Seems like a waste of time asking him then? Why should Mueller care about perjury charges against that guy. Besides why would they ask him to turn over e-mails if they have all the evidence already anyway.
Trump/Russia/SDNY investigation
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
Seems like a waste of time asking him then? Why should Mueller care about perjury charges against that guy. Besides why would they ask him to turn over e-mails if they have all the evidence already anyway.
Not a waste of time at all if he is attempting to get multiple sources to corroborate a piece of information. Perjury is just something that automatically happens if he lies, that can then be used against him to provide further information for leniency.
So he doesn't actually know the answers but has a (maybe strong) suspicion but that is probably what you meant. The second point only makes sense if he doesn't already know the answers too.
Not sure how you surmised that. Its perfectly normal for a lawyer to ask questions they already have some degree of knowledge of what the answer is from previous witnesses. The 2nd witness would then be used to corroborate the information.
A lawyer can only actually know something if the evidence is such that there is no need for a second witness i.e. proven beyond reasonable doubt (by his judgement obvs.). When he has reached that stage a second witness is pointless. If however he doesn't actually know, but has a suspicion or less he is going to need a second witness to provide more info/plausible details for whatever he's arguing.
If he has just answers from one previous witness, there is nothing he could potentionally know from only that. Human memory is faulty and seldom accurate.
Or, he’s got enough evidence and he’s confident of getting more, or he won’t reveal just how much he knows in the hope of getting more information.
So he can raise his suspicions and people like Nunberg can roll the dice and try to bullshit their way out of it but they know full well that he’s asking those questions for a reason and he’ll be in real shit if they can prove his lies.
He can easily have a series of answers about the same topic from two previous witnesses and use a third witness to corroborate the information. In that case, he already has the basic information and is just seeking further validation. If the third witness however blatantly lies about something then that is on the witness. If the prosecutor wants to pursue that as a means to gain leverage over the 3rd witness then he has the option to do so.
The getting more information part is what I think is the rationale for interviewing Nunberg as well. What I'm arguing with is that:
Doesn't make sense to me.
Yeah, either way he doesn't know the answers. Besides, surely the second point is contradicting your earlier claim that the witness doesn't have any more information to provide, because there is no point in getting leverage over somebody that doesn't have anything to bring to the table in the first place. Obviously perjury is bad and justice has to be served but that's not exactly the idea of Muellers mandate.
He could very well already have all the answers and still ask the questions in order to see if the witness perjurs himself, at which point he would have leverage over him. He could also have most of the information in place and be seeking final validation from a third witness. In both cases, he would have existing information to bounce the 3rd witness's testimony off of. Its highly unlikely Mueller is going into this so late without existing information that he has already received from other witnesses, voice intercepts, or electronic intercepts (emails, cell phone imaging etc).
I can agree with that except for the first sentence. Since I take it you agree that perjury charges against Nunberg will never be the goal for Mueller it makes sense tou conclude it can only be of use as leverage.
What I'm still missing is leverage for what? Because it can't be more info as he has all the answers.
For a case against Stone for example. If Stone is deemed to have been cooperating with Assange then Mueller may want to get lower hanging fruit like Nunberg to testify against Stone (Nunberg claims he is a Stone protege and as such should know much of what Stone was up to). If he has a legitimate case against Stone, then he will want to know if Stone communicated with Trump about his communications with Assange. That is a viable path towards Trump's own involvement in the collusion/conspiracy case.
Firstly, you never know if you have all the answers so you explore every avenue.
Secondly, you don’t build a case by going “that’s probably enough evidence and witnesses to get this through court, I doubt we need another”.
But what is Nunberg going to provide in a case against Stone other than information which in the scenario we are discussing he isn't even offering.
Totally agree. That's why the statement that he is asking questions he already has all the answers to is not accurate which is what I'm arguing.
Yeah he might not say anything so they should probably just leave it. I mean he might reveal a some serious stuff... but... nah let’s just leave it.
That's not what I'm saying at all. You should scroll up and check the actual scenario from Raoul out and reply to that.
He is a Stone protege who has a lot to offer in that regard. For Mueller, there would be few people who would be able to provide more information as to Stone's actions from 2015 onwards.
That seems plausible to me too.
I think you’re either being pedantic or missing the point. He’s asking questions he already knows all the answers to.
That isn’t a pointless task, it can potentially lead to lines of conversations they don’t have the answers to. That’s the point. Asking questions you know the answer to does two things - 1. It puts the fear of god in them. “Why are they asking that? How the hell do they know that? What else do they know? And 2. “Well you’ve just lied to us and now you’re in a lot of trouble, so it’s a good time to start telling us things we don’t know and you might get yourself out of this mess.
That's likely why Nunberg didn't want to testify in the first place. To avoid having to reveal things about Stone that he knows will lead to him getting in trouble with Mueller, and in doing so start a sequence of events that may eventually lead to Trump.
If pointing out an implausible assumption is what you want to call pedantic then be my guest, because that's what I perceive myself as doing. I think my points are clear and still stand so I won't argue any further.
What did you think was an implausible assumption.
The correct answer is he could have all or partial answers, both would necessitate interviewing Nunberg before deciding how to proceed.
Putin the more likeable one there.
Quite enjoyed that.
@Javi There is one potential answer to your question. Mueller might have the answers to all his questions but he might not know who else has these answers, I would assume that it's also a part of his investigation.
Yeah the brinksmanship between the both of them was palpable. I thought Megyn went over the edge with a few questions to where may cut the interview short and walk out, but thankfully she dialed it back in, but still kept appropriate pressure on him.
Putin is literally Stalin reincarnated
https://mobile.twitter.com/haaretzcom/status/972500326233395200?s=19
https://mobile.twitter.com/haaretzcom/status/972500326233395200?s=19
He said 'maybe' not 'probably'
That’s comparable to Trump blaming the Russia investigation on the likes of Hillary, Obama, or Uranium One.
That might very well be true but wouldn't he then be missing the answer to the question who else has the answers?
Seems like you're being pedantic. The meaning behind the original statement was clear.That might very well be true but wouldn't he then be missing the answer to the question who else has the answers?
This is beautiful. Remember the judge in the Flynn case made a ruling that has the Trump supporters convinced Flynn is about to withdraw his guilty plea, and is innocent? Well..
https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2...themselves-michael-flynn-about-reverse/219447
https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2...themselves-michael-flynn-about-reverse/219447
Imagine Trump going on Russian TV and getting pressed for 60 minutes? He'd fecking make an absolute fool of himself.
Well thats true!