Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #601  
Old 11-07-2017, 12:47 PM
jsc1953 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 10,769
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
According to the transcript, Page asserts that he never has shaken Donald Trump's hand.
Well, ok then. Nothing to see here, folks....move along.
  #602  
Old 11-07-2017, 12:50 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 23,912
He barely knew the man!
  #603  
Old 11-07-2017, 01:14 PM
Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11,990
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
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.
Here's a cite
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newsweek
For these reasons, it is often said that subpoenas for documents cannot be resisted on Fifth Amendment grounds.

There is an important exception, however, and it may be in play in the Flynn case. The Supreme Court held in connection with one of the criminal prosecutions of Webb Hubbell, a former associate attorney general who was subpoenaed by the independent counsel investigating President Bill Clinton’s Whitewater real estate investments, that when a subpoena for documents is extremely broad and amounts to a “fishing expedition,” then the testimonial aspects of production can be far more reaching and consequential.

The Court held that:
It is apparent from the text of the subpoena itself that the prosecutor needed respondent’s assistance both to identify potential sources of information and to produce those sources…. Given the breadth of the description of the 11 categories of documents called for by the subpoena, the collection and production of the materials demanded was tantamount to answering a series of interrogatories asking a witness to disclose the existence and location of particular documents fitting certain broad descriptions….

What the District Court characterized as a “fishing expedition” did produce a fish, but not the one that the Independent Counsel expected to hook. It is abundantly clear that the testimonial aspect of respondent’s act of producing subpoenaed documents was the first step in a chain of evidence that led to this prosecution. The documents did not magically appear in the prosecutor’s office like “manna from heaven.” They arrived there only after respondent asserted his constitutional privilege, received a grant of immunity, and–under the compulsion of the District Court’s order–took the mental and physical steps necessary to provide the prosecutor with an accurate inventory of the many sources of potentially incriminating evidence sought by the subpoena.
The problem with a “fishing expedition” subpoena, the Hubbell court found, is that the subpoenaed witness is no longer simply required to perform the narrow, ministerial act of surrendering documents that do not themselves enjoy Fifth Amendment protection.

Rather, the witness is essentially being asked to assemble pieces of the case against him or her, and that then can be considered “self-incriminating.”

The consequence in the Hubbell case was the dismissal of the indictment, as it was largely constructed on the basis of the documents obtained from the subpoena of him.

On the basis of this decision, Courts have held that in order to avoid triggering the broad Fifth Amendment concerns that arose in Hubbell, prosecutors (or congressional investigators) must describe the documents that they are seeking with “reasonable particularity.”

While that standard does not require the government to identify each and every document within a group of documents of which it is aware, it does not ordinarily allow the government simply to assert that given the witness’s activities, he or she “must have” such documents in his or her possession.
If asking someone to turn over "all documents relevant to our investigation" is not "asking a witness to disclose the existence and location of particular documents fitting certain broad descriptions" then it's hard to imagine what is.

Quote:
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.
I don't understand this. If there's reason to believe that the government can and will use this document to incriminate you by taking things out of context or otherwise, then it would seem no different than any other use of the Fifth Amendment.

Anyone who pleads the Fifth is not essentially admitting guilt. They're saying that this evidence might look very bad for them, and while they think they're innocent anyway based on an alternative interpretation of the evidence or the weight of other evidence, they're afraid that prosecutors and judges/juries might not look at it that way. How is this situation any different?
  #604  
Old 11-07-2017, 01:23 PM
Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
Here's a citeIf asking someone to turn over "all documents relevant to our investigation" is not "asking a witness to disclose the existence and location of particular documents fitting certain broad descriptions" then it's hard to imagine what is.
Interesting. Obviously, this is the exception I outlined (where production itself implicates some kind of testimonial fact), but applied in a clever way to a broad subpoena. I agree that under that precedent Page probably has a Fifth Amendment defense. However, it would be by its nature categorical, I would think, given the nature of the argument. If you produce some, I would expect that to constitute waiver.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
I don't understand this. If there's reason to believe that the government can and will use this document to incriminate you by taking things out of context or otherwise, then it would seem no different than any other use of the Fifth Amendment.
There is always reason to believe that, though. What reasonable limit could there be to such an interpretation of the Fifth Amendment?

Last edited by Richard Parker; 11-07-2017 at 01:24 PM.
  #605  
Old 11-07-2017, 01:30 PM
Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11,990
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
There is always reason to believe that, though. What reasonable limit could there be to such an interpretation of the Fifth Amendment?
OK, but that seems to be how it works anyway. I suppose if the prosecution argues that "there's no way this info could be used to incriminate this guy", then a judge would have to rule on it.

Or are you really claiming that anyone who asserts FA rights is essentially admitting guilt?
  #606  
Old 11-07-2017, 01:38 PM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,867
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
Or are you really claiming that anyone who asserts FA rights is essentially admitting guilt?
I wouldn't say that, but someone else would.

Quote:
"If you are not guilty of a crime, what do you need immunity for?" Trump said at a campaign rally in Florida in September.

"The mob takes the Fifth Amendment," Trump said at a campaign event in Iowa later that month. "If you're innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?"
  #607  
Old 11-07-2017, 02:35 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,820
Y'know, I know that there are subtle nuances to how Fifth Amendment rights work. And I'm also aware that I don't understand all of those subtle nuances myself. Which is why, if I were ever in a position where the Fifth Amendment is relevant, I would make sure to hire someone whose job is to know and understand all of those subtle nuances, and to listen to his advice.

EDIT: But what would we call such a professional? He'd obviously be more law-y than me. Where could I look to find someone who's lawy-er than me?

Last edited by Chronos; 11-07-2017 at 02:36 PM.
  #608  
Old 11-07-2017, 02:38 PM
Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 30,592
I think it's something like law-talking guy.
  #609  
Old 11-07-2017, 02:45 PM
elucidator is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,217
"Eskewers". If you "S" is askew, they will straighten it.
  #610  
Old 11-07-2017, 02:54 PM
Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11,990
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Y'know, I know that there are subtle nuances to how Fifth Amendment rights work. And I'm also aware that I don't understand all of those subtle nuances myself. Which is why, if I were ever in a position where the Fifth Amendment is relevant, I would make sure to hire someone whose job is to know and understand all of those subtle nuances, and to listen to his advice.
I noted this earlier.

But one thing to consider is that Page, by his own testimony, is not a rich guy and doesn't have much income and has been mostly living off savings over the past decade. The legal bills for people caught up in this investigation are easily 6 or even 7 figures and no one is going to reimburse that, no matter how innocent you may be. I can see where a guy who is absolutely convinced of his innocence might decide that if he hires a lawyer he will definitely be ruined, while if he goes it alone he at least has a shot.

Last edited by Fotheringay-Phipps; 11-07-2017 at 02:55 PM.
  #611  
Old 11-07-2017, 03:08 PM
cmyk's Avatar
cmyk is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Central Finite Curve
Posts: 14,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
I noted this earlier.

But one thing to consider is that Page, by his own testimony, is not a rich guy and doesn't have much income and has been mostly living off savings over the past decade. The legal bills for people caught up in this investigation are easily 6 or even 7 figures and no one is going to reimburse that, no matter how innocent you may be. I can see where a guy who is absolutely convinced of his innocence might decide that if he hires a lawyer he will definitely be ruined, while if he goes it alone he at least has a shot.
If he’s going to be conspiring with Russians, he should be laundering money and evading taxes to afford lawyers—just like his cohorts. It just underlines how stupid he really is.

Last edited by cmyk; 11-07-2017 at 03:10 PM.
  #612  
Old 11-07-2017, 03:17 PM
Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 12,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
OK, but that seems to be how it works anyway. I suppose if the prosecution argues that "there's no way this info could be used to incriminate this guy", then a judge would have to rule on it.

Or are you really claiming that anyone who asserts FA rights is essentially admitting guilt?
No, of course I am not claiming that.

All I'm saying is that it's not enough to merely claim that the people asking for the information are going to try to use it against you. There must also be some nexus between the information and their likelihood to prosecute you. You have to be able to articulate in fairly concrete terms how it will increase that danger if pressed. That encompasses a large swath of innocent facts. But it isn't enough merely to be paranoid.

On these facts as we know them, what crime does Page believe he is at greater danger of prosecution for by releasing, say, an email arranging a meeting with a Russian professor? Quite unclear to me what it might be.
  #613  
Old 11-07-2017, 03:25 PM
elucidator is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,217
Well, that's a thought. He is apparently that stupid, he might actually believe that he is entirely and utterly innocent and need fear nothing. All he has to do is hide the stuff that might be misunderstood or misinterpreted deliberately. 'Course, he would kinda have to know what that stuff is, which implies a carefully sculpted ignorance.
  #614  
Old 11-07-2017, 03:28 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
I noted this earlier.

But one thing to consider is that Page, by his own testimony, is not a rich guy and doesn't have much income and has been mostly living off savings over the past decade. The legal bills for people caught up in this investigation are easily 6 or even 7 figures and no one is going to reimburse that, no matter how innocent you may be. I can see where a guy who is absolutely convinced of his innocence might decide that if he hires a lawyer he will definitely be ruined, while if he goes it alone he at least has a shot.
I know a way for him to earn government housing, full health care, daily meals, and a strictly regimented schedule for the rest of his life, for FREE!
  #615  
Old 11-07-2017, 03:31 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,820
I'm not saying I'd hire an entire crack legal team that'd cost tens of megabucks. I'd still hire at least one lawyer, singular. And if he can't afford to hire even one lawyer, he could probably set up a GoFundMe or something to help defend himself against those evil liberals: There are enough people who'd bite for that.
  #616  
Old 11-07-2017, 03:39 PM
Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11,990
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Parker View Post
All I'm saying is that it's not enough to merely claim that the people asking for the information are going to try to use it against you. There must also be some nexus between the information and their likelihood to prosecute you. You have to be able to articulate in fairly concrete terms how it will increase that danger if pressed. That encompasses a large swath of innocent facts. But it isn't enough merely to be paranoid.

On these facts as we know them, what crime does Page believe he is at greater danger of prosecution for by releasing, say, an email arranging a meeting with a Russian professor? Quite unclear to me what it might be.
OK, that's a bit of a different issue. Page explains his issue on pages 27-28 of his testimony.

If he's not specific enough, then I guess he would lose that case. But it's not like he's being "paranoid" - people really are out to get him.
  #617  
Old 11-07-2017, 03:44 PM
Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11,990
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
I'm not saying I'd hire an entire crack legal team that'd cost tens of megabucks. I'd still hire at least one lawyer, singular.
Yes, he might be making a mistake. I was just suggesting what his reasoning might be.

But beyond that, I don't know if what you suggest is possible.

If there's a case which is far ranging and complex enough such that a quality defense requires enough hours and resources so as to cost 6 figures. You walk into a lawyer and say "I can't afford that much money, but spend a few hours here and there to make sure I don't go completely off the rails". Is the lawyer allowed to take the case on those conditions? I wouldn't be surprised if that's a violation of legal ethics, since the lawyer would be contracting to do a sub-par job.
  #618  
Old 11-07-2017, 03:51 PM
Defensive Indifference is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 7,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
I'm not saying I'd hire an entire crack legal team that'd cost tens of megabucks. I'd still hire at least one lawyer, singular. And if he can't afford to hire even one lawyer, he could probably set up a GoFundMe or something to help defend himself against those evil liberals: There are enough people who'd bite for that.
On the campaign trail, Trump promised to pay the legal fees of supporters who were arrested for beating up protesters. I guess that offer doesn't extend to campaign aides in hot water for playing footsie with the Russians, even though Trump is using RNC and campaign money to pay for his own lawyers.
  #619  
Old 11-07-2017, 03:57 PM
Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11,990
I don't think Trump's promises are ever worth much. But in this case even if he was inclined to do it, I imagine his own lawyers would strongly advise him against paying legal fees for other people caught up in the investigation. (I'm guessing it might be witness tampering, but even if it's not, it wouldn't be good for him.)
  #620  
Old 11-07-2017, 04:04 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 23,912
Well, regardless of the charming need to always defend these guys, I'm not too sure defending *Carter Page's* reasoning as to how the 5th works is a winning debate. But what do I know?

Who does know, of course, are the Congresspersons who were rather incredulous and disbelieving as to Mr. Page's claims. Next move is up to them.

But, just... shit, can't we find out about an inappropriate contact with someone NOT involved with Putin/Russia? Just one?
  #621  
Old 11-07-2017, 05:32 PM
Anny Middon is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
I noted this earlier.

But one thing to consider is that Page, by his own testimony, is not a rich guy and doesn't have much income and has been mostly living off savings over the past decade. The legal bills for people caught up in this investigation are easily 6 or even 7 figures and no one is going to reimburse that, no matter how innocent you may be. I can see where a guy who is absolutely convinced of his innocence might decide that if he hires a lawyer he will definitely be ruined, while if he goes it alone he at least has a shot.
There's no one who donated megabucks to the campaign that wouldn't throw a few thou Page's way to pay for an attorney for a couple of days?

ETA Or there are no Tumpista lawyers who wouldn't take him on pro bono?

Last edited by Anny Middon; 11-07-2017 at 05:36 PM.
  #622  
Old 11-07-2017, 05:55 PM
Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 30,592
Someone tried, but Grabby McGrabbyfingers thought he was offering to throw a few thousand pages his way.
  #623  
Old 11-07-2017, 05:56 PM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 16,925
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anny Middon View Post
There's no one who donated megabucks to the campaign that wouldn't throw a few thou Page's way to pay for an attorney for a couple of days?

ETA Or there are no Tumpista lawyers who wouldn't take him on pro bono?
I think we're getting to the "every man [sic] for himself" stage.
  #624  
Old 11-07-2017, 06:21 PM
Snarky_Kong is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,435
A guy under oath claims the Trump campaign and Kremlin had multiple meetings and that the AG committed perjury, and there's someone saying there's nothing there. Yeah, sure.
  #625  
Old 11-07-2017, 06:56 PM
Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,870
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThelmaLou View Post
I think we're getting to the "every man [sic] for himself" stage.
Yes. Yes, we are.

J.D. Gordon, then the director of the campaign's National Security Advisory Committee, told Business Insider that then-campaign manager Corey Lewandowski approved Page's request to travel to Moscow last July.

"I discouraged Carter from taking the trip to Moscow in the first place because it was a bad idea," Gordon said. "Since I refused to forward his speech request form for approval, he eventually went around me directly to campaign leadership."
  #626  
Old 11-07-2017, 06:58 PM
Senegoid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Sunny California
Posts: 14,997
Geez, the incoherent language that guy babbles. You'd think it was Trump Hisself holding forth. He serves up everyone's Daily Recommended Diet of word salad.
__________________
=========================================
  #627  
Old 11-07-2017, 07:28 PM
cmyk's Avatar
cmyk is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Central Finite Curve
Posts: 14,258
“Well you see, because I — in that I mean — now look. When I say I talked — and now I want to be very careful here — when I say "talked" here, what I really want to be clear is — "talked" means — now before I define what it is I mean about defining "talked" is that I want to be sure this committee understands that I get that they want to understand context — and by context, I mean in which the words I use today will be understood in a way that makes me not appear — okay, now, what I really want to say is that I maybe I talked with a Russian — but it was very brief and — now what I mean about "brief" is under 30 minutes — but this committee might misconstrue the time as being more that what it might appear in that —”

*IC collectively shoots their brains out*
  #628  
Old 11-07-2017, 07:39 PM
elucidator is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,217
Hey! That isn't a genuine transcript! You got to get up pretty early in the afternoon to fool me!
  #629  
Old 11-07-2017, 07:40 PM
cmyk's Avatar
cmyk is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Central Finite Curve
Posts: 14,258
Kinda reminds me of Jerry from Fargo.
  #630  
Old 11-07-2017, 07:46 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmyk View Post
Kinda reminds me of Jerry from Fargo.
LOL, excellent comparison. How long till he slides out the back door and makes a run for it, d'ya think?
  #631  
Old 11-07-2017, 07:54 PM
cmyk's Avatar
cmyk is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Central Finite Curve
Posts: 14,258
Cantchya see?! I'm cooperating!!

[Runs for Canadian border]
  #632  
Old 11-07-2017, 08:07 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 23,912
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
LOL, excellent comparison. How long till he slides out the back door and makes a run for it, d'ya think?
You betcha!
  #633  
Old 11-07-2017, 08:18 PM
standingwave is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
Hey! That isn't a genuine transcript! You got to get up pretty early in the afternoon to fool me!
Seth Meyers nailed it last night on Trump' s fumbling a softball question during an interview:

“In the span of 20 seconds, Trump’s defense went from ‘there is no collusion’ to ‘i’m not involved in any collusion’ to ‘i’m not under investigation’ to ‘you got the wrong guy.’ If Trump were ever called in for questioning, he’d crack immediately. ‘Where were you on the night of the 14th?’ ‘Certainly not robbing a bank, but I bet Hillary was!'”

https://youtu.be/uCazyPcsv8s

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
  #634  
Old 11-07-2017, 08:37 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmyk View Post
Cantchya see?! I'm cooperating!!

[Runs for Canadian border]
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
You betcha!
You two are killing me.
  #635  
Old 11-07-2017, 08:57 PM
elucidator is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,217
Soon you will be feeling chipper.
  #636  
Old 11-07-2017, 09:01 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
Soon you will be feeling chipper.
True... it's been a real grind of a year. But I'll go out on a limb and say things are looking up.
  #637  
Old 11-07-2017, 10:37 PM
Andy L is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 6,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
LOL, excellent comparison. How long till he slides out the back door and makes a run for it, d'ya think?
He's fleeing the interview!
  #638  
Old 11-07-2017, 11:56 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 30,119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
Yes, he might be making a mistake. I was just suggesting what his reasoning might be.



But beyond that, I don't know if what you suggest is possible.



If there's a case which is far ranging and complex enough such that a quality defense requires enough hours and resources so as to cost 6 figures. You walk into a lawyer and say "I can't afford that much money, but spend a few hours here and there to make sure I don't go completely off the rails". Is the lawyer allowed to take the case on those conditions? I wouldn't be surprised if that's a violation of legal ethics, since the lawyer would be contracting to do a sub-par job.


Increasingly, Bar Associations and Law Societies are allowing limited retainers for just this reason. If a person had some money, but not enough for a full defence, it's better that he get some legal advice rather than none.

A limited retainer has to be carefully drawn, but they are permitted in many jurisdictions
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #639  
Old 11-08-2017, 12:13 AM
Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
Increasingly, Bar Associations and Law Societies are allowing limited retainers for just this reason. If a person had some money, but not enough for a full defence, it's better that he get some legal advice rather than none.

A limited retainer has to be carefully drawn, but they are permitted in many jurisdictions
"For $100, I will gladly go court and attest to the judge that you are a fucking moron."
  #640  
Old 11-08-2017, 02:57 AM
Superdude's Avatar
Superdude is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Fortress of Solidude
Posts: 10,706
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
"Eskewers". If you "S" is askew, they will straighten it.
"Stop quoting your dad's divorce lawyer commercials."
  #641  
Old 11-08-2017, 08:22 AM
Ike Witt's Avatar
Ike Witt is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Lost in the mists of time
Posts: 15,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmyk View Post
“Well you see, because I — in that I mean — now look. When I say I talked — and now I want to be very careful here — when I say "talked" here, what I really want to be clear is — "talked" means — now before I define what it is I mean about defining "talked" is that I want to be sure this committee understands that I get that they want to understand context — and by context, I mean in which the words I use today will be understood in a way that makes me not appear — okay, now, what I really want to say is that I maybe I talked with a Russian — but it was very brief and — now what I mean about "brief" is under 30 minutes — but this committee might misconstrue the time as being more that what it might appear in that —”

*IC collectively shoots their brains out*
Too bad there isn't a House Dullard Committee for him to testify to.
  #642  
Old 11-08-2017, 08:33 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 24,115
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThelmaLou View Post
I think we're getting to the "every man [sic] for himself" stage.
With all the people being thrown under it, we're gonna need a bigger bus.
__________________
"Don't delude yourself into thinking we're interested in you. We're just here for the trainwreck, man." - DooWahDiddy
  #643  
Old 11-08-2017, 03:25 PM
GrandWino's Avatar
GrandWino is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Evanstonia
Posts: 9,642
F-P thinks there was nothing damning in Pages testimony?

F-P, I know you don't enjoy reading outside sources as you've proved a multitude of times, but here's a good rundown of what Seth Abramson considers to be 28 bombshells found within that testimony. I don't expect you to read or accept this , but putting this here for others that might:


Quote:
BOMBSHELL: The White House lied repeatedly about how active Trump's secretive NatSec Advisory Committee was—it met MANY times, not "once."

BOMBSHELL: Kremlin agents lured Page to Russia to meet Kremlin officials and Rosneft execs AFTER he joined the campaign; it wasn't his idea.

BOMBSHELL: MANY Trump campaign aides AND NatSec team members knew Page was going to Russia post-hacking revelations—none tried to stop him.

BOMBSHELL: Page bypassed top policy aides and NatSec peers in telling HOPE HICKS he was going to Russia—suggesting he wanted TRUMP to know.

BOMBSHELL: Given Page and JD Gordon's words, Hicks LIED to the media in saying the campaign had no Russia contacts; she's a key witness now.

BOMBSHELL: Page spoke to the FBI 5-6 times in 2016-7; if he told them what he told Congress, he can be charged with Making False Statements.

BOMBSHELL: Page deliberately withheld deeply inculpatory documents from Congress using a false and legally fraudulent Fifth Amendment claim.

BOMBSHELL: Page met the same Kremlin official and Rosneft exec in BOTH July and December 2016 and lied about BOTH interactions to Congress.

BOMBSHELL: On July 7, 2016, the Kremlin asked Page to carry a message to Trump: we strongly support you and want to work with you on policy.

BOMBSHELL: Page admits discussing sanctions policy with both the Kremlin and Rosneft in July; after, he briefed the campaign on these talks.

BOMBSHELL: As Page briefed the NatSec team and the campaign on his secret Russia meetings, every Trump aide who denied Russia contacts lied.

BOMBSHELL: Page was certain to keep Trump's daily assistant, Hope Hicks, in the loop—Sessions, too—so Trump and Sessions knew what Page did.

BOMBSHELL: As of mid-July, Trump's campaign was *on notice* Russia supported it, wanted to help it, and was offering "outreach"—cooperation.

BOMBSHELL: When Trump said "Russia, if you're listening..." and asked it to release Clinton emails, he was *responding* to Russian outreach.

BOMBSHELL: Page *directly* revealed his Moscow plans to Sessions at an event Sessions set up—didn't disclose—and sat beside Papadopoulos at.

BOMBSHELL: Page admits "the whole [NatSec] group" got Papadopoulos' March 2016 email on the Kremlin wanting to meet—that'd include Sessions.

BOMBSHELL: Page proposed the campaign tell him what to say in Moscow—thus, *to Kremlin agents*—and/or have Trump take the trip in his place.

BOMBSHELL: Everything the Steele Dossier said about Page appears to be either exactly accurate or so close to it as to be indistinguishable.

BOMBSHELL: During his July '16 trip Page discussed the upcoming sale of Rosneft with Rosneft's Investor Relations chief—a key dossier claim.

BOMBSHELL: AFTER we knew of Russia hacking—but BEFORE Trump changed the GOP platform to benefit Putin—Page told Clovis Russia favored Trump.

BOMBSHELL: The NatSec team talked lifting sanctions on Russia—maybe unilaterally—from its earliest days, *right after* the Mayflower Speech.

BOMBSHELL: The NatSec team knew Page was headed to Moscow as a "private citizen" concurrent to discussing sending a "private citizen" there.

BOMBSHELL: Multiple NatSec team members (at least 3) went to Budapest, the European HQ for Russian intelligence; Page met "a Russian" there.

BOMBSHELL: At least 7 of the NatSec team's 14 members were on an email about the GOP platform change—and at least TEN campaign members knew.

BOMBSHELL: None of the NINE campaign members who *knew* Manafort was lying about Trump's role in the GOP platform change revealed the truth.

BOMBSHELL: AT LEAST ten members of the campaign and the NatSec team knew they were helping Putin at a time the Kremlin was supporting Trump.

BOMBSHELL: Page met Kremlin/Rosneft officials in Moscow in December '16—including contact with the MANAGER of Putin's election interference.

  #644  
Old 11-08-2017, 03:52 PM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,277
But her emails! Her emails!
  #645  
Old 11-08-2017, 03:56 PM
Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11,990
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrandWino View Post
F-P thinks there was nothing damning in Pages testimony?

F-P, I know you don't enjoy reading outside sources as you've proved a multitude of times, but here's a good rundown of what Seth Abramson considers to be 28 bombshells found within that testimony. I don't expect you to read or accept this , but putting this here for others that might:
I'm not going to bother reading SA, but I skimmed these points here. I've read enough of the CP transcript to know that most of these "bombshells" are nonsense. Probably the rest too, but there's only so much time and interest I have for this type of thing.
  #646  
Old 11-08-2017, 05:28 PM
GrandWino's Avatar
GrandWino is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Evanstonia
Posts: 9,642
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
...but there's only so much time and interest I have for this type of thing.
We noticed.
  #647  
Old 11-08-2017, 05:32 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 23,912
Yup. All the time in the world to argue for Carter Page's explanation of how the 5th works, none to read any possible rebuttals.
  #648  
Old 11-08-2017, 05:35 PM
Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 11,990
Hey, you discuss what interests you, I discuss what interests me.

Apparently what interests you is discussing far-out partisan crap with others of your ilk who likewise lap up uncritically anything which feeds your fantasies. But everyone has different tastes. Gotta appreciate that.

Last edited by Fotheringay-Phipps; 11-08-2017 at 05:37 PM.
  #649  
Old 11-08-2017, 05:37 PM
GrandWino's Avatar
GrandWino is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Evanstonia
Posts: 9,642
This is a fun lede:

Quote:
The Strange Pleasure of Seeing Carter Page Set Himself on Fire

Watching Carter Page immolate himself and incriminate a half dozen of his colleagues from the Trump-Putin 2016 campaign has been a strange, almost guilty pleasure. Profoundly disconnected, socially awkward, and reeking of late-stage virginity, he gives off the creepy Uncanny Valley vibe of a rogue, possibly murderous android or of a man with a too-extensive knowledge of human taxidermy and a soundproofed van.
  #650  
Old 11-08-2017, 05:40 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 23,912
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
Hey, you discuss what interests you, I discuss what interests me.

Apparently what interests you is discussing far-out partisan crap with others of your ilk who likewise lap up uncritically anything which feeds your fantasies. But everyone has different tastes. Gotta appreciate that.


Knowing what you said, you still said it.

Well, like the banner says... it's taking longer than we thought.
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 05:36 PM.

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 © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017