|
edit: poo poo, wrong thread.
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 01:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 00:23 |
|
|
NOTE: there is a ton of Freeper expertise on legal matters here; an actual lawyer goon replying to this post would make this funnier still. Three threads and about 100 cumulative posts on Nunberg's a) spilling a whole vat of beans b) double-dog-daring Mueller to arrest him. Former Trump aide Sam Nunberg called before grand jury, says he will refuse to go Oh, if he "doesn't want any part of" the Grand Jury, I guess we should just let him go and... hey wait a minute! quote:
*Finally*, in Mueller, Trump has found someone who also plays 11th-dimensional chess. quote:Nunberg sounds like a SHILL, refusing to cooperate in order to make it APPEAR Trump did something wrong. I dunno, is there any "Complete Idiot's Guide to Ignoring a Grand Jury Summons"? quote:
IANAL, what happens when you "plead the fifth" in front of a Grand Jury or whatever? They just let you go or something? Though IANAL I'm pretty sure that immunity does not involve the accused going all POW-mode. quote:
Okay, can someone who *is* a lawyer explain whether this is workable or no? quote:The feds try to trip you up, then charge you with making a false statement. No way I’d testify - I’d plead the 5th knowing anything I said could be twisted against me. Then if they offer me full transactional immunity for anything I did after my first birthday, I’d take it and then explain I don’t recall enough to testify with any certainty at this time. quote:
Okay, lawyer goon, how about this? If he gets jailed for Contempt, and then gets bailed out, he is still not even remotely off the hook for the initial reason they subpoenaed him, right? They can just tell him he's required to come in the Monday after he makes bail, and if he refuses he goes right back in for Contempt, right? And at some point, couldn't they just pick him up from jail in shackles and physically haul him before the Grand Jury? quote:“He can be held in contempt and jailed until he complies.” Is it somehow impossible to subpoena someone while they're in jail? Or is it extra-extra easy? Can't they just lock him up for Contempt, let him sober up, then haul him in? quote:He could go in and sit down and when they ask him to raise his hand to swear him in he should state that he is having a hard time - because he is so drunk. I'm pretty sure a "good lawyer" won't come within a 100yds of you after you call into multiple news shows and dare the Feds to arrest you. quote:IF he has a good lawyer he can fight the subpoena based on fruit of the poison tree. is the Steele dossier and the following FISA warrants Nunberg joins with the heroic martyrs of history: quote:Sort of a Thomas More moment?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 03:59
|
|
|
Wow, taking an immunity deal then not living up to your side of the bargain? Its crazy no one has ever thought about doing that before, what a foolproof loophole that beats ALL criminal investigations!
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 04:10
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:Okay, lawyer goon, how about this? If he gets jailed for Contempt, and then gets bailed out, he is still not even remotely off the hook for the initial reason they subpoenaed him, right? They can just tell him he's required to come in the Monday after he makes bail, and if he refuses he goes right back in for Contempt, right? And at some point, couldn't they just pick him up from jail in shackles and physically haul him before the Grand Jury? Bail is only for if you're imprisoned prior to a trial. If you're declared in contempt, there isn't a trial; the judging body already determined you "guilty" of the offense, that's why they judged you to be in contempt in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 04:13
|
|
|
Mantis42 posted:Wow, taking an immunity deal then not living up to your side of the bargain? Its crazy no one has ever thought about doing that before, what a foolproof loophole that beats ALL criminal investigations! Prosecutors hate this! Learn one simple trick to escape any criminal prosecution! Seriously though, immunity deals are contingent on the defendant providing the testimony they agreed to provide. If they tried to pull a "Don't remember, lol.  " their rear end would be back in prison before they finished the sentence.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 04:40
|
|
|
Okay, I did some cursory Googling on the Fifth. So if you plead the Fifth, at some point in the process you're required to go on-record and explicitly explain to [someone] exactly what incriminating thing you did that you don't want to reveal? What if you do so, and it becomes very evident to your lawyer that what you know about the subject won't actually incriminate you, you just don't want to talk about it because you're covering for someone else? Also, is there such a thing as, say in this case, pleading the Fifth when called to testify about Carter Page, in which you're covering up a crime that has nothing to do with Page? Or is it a given that the self-incriminating material is a crime you committed that is somehow related to Page? Like will the GJ ask you "hey, totally unrelated to Page but since we have you here, did you embezzle any money from the campaign"? Or are you able, without even pleading the Fifth, to avoid questions that have nothing to do with whatever you're testifying about, but are just about you?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 04:48
|
|
|
SocketWrench posted:One death every 60 seconds according to the most recent numbers. Something like 1.6 million homicides per year. I'd say the odds were pretty damned good Acksually... not to be a party pooper, but that number is 16 thousand, not 1.6 million. Still way too high, but you know , it isn't Mad Max levels yet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 05:02
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:Okay, I did some cursory Googling on the Fifth. I'm not a lawyer but my understanding is that you can basically plead the fifth whenever you think that you might incriminate yourself. If memory serves this is why immunity gets traded for testimony when authorities are chasing bigger fish. Part of that is because if you're immune to prosecution thanks to a deal then you can't incriminate yourself because you can't be prosecuted. So if you take an immunity offer then you can be compelled to testify. There's also the clause that you can't use somebody pleading the fifth as proof that they're hiding something because they may very well not actually be. They may be suspected of something; I think it's common for lawyers to tell clients to just not talk to police because if you say the wrong thing you can accidentally incriminate yourself for things you didn't do. I think Motive, Means, & Opportunity can be enough to put somebody on trial for a lot of crimes. So if they can prove you were there and had an opportunity to do something but they can't find a motive saying the wrong thing can get you charged even if it wasn't you. Because a lot of evidence is ultimately circumstantial in the end statements you make can be used as evidence. Allowing you to plead the fifth means that the police can't force you to testify against yourself. I could be wrong but I believe that immunity deals usually pretty specifically enumerate exactly what testimony they want and exactly what you won't be charged with. If they ask questions beyond that you can go "lol nope." I think, anyway; that's just from some of my own random reading on such things and not actual law study. A real problem comes from the fact that a hell of a lot people think that somebody saying "no comment, pleading the fifth" automatically means that they're hiding something. It doesn't always. Given how crazy American law can be and the fact that vague laws still float around "go away, I'm not talking" is the safest thing to say.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 05:08
|
|
|
quote:A real problem comes from the fact that a hell of a lot people think that somebody saying "no comment, pleading the fifth" automatically means that they're hiding something. It doesn't always. Given how crazy American law can be and the fact that vague laws still float around "go away, I'm not talking" is the safest thing to say. Makes sense; Nunberg is just skipping the vital middle step of actually *going* before the Grand Jury to tell them he's not saying anything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 05:24
|
|
|
He hasn't plead the Fifth, hasn't even mentioned it. It looks like he's just going to not comply and dare Mueller to come after him without any real framework for why Mueller can't go after him other than that he 'just won't.' It is odd behavior.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 12:14
|
|
|
Sarcastr0 posted:He hasn't plead the Fifth, hasn't even mentioned it. Shockingly, our blustering, incompetent president has hired a lot of blustering, incompetent employees.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 12:51
|
|
|
Not that matters much since he's already backing down. Sam Nunberg, former Trump aide, vows to defy special counsel in Russia inquiry — then backs down quote:Why is he backing down? quote:To: Innovative No collusion! No collusion! ... Well, maybe a little collusion, but not the illegal kind of collusion! quote:To: Innovative  quote:To: Blue House Sue quote:To: Blue House Sue  quote:To: Innovative A good portion of the thread is Freepers speculating that Nunberg was drunk when he made his original statements which is something I can't discount. quote:To: Innovative
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 14:11
|
|
|
One of the news anchor said she could smell alcohol on his breath, so it seems likely.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 14:17
|
|
|
Jagged Jim posted:A good portion of the thread is Freepers speculating that Nunberg was drunk when he made his original statements which is something I can't discount. Broken clock Freep. Glad to see Nunberg is sobering up a bit, though. My personal favorite is that he got drunk and did all these interviews as a plan to wreck his credibility so that when he does have to testify against his friends on Friday public perception of him will be in the gutter.
Anubis fucked around with this message at 14:58 on Mar 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 14:54
|
|
|
Bobulus posted:One of the news anchor said she could smell alcohol on his breath, so it seems likely. He's also just announced that he's getting treatment
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2018 19:37
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:Makes sense; Nunberg is just skipping the vital middle step of actually *going* before the Grand Jury to tell them he's not saying anything. I could be wrong but I think you can be compelled to go in front of a grand jury but can just plead the fifth there. If memory serves Martin Shkreli's lawyer was advising doing that; as in just show up and say "no comment" a lot. Of course he's going to jail for a long time anyway but still. This is why the phrase "no comment" or "I decline to comment" just shows up everywhere in relation to not only anything that might be incriminating but also embarrassing or privileged. "My response is that I'm not responding in any way that says anything;" it's the "I neither confirm nor deny it" answer. This is also part of why in huge investigations smaller players will get lighter sentences in return for cooperation. Didn't the Mueller investigation clearly do this in a few cases? As in "hey bro, you are guilty as gently caress but we'll give you 2 years instead of 40 if you help us bring down all the other people involved." In any event I'm not a lawyer but even I can tell you that going on national television and taunting major law enforcement people like that is probably not the best of ideas.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 00:51
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:This is also part of why in huge investigations smaller players will get lighter sentences in return for cooperation. Didn't the Mueller investigation clearly do this in a few cases? As in "hey bro, you are guilty as gently caress but we'll give you 2 years instead of 40 if you help us bring down all the other people involved." Yeah, it's what Muller has done with both Flynn and Gates, as both were staring down much heavier charges than the ones they eventually plead out to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 00:58
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:They would most likely try to find something against him, to indict him, then offer him a plea bargain, if he testifies about something bad against Trump.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 01:38
|
|
|
Duke Igthorn posted:"Trump is 100% not guilty but they'd find SOMETHING to charge him with!!" is Freep's official position. This has been their position since the beginning, it's basically Mueller is fishing to find something, anything on Trump and company that when whatever the end product is it won't matter at all so better not even check everyone out and just let it go. Basically no matter what they find it won't be anywhere nearly as bad as anything that Obama, Hillary, Holder...etc. ever did.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 04:03
|
|
|
I'm just hovering, waiting to hear their response from Daniels suing Trump.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 04:07
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:I'm just hovering, waiting to hear their response from Daniels suing Trump. quote:To: Blogger The thread on it just started, some of they are pretty slow on the update of info because they only get their news from freep. and an out of context freep accidently get's it right. quote:To: hapnHal
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 04:16
|
|
|
Plinkey posted:No and I’ll tell you why — if you assume that voters in general are as aware of what’s happening as you are, then you are gravely mistaken. Yes if there's ONE THING I'd call the 2016 election. It would be. The triumph. Of. "Substance". Over "Style".
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 05:32
|
|
|
Duke Igthorn posted:Yes if there's ONE THING I'd call the 2016 election.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 05:48
|
|
|
ah freep, the the bastion of christian conservatism quote:To: Blogger
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 07:43
|
|
|
Duke Igthorn posted:"Trump is 100% not guilty but they'd find SOMETHING to charge him with!!" is Freep's official position. My vague impression is that a part of Freep is saying "look, if you dig far enough into *anybody's* life you're going to find something you can prosecute." Why yes, yes Freep, if you dig far into my life you're sure to find I committed treason by collaborating a foreign power to sway a US election. It's gotta be in there somewhere. quote:ah freep, the the bastion of christian conservatism Dammit, you made me go dig up the actual stats: https://www.npr.org/2016/10/23/498890836/poll-white-evangelicals-have-warmed-to-politicians-who-commit-immoral-acts Shortly prior to the election, NPR reported: That's what a new PRRI/Brookings poll says. In 2011, 30 percent of white evangelicals said that "an elected official who commits an immoral act in their personal life can still behave ethically and fulfill their duties in their public and professional life." Now, 72 percent say so — a far bigger swing than other religious groups the poll studied. EDIT: I haven't done a Freep on Weed post in a while, but not seeing anything too exciting in the last few weeks. The one exception being this amazing post: quote:Drugs are sorcery ! Mods? Title change? TapTheForwardAssist fucked around with this message at 07:59 on Mar 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 07:55
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:Dammit, you made me go dig up the actual stats: https://www.npr.org/2016/10/23/498890836/poll-white-evangelicals-have-warmed-to-politicians-who-commit-immoral-acts hahah, i was posting that, with that poll in mind but couldn't find it 
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 08:01
|
|
|
Let me remind everyone that a body of Freepers, and plenty more people like them on Facebook and Twitter, no-poo poo consider Trump to be the modern-day equivalent of Cyrus the Great. Cyrus was a Persian king who released the Jews held captive in Babylon and let them go back to Jerusalem. He's a go-to option when hardcore Evangelicals find the need to justify supporting an obvious unbeliever who still does the exact Right Thing. I'm not loving kidding, just google "cyrus the great trump" and you'll find scads of articles and tweets drawing this comparison. It provides a convenient rebuttal to anyone pointing out that Trump is a church-avoiding thrice-married adulterer: "well, the Lord often chooses an unusual vessel, so we need to concentrate on the end and not the means."
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 08:26
|
|
|
So how does freep, à site proclaiming to be for small govt, feel about the proposed tariffs?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 09:57
|
|
|
Fathis Munk posted:So how does freep, à site proclaiming to be for small govt, feel about the proposed tariffs? Dude, if Trump advocated wearing your underpants on your head, the nation would see a sudden uptick in tighty-whitey-related car accidents. Without even looking, I will bet you: -- If Trump says tariffs, Freep will say: "thank God, a President who stands up for America!" -- If Trump says zero tariffs, Freep will say: "Hurrah, for the Free Market, take that liberal swine!"
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 10:05
|
|
|
Dammit Fathis Munk you made me go look. This is just a sample of many, many threads on the issue: Oh good! Some "don't worry, Trump doesn't mean anything he says." quote:GOOD! What the gently caress is "price gouging"? Don't you mean "charging what the market will bear", FRiend??? quote:
So did we have eight solid years of them never saying "bravo"? quote:Exactly. Pfft, Trump in advocating incinerating mounds of puppies with napalm and *now* the GOP gets all vocal? EDIT: Also please take a headcount of the GOP politicians who spent eight years never criticizing Obama. quote:Amazing, isn't it. There's a long list of Republicans who could hardly bring themselves to criticize Obama or substantially oppose his policies, but they suddenly grow a spine and a loud mouth when it's time to attack Trump for keeping a campaign promise. Good luck supporting the world's largest military. quote:
This is one of the few times I've ever heard someone recommend that a politician act "more like Ross Perot". quote:
God loving dammit, they're back with QAnon again: quote:Q posts are implying there’s something else going on with steel. US military using sub-standard steel? Japan steel CEO resigning. People knew? Deliberate? TapTheForwardAssist fucked around with this message at 10:16 on Mar 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 10:14
|
|
|
Is Freep the last bastion of Sarah Palin fans? Sarah Palin: Trump Is ‘Trying to Win’ a Trade War ‘We’ve Been Fighting for Decades’ I will present only one single post: quote:The most brilliant comment on the topic so far.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 10:19
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:Dammit Fathis Munk you made me go look. This is just a sample of many, many threads on the issue: Haha ofc! Thank you for your service TTFA 
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 10:22
|
|
|
Fathis Munk posted:Haha ofc! You mean invading Iraq, or reporting on Freep? Or either/or?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 10:38
|
|
|
Ugh, they are so nuts I need to start up my elasticsearch cluster again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 10:50
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:You mean invading Iraq, or reporting on Freep? Or either/or? The second tbh.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 14:07
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:Bail is only for if you're imprisoned prior to a trial. If you're declared in contempt, there isn't a trial; the judging body already determined you "guilty" of the offense, that's why they judged you to be in contempt in the first place. This. If you don't show the default is guilty. So then it's game on to see if you can beat the feds to the Mexico border Xiahou Dun posted:I'm just hovering, waiting to hear their response from Daniels suing Trump. Every sexism joke/slang you can imagine coupled with every porn joke/slang you can imagine. None of it will debate whether she's right or wrong, just a bunch of slander circling around "whore" being the reason she should get lost. Possibly some death threats Duke Igthorn posted:Yes if there's ONE THING I'd call the 2016 election. Technically it was. Trump is everything they wanted as a president. A big bully that's dumb enough to speak his mind and threaten everyone that dare question Admiral-General Barron von Trump the First Plinkey posted:ah freep, the the bastion of christian conservatism Funny, they went batshit loony over a consensual blowjob. I wonder why that mattered but all of Trump's deviancy doesn't? TapTheForwardAssist posted:So did we have eight solid years of them never saying "bravo"? Hell, they wouldn't even give props when Obama had Bin Laden taken down SocketWrench fucked around with this message at 14:56 on Mar 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 14:35
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:Is Freep the last bastion of Sarah Palin fans? Has Freep moved protectionism and trade wars over to 'Our golden calf can do no wrong and so this must be a good idea' yet?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 14:52
|
|
|
Someone in the CanPol thread took some Voat screenshots :Typo posted:meanwhile: voat "Submitted by Lazmat." Could it be...?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 15:55
|
|
|
wtf is voat? some kind of anything-goes reddit?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 16:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 00:23 |
|
|
Yeah, it's the right's reddit knock off.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2018 16:22
|
|