Old 11-06-2017, 11:03 PM
Defensive Indifference is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 7,104
Page testified before Congress without an attorney?!?!? What a maroon!
  #568  
Old 11-06-2017, 11:49 PM
friedo's Avatar
friedo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 24,361
Carter Page is very, very special.
  #569  
Old 11-06-2017, 11:51 PM
elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,986
They gave him a Participation Ribbon, he didn't catch on.
  #570  
Old 11-07-2017, 06:21 AM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 31,829
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker View Post
Carter Page's House testimony is out. Carter Page is equally dumb, crazy and fucked.

There's a lot of fun stuff, but this might be one of my favorites (keep in mind Page has no lawyer):



Mr. Schiff: So it's your position that you can selectively invoke the Fifth Amendment to provide certain documents but withhold other documents?

Mr. Page: […]

Mr. Schiff: Dr. Page, is it your position that you have a Fifth Amendment right to provide nonincriminating emails or documents to the committee but withhold incriminating documents from the committee and selectively comply with the subpoena?

Mr. Page: I — there are no incriminating — nothing I have done is incriminating or even unethical in any way. The only thing — the only thing that —

Mr. Schiff: Dr. Page, if nothing you have is incriminating, then on what basis are you invoking the Fifth Amendment right?
UNCLE!

I could only get through to about page 110 of the transcript, and I got that far because I fast forwarded through all his whining about how his life has been turned upside down on account of the “Dodgy Dossier.”

I’m beginning to form a theory about Dr. Page. He wants to waive his Fifth Amendment privilege ONLY wrt his testimony, which he’s insistent be made available to the public (via transcript, as it turns out); at the same time, he tries to assert a Fifth Amendment privilege wrt his documents which have been subpoenaed.

In his testimony, he keeps coming back and hammering on dodgy dossiers, and extrajudicial penalties that have been imposed on him as a result of his having been named in Congressional/Senate testimony and media coverage thereof. Those issues are also significant points in the defamation lawsuits he has filed.

My theory (the Kojak kind, not the Hawking kind) is that he wants to use his testimony to try his defamation case in some Trumpista version of a court of public opinion.

I noticed that the committee asked him about his social media presence on FB, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, etc. I wonder if they’ve thought to check out 4chan and reddit.
  #571  
Old 11-07-2017, 06:35 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bayard View Post
Page testified before Congress without an attorney?!?!? What a maroon!
This is the nightmare scenario for people implicated in the investigation. They have no idea what people like Carter Page are going to say, and they can't control the message. Perjury and obstruction traps are everywhere.

Eventually, I think Trump and General Beauregard are going to come to the conclusion that the shortest path between two points is a straight line.
  #572  
Old 11-07-2017, 07:07 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,574
Maybe this is a Bricker question (I'm too lazy to ferret the statute and relevant case law), but the question is this:

Under the Logan Act, is there a distinction to be made between someone who is working to affect foreign policy on the condition of getting elected, or does that even matter? I guess what I'm wondering is, the Trump campaign might say (and would expect them to say) they didn't do anything to undermine American foreign policy because what they did had no actual impact on foreign policy while they were campaigning. Is that a valid defense?
  #573  
Old 11-07-2017, 07:14 AM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 21,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
UNCLE!

I could only get through to about page 110 of the transcript, and I got that far because I fast forwarded through all his whining about how his life has been turned upside down on account of the “Dodgy Dossier.”

I’m beginning to form a theory about Dr. Page. He wants to waive his Fifth Amendment privilege ONLY wrt his testimony, which he’s insistent be made available to the public (via transcript, as it turns out); at the same time, he tries to assert a Fifth Amendment privilege wrt his documents which have been subpoenaed.

In his testimony, he keeps coming back and hammering on dodgy dossiers, and extrajudicial penalties that have been imposed on him as a result of his having been named in Congressional/Senate testimony and media coverage thereof. Those issues are also significant points in the defamation lawsuits he has filed.

My theory (the Kojak kind, not the Hawking kind) is that he wants to use his testimony to try his defamation case in some Trumpista version of a court of public opinion.

I noticed that the committee asked him about his social media presence on FB, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, etc. I wonder if they’ve thought to check out 4chan and reddit.
Page is a nutball. He wants attention.

His documents that he's hiding are probably 99% manifesto and he's hoping that he can build things up around himself and release everything and have it become the hugest thing ever.

That said, he may be a real piece of the puzzle, so you can't get around dealing with him. You just have to be a bit strategic to make sure that what you end up getting out of him isn't lies.
  #574  
Old 11-07-2017, 07:15 AM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker View Post
There's a lot of fun stuff, but this might be one of my favorites (keep in mind Page has no lawyer):
Come again?

I wouldn't shake Donald Trump's hand without legal counsel.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #575  
Old 11-07-2017, 07:31 AM
OttoDaFe's Avatar
OttoDaFe is offline
Sluice Gate Tender, FCD #3
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Soviet of Washington
Posts: 2,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker View Post
There's a lot of fun stuff, but this might be one of my favorites (keep in mind Page has no lawyer):[/I]
Come again?

I wouldn't shake Donald Trump's hand without legal counsel.
And a 55-gallon drum of industrial-strength hand sanitizer.

This is almost certainly premature, but the more this whole affair careens on the more I find myself concerned about what may happen if it does come to the point of impeachment (unlikely as that may seem given the current makeup of Congress). For all his myriad faults, in the end Nixon had enough respect for the norms and the office he held to leave it in an orderly manner and with a semblance of grace; the CFSG does not appear to have any such respect, and it would not surprise me if he contrived to pull the temple down after him.

Last edited by OttoDaFe; 11-07-2017 at 07:36 AM. Reason: Typo
  #576  
Old 11-07-2017, 07:48 AM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 23,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
Come again?

I wouldn't shake Donald Trump's hand without legal counsel.
He was asked about this on Chris Hayes last week. Page's response? "I have legal advisors". But, yes, he is doing this without a lawyer. Possibly because none will touch him, and those that would likely realize they will never get paid for what will eventually be one be-yatch of a case.

Or perhaps he's just dumb and crazy.

Seth Abramson did a tweet-thread about the Page testimony ("I'm tweeting my responses while reading it" kind of thing) and before he was halfway done, Seth kind of lost it:

"43/ I just... I mean... this man was brought on STAFF? By a PRESIDENTIAL campaign? To... *do* things? Like, human things? In a...a... place?

44/ Sorry, it's just...man, so much of this is incomprehensible. He doesn't seem to fully appreciate where he is—or *why* he is where he is.

45/ If this is an act—exquisite. At the same time, a person with these issues could act improperly, then "de-grid" that data in their head."


https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/sta...10698611896320
  #577  
Old 11-07-2017, 07:55 AM
Robot Arm is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Medford, MA
Posts: 23,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
I wouldn't shake Donald Trump's hand without legal counsel.
You'd have to find it, first.
  #578  
Old 11-07-2017, 08:02 AM
Fiveyearlurker is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,586
Have we considered the possibility that Carter Page is the Kaiser Soze of this situation?
  #579  
Old 11-07-2017, 08:27 AM
Knowed Out's Avatar
Knowed Out is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: North Kakkalakee
Posts: 14,570
I'm about to go all Alex Jones here, but in a good way.

This CNN summary mentions tidbits of Page having meetings with Russian officials that were tied to efforts to repeal sanctions, but he made it sound like they were just friends hanging out.

For example:
Quote:
Page said he spoke with Andrey Baranov, Rosneft's head of investor relations. But he says that he doesn't recall having any conversation with him about sanctions. He said he didn't remember whether Baranov gave him any documents, though he said Baranov might have given him "an investor relations presentation" but "nothing more substantive than that."
Investor relations? How could a Russian mogul meet with an American liaison about "investor relations" and the subject of sanctions not come up? What else does investor relations cover?

Then this:
Quote:
They made plans to meet up, Page said, because they were friends when he lived in Russia in the mid-2000s. Page lived in Russia for a few years while working as an energy consultant.
Wait, he used to live there? What does an "energy consultant" do? Provide data about non-Russian energy suppliers, look for potential customers outside Russia, and grease political palms, I assume. So 10 years later, he goes back to Russia to look up an old buddy who happens to be head of "investor relations." What do they talk about that's not job-related?

Quote:
A month after the election last year, Page met with Baranov and another Russian man, an unnamed banker with Bank of America and Merrill Lynch, for lunch at Goodman's Steakhouse in Moscow. He said he showed them slides on his laptop from the speech he was about to give in Moscow, and they discussed the election's results.
Oh, he shares a speech he's about to give in MOSCOW with an unnamed banking official who works for American bank branches in Russia, along with his old "investor relations" comrade. So totally innocent. How could Page be so oblivious that his Russian ties could potentially devastate US national security? Well, he did forget to bring a lawyer, so maybe he really is that dumb, and should be locked up for being a moron.
  #580  
Old 11-07-2017, 08:34 AM
Celidin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: NJ
Posts: 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
...Seth Abramson did a tweet-thread about the Page testimony ...
https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/sta...10698611896320
Jesus. Abramson's final couple tweets sum up that whole chain:

Quote:
Originally Posted by https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/927797554120622080
109/ So, in sum: ~10 bombshells here, all of which should be major U.S. news. And Steele's dossier gets a *massive* increase in credibility.

110/ Countless WH lies were exposed. And Sessions/NatSec team lies. And Hope Hicks suddenly becomes a very interesting Trump-Russia witness.

111/ The picture of what happened between Trump and Russia is now getting *very* clear despite it *still* being early- to mid-investigation.

112/ What we saw in this transcript was enough scandal—proof of WH and Trump campaign lies—for 10 administrations. And Mueller knows *more*.

[skipping 113/114]

115/ Today a great blow was struck against the Trump-Russia conspiracy—which is now *undeniable*, and will bring down this presidency. {end}
I mean it's pretty obvious from the transcript (among every other time he's opened his yapper) that Carter Page can't be trusted for almost anything that comes out of his mouth, but that's pretty rich. Even if only a couple of the "bombshells" prove to be true, its devastating.
  #581  
Old 11-07-2017, 09:01 AM
Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker View Post
Carter Page's House testimony is out. Carter Page is equally dumb, crazy and fucked.

There's a lot of fun stuff, but this might be one of my favorites (keep in mind Page has no lawyer):



Mr. Schiff: So it's your position that you can selectively invoke the Fifth Amendment to provide certain documents but withhold other documents?

Mr. Page: […]

Mr. Schiff: Dr. Page, is it your position that you have a Fifth Amendment right to provide nonincriminating emails or documents to the committee but withhold incriminating documents from the committee and selectively comply with the subpoena?

Mr. Page: I — there are no incriminating — nothing I have done is incriminating or even unethical in any way. The only thing — the only thing that —

Mr. Schiff: Dr. Page, if nothing you have is incriminating, then on what basis are you invoking the Fifth Amendment right?
Perhaps a lawyer can comment here, but my impression has always been that Page is correct, and that the 5th Amendment does not put someone in a position where they can't testify about anything at all unless they waive that right entirely. It's unclear what Schiff is saying in this regard.

As for the final part of the quoted exchange here, FYL left off Page's response, which changes things. Page simply said that there's nothing truly incriminating if looked at in proper context, but that he's afraid that it could be presented out of context or as contradictory to other information that the government has gathered, and that he, a "little guy", couldn't possibly hope to counter the government with its vast resources. It's difficult to be completely precise and eloquent in use of language when answering questions on the hot seat, but if you read the testimony without looking for a gotcha, Page comes off pretty well IMHO - at least as far as I've read.

Last edited by Fotheringay-Phipps; 11-07-2017 at 09:04 AM.
  #582  
Old 11-07-2017, 09:12 AM
Richard Parker is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,082
As a general matter, you cannot choose to testify as to part of what you know and assert the Fifth Amendment as to other parts related to that testimony. See Brown v. United States, 356 U.S. 148 (1958). The precise scope of exactly what is waived depends on the jurisdiction, what is testified to, and probably other factors too. As a practical matter, most counseled defendants do not risk the waiver and so they refuse to testify altogether.

The Fifth Amendment does not generally apply to self-incriminating documents, except where the production of the documents is itself incriminating (i.e., it proves you had possession of them, for example).
  #583  
Old 11-07-2017, 09:16 AM
Defensive Indifference is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 7,104
I wish I had a day, day and a half, just to read the Page testimony. It's something else.

I picked a page at random. Page 67 as displayed by Scribd, page 32 on the document. Schiff asks Page about his cell phone. After hemming and hawing, Page admits to having a UK phone and a "Moscow SIM card". Schiff presses Page to make sure he understands he is to turn over those numbers to the Committee, and that Page is representing under oath that these are the only numbers he uses. Then, a bit later, Schiff starts asking Page if he ever tried to conceal his communications or asked anyone else to conceal their communications. Schiff presses Page several times, asking if Page has ever used or encouraged others to use encrypted communication apps. That sounds to me like they are pretty sure he did use some kind of encrypted chat app and Schiff wanted to be absolutely sure Page had every opportunity not to commit perjury.

And a little bit later, the whole part where Page is trying to weasel out of saying that the Deputy Prime Minister of Russia is a high ranking official -- that's just another jaw-dropping exchange. "So you had no private meetings with him?" "Absolutely no, not in July." Then, (paraphrasing) "Oh, I just shook his hand after a talk. Well, and I had dinner with him. But not in July."

This is indistinguishable from a Monty Python sketch

Last edited by Defensive Indifference; 11-07-2017 at 09:19 AM.
  #584  
Old 11-07-2017, 09:32 AM
elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,986
Its a seduction. A gradual series of minor incidents. They don't show up at your office with a big sack of greasy rubles and say "Here is much money for you, betray country and is yours!"

You meet an utterly not-government guy, a professor, for instance. He is impressed with the depth of your analysis and understanding, even though your analysis has no more depth than a story in People magazine. (You don't realize this because you are, well, kinda stupid.) Perhaps you will come to Moscow, and share your insights and probity with a scholarly meeting? (This works even better if you have some pretensions to academic standing.)

You go, you stay at a nice but modest Moscow hotel but later realize that you weren't billed. If you're smart, maybe you go "Hey, wait a minute, where's my bill?" Maybe you got to your professor friend and say "I am constrained by ethics, here, I can't benefit like this!" Well, your professor friend isn't an official, doesn't have any power to amend things like that, and its only a few rubles, don't worry about it, nobody cares....

Maybe come to this next symposium, perhaps while your there, you can speak with the hotel staff, sort things out. Does this give you the first inkling that there's something kind of shiny and metallic gleaming from that tasty worm dangling on a string? Not if you're stupid, not if you are willing to believe that they merely respect and admire your insight and probity.

You attend, and once again, you are surrounded by impressed and enthusiastic scholars. Not spies, Heaven forfend! Just highly respected academics, like yourself. And while thumping you on the shoulders in congratulation, a small wad of money drops into your pocket. Upon discovery, you run back to your friends and say "Hey, can't have this sort of thing!" And they say "Money, what money? Maybe is honorarium, you keep, yes? But we did not give you money, we are only academic teachers, wearing Goodwillski suits!" How do you give it back if you don't know who to give it back to? So, maybe after making a good faith effort, you keep it, what's the harm?

Do you even feel the smooth velvet as the iron fist closes on your nuts? Done right, you won't. Not even when asked for a small favor, a minor thing, really. By the way, here is a receipt from the hotel saying you paid for your stay. You didn't? Sorry, little misunderstanding, you just keep the receipt in case you need it while we try and sort things out. And that charge for watching Teenage Lesbian Vampire Sluts from Outer Space, obviously a mistake, we'll take care of that as well. Money? What money, nobody says they gave you money, who do you give it back to?

Congratulations, you are an asset. Funny thing, in Russian, its spelled "asshat".
  #585  
Old 11-07-2017, 09:37 AM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,058
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
It's difficult to be completely precise and eloquent in use of language when answering questions on the hot seat, but if you read the testimony without looking for a gotcha, Page comes off pretty well IMHO - at least as far as I've read.
You are fucking adorable. Don't ever change.
  #586  
Old 11-07-2017, 09:38 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,396
I skimmed Carter Page's testimony very briefly. Two things caught my eye:

(1) In his written testimony, he repeatedly refers to the U.S. government in 2016 as the Clinton/Obama regime (no quotes). He refers to the Russian government as the so-called "Putin regime" (with quote marks). Childish? Or does he think Obama was an autocrat while Putin's government is the one with checks and balances?

(2) Page denies expressing a willingness to "share [with fellow Trumpists] further information about [his trip to Russia]."
Schiff finds a memo written by Page that contradicts this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carter Page
"I'll send you [Trump] guys a readout soon regarding some incredible insights and outreach I received from a few Russian legislators and senior members of the Presidential administration here."
Did this jog Page's memory? No! The "incredible insights and outreach" from top Russian officials were, he now tells Schiff, "not information ... just general insights [from] watching Russian TV."

"Incredible insights and outreach" turn into "watching TV"? What's the threshold for perjury?
  #587  
Old 11-07-2017, 10:02 AM
cmyk's Avatar
cmyk is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Mitt
Posts: 14,225
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
I skimmed Carter Page's testimony very briefly. Two things caught my eye:

(1) In his written testimony, he repeatedly refers to the U.S. government in 2016 as the Clinton/Obama regime (no quotes). He refers to the Russian government as the so-called "Putin regime" (with quote marks). Childish? Or does he think Obama was an autocrat while Putin's government is the one with checks and balances?

(2) Page denies expressing a willingness to "share [with fellow Trumpists] further information about [his trip to Russia]."
Schiff finds a memo written by Page that contradicts this:

Did this jog Page's memory? No! The "incredible insights and outreach" from top Russian officials were, he now tells Schiff, "not information ... just general insights [from] watching Russian TV."

"Incredible insights and outreach" turn into "watching TV"? What's the threshold for perjury?
The guy's as big a nutjob as they come, which isn't surprising since he's affiliated with the Trump campaign.

And, how can outreach be from the TV? What is outreach, if it isn't somebody reaching out?
  #588  
Old 11-07-2017, 10:10 AM
elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,986
In Russia, TV watches you!
  #589  
Old 11-07-2017, 10:17 AM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
In Russia, TV watches you!
Quite possibly the most perfect use of this tired old 80s meme ever. I about choked on my toast.

Last edited by Happy Lendervedder; 11-07-2017 at 10:18 AM.
  #590  
Old 11-07-2017, 10:22 AM
Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
As a general matter, you cannot choose to testify as to part of what you know and assert the Fifth Amendment as to other parts related to that testimony. See Brown v. United States, 356 U.S. 148 (1958). The precise scope of exactly what is waived depends on the jurisdiction, what is testified to, and probably other factors too. As a practical matter, most counseled defendants do not risk the waiver and so they refuse to testify altogether.
OK, thanks. So as I understand you, Page may have waived his FA rights by testifying in part, or he may not have, depending on the details. He would undoubtedly have been better advised to get some quality legal advice before testifying in this manner. But it doesn't automatically follow that he's wrong either, and this would have to be hashed out by lawyers.

Quote:
The Fifth Amendment does not generally apply to self-incriminating documents, except where the production of the documents is itself incriminating (i.e., it proves you had possession of them, for example).
I believe it's also the case that overly broad document subpoenas qualify for FA protection. In this case, Schiff said the subpoena in question was for "all documents relevant to the investigation", which sounds like it would qualify, unless he was speaking imprecisely.
  #591  
Old 11-07-2017, 10:22 AM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
Quite possibly the most perfect use of this tired old 80s meme ever. I about choked on my toast.
Agreed. It never gets old, when employed with an artful touch. Cracked me up, too.
  #592  
Old 11-07-2017, 10:23 AM
enipla is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Colorado Rockies.
Posts: 14,415
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
Quite possibly the most perfect use of this tired old 80s meme ever. I about choked on my toast.
Yes, bravo.
__________________
I don't live in the middle of nowhere, but I can see it from here.
  #593  
Old 11-07-2017, 10:25 AM
cmyk's Avatar
cmyk is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Mitt
Posts: 14,225
+1
  #594  
Old 11-07-2017, 10:37 AM
Crotalus's Avatar
Crotalus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Chillicothe, Ohio
Posts: 6,054
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
In Russia, TV watches you!
I think this is the first time in years that this tired old joke has made me smile.
  #595  
Old 11-07-2017, 10:54 AM
Fubaya is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,898
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
Page comes off pretty well IMHO - at least as far as I've read.
I think maybe you clicked the wrong link and are reading John Carter From Mars.

Carter Page is about 12 minutes in to his 15 minutes of fame and the only question I have is whether he will have time to go sovereign citizen in the time he has left.
  #596  
Old 11-07-2017, 10:57 AM
Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bayard View Post
I wish I had a day, day and a half, just to read the Page testimony. It's something else.
I certainly agree that if you read it skewed a certain way and present it out of context and incorrectly, then it might be "something else".

Quote:
I picked a page at random. Page 67 as displayed by Scribd, page 32 on the document. Schiff asks Page about his cell phone. After hemming and hawing, Page admits to having a UK phone and a "Moscow SIM card". Schiff presses Page to make sure he understands he is to turn over those numbers to the Committee, and that Page is representing under oath that these are the only numbers he uses. Then, a bit later, Schiff starts asking Page if he ever tried to conceal his communications or asked anyone else to conceal their communications. Schiff presses Page several times, asking if Page has ever used or encouraged others to use encrypted communication apps. That sounds to me like they are pretty sure he did use some kind of encrypted chat app and Schiff wanted to be absolutely sure Page had every opportunity not to commit perjury.
Can't figure out what you're even getting at here. It sounds like you're just assuming that Page was lying and find that amusing, but it's hard to see what your basis was.

Quote:
And a little bit later, the whole part where Page is trying to weasel out of saying that the Deputy Prime Minister of Russia is a high ranking official -- that's just another jaw-dropping exchange.
This is misleading and ridiculous. There's nothing in that exchange which indicates that Page was trying to deny that the DPM was a high ranking official. And that's even if you ignore that Page himself had earlier (pages 12-13) brought up his contact with the guy of his own accord and described him as "a senior Russian government official".

Quote:
"So you had no private meetings with him?" "Absolutely no, not in July." Then, (paraphrasing) "Oh, I just shook his hand after a talk. Well, and I had dinner with him. But not in July."
Nothing here either. He was specifically being questioned about who he met during his trip to Russia in July. When he mentioned that he never had a private meeting with the guy in July, Schiff asked about a later meeting, at which point Page said they had both attended the same dinner in December. But it's not like he was initially asked an open-ended question and only qualified his response to be about July when called on it.

As above, Page comes across pretty good in his testimony, at least in the parts that I've read. (FTR, when I say "good" I mean in the specific context of whether he looks like he's trying to lie about things or not; this is not a commentary about his qualifications otherwise.)

In general, it's very very difficult to answer many of these questions both truthfully and precisely, and there's always going to be room for people looking to attack you. You try to be precise and you look like you're weaseling, even if your attempts at precision are completely successful, which they most likely won't be. And if you're imprecise, then you will inevitably be tripped up.

If you look at Schiff's questioning, after Page said he was invoking the 5th, Schiff said (page 26) that "this is the first that minority counsel is learning of this". Then it turns out (page 43) that Page had sent a letter to the committee informing them of his intentions and this letter had been forwarded to the minority. So Schiff said yeah, well he thought they had subsequently come to some sort of agreement that he would not invoke it. So was Schiff lying earlier? I'm guessing probably not, but his statement was certainly more misleading than anything I see coming out of Page.
  #597  
Old 11-07-2017, 11:01 AM
Defensive Indifference is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 7,104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
I certainly agree that if you read it skewed a certain way and present it out of context and incorrectly, then it might be "something else".
OK.
  #598  
Old 11-07-2017, 11:24 AM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 31,829
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker View Post
There's a lot of fun stuff, but this might be one of my favorites (keep in mind Page has no lawyer):
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
Come again?

I wouldn't shake Donald Trump's hand without legal counsel.
According to the transcript, Page asserts that he never has shaken Donald Trump's hand.
  #599  
Old 11-07-2017, 11:36 AM
Richard Parker is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
OK, thanks. So as I understand you, Page may have waived his FA rights by testifying in part, or he may not have, depending on the details. He would undoubtedly have been better advised to get some quality legal advice before testifying in this manner. But it doesn't automatically follow that he's wrong either, and this would have to be hashed out by lawyers.

I believe it's also the case that overly broad document subpoenas qualify for FA protection. In this case, Schiff said the subpoena in question was for "all documents relevant to the investigation", which sounds like it would qualify, unless he was speaking imprecisely.
No, I don't think we are on the same page. (Pun intended!)

As to document requests--which is what the question was about, as I understood the context--the general rule of the the Fifth Amendment simply does not apply. The exception is if the production itself proves something necessary to a crime (usually that you had custody of the document, as in a case where you previously testified under oath that you did not). Otherwise, most documents are just evidence like a murder weapon. There is no testimonial privilege as to them. Overly broad subpoena requests can be improper on any number of other grounds, but the Fifth Amendment is not one of them.

Moreover, fear that the government will take things out of context and steamroll is not a basis for asserting the Fifth Amendment. If it were, you could (and should!) claim it every time the government seeks information from you, since that is how all governments behave.

To the extent the discussion was over his testimony, then yes, it is true that it is possible to testify as to some things without waiving privilege over others. Indeed, I suspect that the line-drawing is even more complicated here because the Congress context adds different considerations, so it may well be that nobody really knows the answer as to scope of waiver in that context.
  #600  
Old 11-07-2017, 11:44 AM
elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,986
Observed in the wild, this droll bit from Daily Kos, regarding the challenges of reading the Page testimony transcripts...

Quote:
...The entire 243-page transcript contains slightly fewer Russian names than The Brothers Karamazov. Slightly. And also slightly less sense than a conceptual model of a Thomas Pynchon novel painted by Jackson Pollock. ...
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/201...nity#read-more

(Liberal cooties protocol recommended.)
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:25 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017