Other than you, no.
Nonsense. Unless you twist things out of context, of course. All bets are off, in that case.
It is, but you keep doing it.
You accused him of extorting false testimony out of witnesses. There is no other way to read your words here.
Do you know what the words “what he thinks happened” mean?
Do you know what integrity and principle are?
The poor soul has literally been reduced to digging up pro-Enron stories. Just let him be, guys. It’s no longer any fun.
It’s a Trump tactic.
“Many people are saying” … which really means “I’m a fucking liar and I’m pulling turds right outta my ass”.
I dug up those stories in response to people asking for cites.
But this is an illustration of how it’s sometimes a mistake to respond to requests for cites, especially when the requests are not made in good faith as is so frequently the case. (And especially since the response is likely to go over the heads of many people, as the post after this one illustrates.)
A TrumpSucker? Integrity and principle?
Pffffft.
Most of them can’t even spell those words.
Yes. What do you think they mean?
I take it that you are saying that they need to have stories that fit with “what he thinks happened”, and if the stories that they tell do not fit “what he thinks happened”, then there will be “life-altering consequence[s]”, and that he is not just threatening to do this, but has already done so, “to great acclaim.”
If you were not trying to make the claim that he was extorting them to perjure themselves, what were you trying to claim?
Non-denial followed by duly-twisted panties noted.
Yes, you provided cites as to who was saying what about the Enron case. Of course, you brought up the Enron case in the first place to distract from your blatant smear of Mueller, and now after further smears and distractions are attempting to claim that we’re the ones not arguing in good faith.
And I too would be interested to read a plausible explanation of what you meant by “what he thinks happened” that doesn’t imply that Mueller was extorting false testimony out of witnesses.
I see this is following the pattern of previous exchanges with you. I’m going to respond this once, but probably not after that.
If Mueller is pressuring witnesses to say “what he thinks happened”, then from his perspective he’s pressuring them to tell the truth. Anyone pressuring anyone else to tell the truth is pressuring them to say what he believes is the truth.
This is SOP for prosecutors. There’s no prosecutor in the world who tells his target “I’ll offer you the exact same deal regardless of whether your testimony implicates other people who I think are guilty or doesn’t”. That would be silly.
If you want to educate yourself about this matter you can read a couple of scholarly articles on the subject that I linked in an earlier post (or any number of other articles out there which are readily available - this is a known issue). If you’re unwilling or unable to do so then we’re done.
Yes, and so do you. :rolleyes: It means you’re accusing Mueller of being driven by a preferred conclusion rather than the facts, but you just don’t have the integrity and guts to say so directly.
Maybe you can find a *relevant *one if you look a little harder. Maybe.
What’s that, I hold you to your words? I can see why you would want to run from that.
So, what you are saying is that he is pressuring them to tell the story that he wants them to tell, not what the truth is.
Of course not. If a prosecutor does not have reason to believe that a witness has anything to offer a case, he is not going to ask them to testify, and certainly not going to give them a deal.
Still doesn’t mean that he is asking them to perjure themselves, as was your claim.
Current events have so owned you in this thread you don’t need to assist reality by turning to badly-interpreted history. But you do you.
F-P could just be demonstrating more of the “there’s no such thing as facts” stuff that Fox watchers have been eagerly swallowing lately along with their Trump-Aid and their GW denialism. In that version of reality, Mueller isn’t running down evidence and testimony to prove in court what he *knows *happened; he’s just chasing what is no more than his own *opinion *about what happened, and everyone’s got opinions.
Sessions won’t appoint a second special counsel to investigate Hillary and the FBI; Nunes weeps bitter tears.
Ok, I made up the second part.
This seems to indicate that Gates’ sweet deal was because he gave up something important on someone more important than himself.
“Special counsel Robert Mueller’s team last year made clear it wanted former Trump campaign deputy Rick Gates’ help, not so much against his former business partner Paul Manafort, but with its central mission: investigating the Trump campaign’s contact with the Russians. New information disclosed in court filings and to CNN this week begin to show how they’re getting it.”
OTOH, the office of the investigator general is conducting his own investigation, and the OIG, an office within Jefferson Beauregard Sessions’ DoJ, has been delivering some pretty big wins for the Trump administration as of late. It’s clear that Justice has become politicized as of late, which makes one wonder if the OIG, operating under the pretense of bureaucratic objectivity, hasn’t itself become corrupted.