Gyroscopic Investing

Mountaineer wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2020 6:06 am I thought this part of the statement by the Press Secretary was interesting:

"Mr. Stone was charged by the same prosecutors from the Mueller Investigation tasked with finding evidence of collusion with Russia. Because no such evidence exists, however, they could not charge him for any collusion-related crime. Instead, they charged him for his conduct during their investigation. The simple fact is that if the Special Counsel had not been pursuing an absolutely baseless investigation, Mr. Stone would not be facing time in prison.

"In addition to charging Mr. Stone with alleged crimes arising solely from their own improper investigation, the Mueller prosecutors also took pains to make a public and shameful spectacle of his arrest. Mr. Stone is a 67-year-old man, with numerous medical conditions, who had never been convicted of another crime. But rather than allow him to surrender himself, they used dozens of FBI agents with automatic weapons and tactical equipment, armored vehicles, and an amphibious unit to execute a pre-dawn raid of his home, where he was with his wife of many years. Notably, CNN cameras were present to broadcast these events live to the world, even though they swore they were not notified—it was just a coincidence that they were there together with the FBI early in the morning."

vnatale wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2020 6:53 am

Mountaineer wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2020 6:06 am I thought this part of the statement by the Press Secretary was interesting:

"Mr. Stone was charged by the same prosecutors from the Mueller Investigation tasked with finding evidence of collusion with Russia. Because no such evidence exists, however, they could not charge him for any collusion-related crime. Instead, they charged him for his conduct during their investigation. The simple fact is that if the Special Counsel had not been pursuing an absolutely baseless investigation, Mr. Stone would not be facing time in prison.

"In addition to charging Mr. Stone with alleged crimes arising solely from their own improper investigation, the Mueller prosecutors also took pains to make a public and shameful spectacle of his arrest. Mr. Stone is a 67-year-old man, with numerous medical conditions, who had never been convicted of another crime. But rather than allow him to surrender himself, they used dozens of FBI agents with automatic weapons and tactical equipment, armored vehicles, and an amphibious unit to execute a pre-dawn raid of his home, where he was with his wife of many years. Notably, CNN cameras were present to broadcast these events live to the world, even though they swore they were not notified—it was just a coincidence that they were there together with the FBI early in the morning."

In other words, attack all the irrelevant sideline issues rather than addressing one single issue that Ad Orientem addressed above.

Vinny

vnatale wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2020 6:53 am

Mountaineer wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2020 6:06 am I thought this part of the statement by the Press Secretary was interesting:

"Mr. Stone was charged by the same prosecutors from the Mueller Investigation tasked with finding evidence of collusion with Russia. Because no such evidence exists, however, they could not charge him for any collusion-related crime. Instead, they charged him for his conduct during their investigation. The simple fact is that if the Special Counsel had not been pursuing an absolutely baseless investigation, Mr. Stone would not be facing time in prison.

"In addition to charging Mr. Stone with alleged crimes arising solely from their own improper investigation, the Mueller prosecutors also took pains to make a public and shameful spectacle of his arrest. Mr. Stone is a 67-year-old man, with numerous medical conditions, who had never been convicted of another crime. But rather than allow him to surrender himself, they used dozens of FBI agents with automatic weapons and tactical equipment, armored vehicles, and an amphibious unit to execute a pre-dawn raid of his home, where he was with his wife of many years. Notably, CNN cameras were present to broadcast these events live to the world, even though they swore they were not notified—it was just a coincidence that they were there together with the FBI early in the morning."

In other words, attack all the irrelevant sideline issues rather than addressing one single issue that Ad Orientem addressed above.

Vinny

WiseOne wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2020 9:42 am Presidential pardons have been a thing for a very long time.

Cortopassi wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2020 10:26 am The gist of all this is the investigation should have never happened in the first place, so he would have never done the things he did without the investigation, right?

So, just curious if anyone knows -- if police had a search warrant for my house to find something particular, say a gun (are these limited warrants typical?) and during the search they turn up 10 pounds of cocaine. Can they not prosecute me for the cocaine? Like they are forced to unsee it?

Cortopassi wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2020 10:26 am The gist of all this is the investigation should have never happened in the first place, so he would have never done the things he did without the investigation, right?

So, just curious if anyone knows -- if police had a search warrant for my house to find something particular, say a gun (are these limited warrants typical?) and during the search they turn up 10 pounds of cocaine. Can they not prosecute me for the cocaine? Like they are forced to unsee it?

drumminj wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2020 10:03 am

vnatale wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2020 6:53 am

Mountaineer wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2020 6:06 am I thought this part of the statement by the Press Secretary was interesting:

"Mr. Stone was charged by the same prosecutors from the Mueller Investigation tasked with finding evidence of collusion with Russia. Because no such evidence exists, however, they could not charge him for any collusion-related crime. Instead, they charged him for his conduct during their investigation. The simple fact is that if the Special Counsel had not been pursuing an absolutely baseless investigation, Mr. Stone would not be facing time in prison.

"In addition to charging Mr. Stone with alleged crimes arising solely from their own improper investigation, the Mueller prosecutors also took pains to make a public and shameful spectacle of his arrest. Mr. Stone is a 67-year-old man, with numerous medical conditions, who had never been convicted of another crime. But rather than allow him to surrender himself, they used dozens of FBI agents with automatic weapons and tactical equipment, armored vehicles, and an amphibious unit to execute a pre-dawn raid of his home, where he was with his wife of many years. Notably, CNN cameras were present to broadcast these events live to the world, even though they swore they were not notified—it was just a coincidence that they were there together with the FBI early in the morning."

In other words, attack all the irrelevant sideline issues rather than addressing one single issue that Ad Orientem addressed above.

Vinny

Consider for a moment that there are two different topics to discuss/have an opinion on -- the pardoning of Stone, and the statement of the press secretary (both the fact it was made, as well as the content).

Ignoring the pardon, the description above is pretty appalling. Does anyone think it's appropriate or necessary to roll up with semi-automatic rifles (what I assume they mean by "automatic weapons"), armored vehicles, and an amphibious team to arrest someone for for obstruction and perjury? And to notify the press??

And I'm with WiseOne -- pardoning someone isn't "lawless". It's clearly a power the President has, and is free to exercise. Just because one disagrees with who was pardoned doesn't make it "lawless". Is the left now suggesting that should not be a power of the executive? Same with state Governors?

Xan wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2020 10:31 am One other note: I don't believe Stone was pardoned. I think his sentence was commuted. There are important differences (and also similarities, of course).

Cortopassi wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2020 10:26 am The gist of all this is the investigation should have never happened in the first place, so he would have never done the things he did without the investigation, right?

So, just curious if anyone knows -- if police had a search warrant for my house to find something particular, say a gun (are these limited warrants typical?) and during the search they turn up 10 pounds of cocaine. Can they not prosecute me for the cocaine? Like they are forced to unsee it?

Cortopassi wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2020 10:26 am The gist of all this is the investigation should have never happened in the first place, so he would have never done the things he did without the investigation, right?

So, just curious if anyone knows -- if police had a search warrant for my house to find something particular, say a gun (are these limited warrants typical?) and during the search they turn up 10 pounds of cocaine. Can they not prosecute me for the cocaine? Like they are forced to unsee it?

Kriegsspiel wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2020 10:51 am

Cortopassi wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2020 10:26 am The gist of all this is the investigation should have never happened in the first place, so he would have never done the things he did without the investigation, right?

So, just curious if anyone knows -- if police had a search warrant for my house to find something particular, say a gun (are these limited warrants typical?) and during the search they turn up 10 pounds of cocaine. Can they not prosecute me for the cocaine? Like they are forced to unsee it?

From what I gather, perjury traps are where law enforcement will ask you about things, and if your answers don't match up for whatever reason when you testify in court, they can prosecute you for perjury.

So to use your example; the police come to your house executing a search warrant, and ask you when you put in your gun safe and you say "last March." But you weren't really sure, so you call your friend afterwards and say,
"Hey, it was last March we put in that gun safe, right?"
"Yea I guess."
"You guess?"
"Yea, might have been April or May, whatever."
"Well, if the police ask you, just say you don't remember or plead the 5th or something."
"K"

When you go to court, you testify that you put the safe in in March. Then the police produce surveillance photos of you and your friend hauling the safe into your house in April. IE, you forgot the date and just guessed at it. Now you've committed perjury. If the police intercepted the phone call with your friend, you've also tampered with a witness.

The way I see it, perjury traps are a way to trick someone who otherwise hasn't done something wrong, or you can't prove it in a court of law. Real perjury is the kind you would see on a lawyer drama on TV. Where they ask someone where they were the night of the murder and they say they were at church or something, then the lawyer shows the video of them stabbing the victim in the alley.

I'll admit I'm probably not the most informed dude around, but this appears to be a case of "While we recognize that the man did not actually steal any horses, he is obviously guilty of trying to resist being hanged for it."

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2020 10:56 am This is why the best advice is "Never talk to the police (or FBI, or whatever)". Call your lawyer and have him talk to them.
That's the only way to avoid being caught in a perjury trap.
You may say "but what if your lawyer tells them something they have evidence against"?
He is just telling them what you told him. So he isn't guilty of perjury.
And you didn't talk to them at all, so neither are you.

pp4me wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2020 11:20 am Like WiseOne said, almost every president has had controversial pardons so why was this one the worse in the history of the country, perhaps the whole world, or even the universe and beyond?

TDS is the only explanation. The "most corrupt administration in history"? Gimme a break. We've had presidents who have lied us into wars. If the Durham investigation actually ends up with any indictments and Biden gets elected I predict he will pardon them too. And then his will be the new "most corrupt administration in history".

Mountaineer wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2020 9:38 am

vnatale wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2020 6:53 am

Mountaineer wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2020 6:06 am I thought this part of the statement by the Press Secretary was interesting:

"Mr. Stone was charged by the same prosecutors from the Mueller Investigation tasked with finding evidence of collusion with Russia. Because no such evidence exists, however, they could not charge him for any collusion-related crime. Instead, they charged him for his conduct during their investigation. The simple fact is that if the Special Counsel had not been pursuing an absolutely baseless investigation, Mr. Stone would not be facing time in prison.

"In addition to charging Mr. Stone with alleged crimes arising solely from their own improper investigation, the Mueller prosecutors also took pains to make a public and shameful spectacle of his arrest. Mr. Stone is a 67-year-old man, with numerous medical conditions, who had never been convicted of another crime. But rather than allow him to surrender himself, they used dozens of FBI agents with automatic weapons and tactical equipment, armored vehicles, and an amphibious unit to execute a pre-dawn raid of his home, where he was with his wife of many years. Notably, CNN cameras were present to broadcast these events live to the world, even though they swore they were not notified—it was just a coincidence that they were there together with the FBI early in the morning."

In other words, attack all the irrelevant sideline issues rather than addressing one single issue that Ad Orientem addressed above.

Vinny

Not attacking at all. I merely said the statement was interresing. I'm thinking you must have Stage 4 TDS, or wrote the script for the movie Minority Report. Must we all think in group step or be labeled as attack dogs by the really subversive progressive leftists (labels intended)?

drumminj wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2020 10:03 am

Consider for a moment that there are two different topics to discuss/have an opinion on -- the pardoning of Stone, and the statement of the press secretary (both the fact it was made, as well as the content).

Ignoring the pardon, the description above is pretty appalling. Does anyone think it's appropriate or necessary to roll up with semi-automatic rifles (what I assume they mean by "automatic weapons"), armored vehicles, and an amphibious team to arrest someone for for obstruction and perjury? And to notify the press??

And I'm with WiseOne -- pardoning someone isn't "lawless". It's clearly a power the President has, and is free to exercise. Just because one disagrees with who was pardoned doesn't make it "lawless". Is the left now suggesting that should not be a power of the executive? Same with state Governors?

drumminj wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2020 10:28 am

Cortopassi wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2020 10:26 am The gist of all this is the investigation should have never happened in the first place, so he would have never done the things he did without the investigation, right?

So, just curious if anyone knows -- if police had a search warrant for my house to find something particular, say a gun (are these limited warrants typical?) and during the search they turn up 10 pounds of cocaine. Can they not prosecute me for the cocaine? Like they are forced to unsee it?

I'm not sure if it applies to your specific example, but isn't this the whole "fruit of the poisonous tree" idea, and how evidence gets thrown out when improperly collected?

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 11, 2020 10:56 am

This is why the best advice is "Never talk to the police (or FBI, or whatever)". Call your lawyer and have him talk to them.
That's the only way to avoid being caught in a perjury trap.
You may say "but what if your lawyer tells them something they have evidence against"?
He is just telling them what you told him. So he isn't guilty of perjury.
And you didn't talk to them at all, so neither are you.