(07-10-2018 09:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 09:15 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 09:10 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 09:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Actually I kind of side with Page on this.

They were setting her up with no opportunity to review any documents at all. In the slightest.

Kind of a turd move, imo.

Lawyer gave the absolute best advice in the situation. Advice that I would have given if it were me giving the advice in that situation.

Look, Page *should* be compelled to testify. But requiring testimony in 'ambush-style' setting is utterly chickenshit.

Yeah, but to paraphrase the left, why's she afraid of the interview if she did nothing wrong?

I'm currently taking care of a 'open case' murdered woman's estate that I handled for the previous 8 yrs.......I was called in twice......I looked the detective straight in the eye and asked, "why would I want to give up 500/mo easy money......swab me."

no bs....

if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear......

however, they play a different game at that level.....

one misstep and you're toast.....

Stinkman -- love ya and respect ya. But on this we are just going to disagree.

I know (not 'know of', but 'know') two or three people that 'didnt do anything wrong' *but* got caught cross with the Feds for interviews. Sorry, Feeb or US Attorney, or Federal fing dogcatcher for that matter, asks questions, Im not saying anything nor is anyone I am advising saying anything until *everything* is out in the open.

The locals dont have the laws to charge someone in that manner that the Feds do, but again I know a handful of people that, while not having done anything, got caught crossways for answers that the investigators didnt really want to hear.

Better to dig oneself out of a 'no answer' than doing the 'you didnt hear me correctly' version of that method.

Just saying, you and I will probably just have to agree to disagree on this point -- (salute)

it's a double edged sword......which I alluded to at the end of my previous post.....

it gets tricky at the higher level......there is no doubting that.....hence, the 'disclaimer'....

my personal story was a much simpler one.....

fwiw, I have a couple of lawyers in my pocket I consulted before I went in......there is no question they can screw ya 'quick like'......

I easily understand your position on this one.....

however, if she is advised properly with nothing to hide, she should be fine and dandy..............or..............

(07-10-2018 09:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 09:30 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 09:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 09:18 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 09:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Actually I kind of side with Page on this.

They were setting her up with no opportunity to review any documents at all. In the slightest.

Kind of a turd move, imo.

Lawyer gave the absolute best advice in the situation. Advice that I would have given if it were me giving the advice in that situation.

Look, Page *should* be compelled to testify. But requiring testimony in 'ambush-style' setting is utterly chickenshit.

(07-10-2018 09:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I guess you forgot about Jeff Session's oopsee mistake about Russians.

Or Martha Stewart's oopsey moment as well.

Sorry, taking testimony in an ambush setting is utterly chickenshit, no matter which side does it.

Jeff Sessions didnt make an oopsie mistake with the russians. Stop falling for fake news.

Considering he had to backtrack and say 'I was only answering about Russians I met as part of a campaign' or somefink.... he sure as hell did get bound up in an oopsie moment. He made a statement before Congress that *could* be taken as false in nature -- the imperative word being 'could'.

Picture perfect example of the 'gotcha' games that are played at that level. Picture perfect reason why I think Page is in the right on this, especially with the documents being 'delayed'.

The FBI admitted that they told him he DID NOT HAVE TO DISCLOSE those meetings on his form because they were already accounted for as part of business of the senate. Please stop falling for the fake news.

And again, he *still* got caught in that fing morass of an answer in front of Congress. I dont give a crap about the form -- his answer in front of Congress put him in a fing hole.

Was that the 'horseshit' that I speak of? Absolutely. And precisely and exactly why I seemingly take the Page side on this.

Here is the USA Today article on it.

Quote:Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Tuesday denied that he lied during his confirmation hearing when asked about whether he had spoken with Russian officials.

"He asked me a rambling question that included dramatic, new allegations that the United States intelligence community had advised President-elect Trump that 'there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump's surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government,'" Sessions said during his opening statement. "I was taken aback by these explosive allegations, which he said were being reported in breaking news that day."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli...102819246/

Im not saying 'Sessions lied', but he fing absolutely got caught in the 'gotcha' testimony trap. Cant deny that.

Note that Sessions has to *repeatedly* deny 'he lied' in response to a 'rambling question'. Hard to say that he didnt get caught up in the chickenshit given that he *repeatedly* has to deny lying in front of Congress.

Sorry, that give and take is the fing poster boy for Page not testifying, *especially* when denied access to documents prior to testimony.

If she wants documents, tell her to pull up the past two years worth of text messages on her phone . She may not want her husband around as she re-reads them.

(07-10-2018 09:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 09:10 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 09:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Actually I kind of side with Page on this.

They were setting her up with no opportunity to review any documents at all. In the slightest.

Kind of a turd move, imo.

Lawyer gave the absolute best advice in the situation. Advice that I would have given if it were me giving the advice in that situation.

Look, Page *should* be compelled to testify. But requiring testimony in 'ambush-style' setting is utterly chickenshit.

Yeah, but to paraphrase the left, why's she afraid of the interview if she did nothing wrong?

I guess you forgot about Jeff Session's oopsee mistake about Russians.

Or Martha Stewart's oopsey moment as well.

Sorry, taking testimony in an ambush setting is utterly chickenshit, no matter which side does it.

Obtuse much? I'm agreeing with you.

(07-10-2018 09:54 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 09:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 09:30 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 09:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 09:18 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Jeff Sessions didnt make an oopsie mistake with the russians. Stop falling for fake news.

Considering he had to backtrack and say 'I was only answering about Russians I met as part of a campaign' or somefink.... he sure as hell did get bound up in an oopsie moment. He made a statement before Congress that *could* be taken as false in nature -- the imperative word being 'could'.

Picture perfect example of the 'gotcha' games that are played at that level. Picture perfect reason why I think Page is in the right on this, especially with the documents being 'delayed'.

The FBI admitted that they told him he DID NOT HAVE TO DISCLOSE those meetings on his form because they were already accounted for as part of business of the senate. Please stop falling for the fake news.

And again, he *still* got caught in that fing morass of an answer in front of Congress. I dont give a crap about the form -- his answer in front of Congress put him in a fing hole.

Was that the 'horseshit' that I speak of? Absolutely. And precisely and exactly why I seemingly take the Page side on this.

Here is the USA Today article on it.

Quote:Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Tuesday denied that he lied during his confirmation hearing when asked about whether he had spoken with Russian officials.

"He asked me a rambling question that included dramatic, new allegations that the United States intelligence community had advised President-elect Trump that 'there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump's surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government,'" Sessions said during his opening statement. "I was taken aback by these explosive allegations, which he said were being reported in breaking news that day."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli...102819246/

Im not saying 'Sessions lied', but he fing absolutely got caught in the 'gotcha' testimony trap. Cant deny that.

Note that Sessions has to *repeatedly* deny 'he lied' in response to a 'rambling question'. Hard to say that he didnt get caught up in the chickenshit given that he *repeatedly* has to deny lying in front of Congress.

Sorry, that give and take is the fing poster boy for Page not testifying, *especially* when denied access to documents prior to testimony.

If she wants documents, tell her to pull up the past two years worth of text messages on her phone . She may not want her husband around as she re-reads them.

So ambush style testimony is A-Ok in your book. Got it. Thank you for clearing that up for us. Or is that just 'selectively' A-OK? Cant tell from the depth of snark there....

(07-10-2018 09:55 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 09:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 09:10 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 09:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Actually I kind of side with Page on this.

They were setting her up with no opportunity to review any documents at all. In the slightest.

Kind of a turd move, imo.

Lawyer gave the absolute best advice in the situation. Advice that I would have given if it were me giving the advice in that situation.

Look, Page *should* be compelled to testify. But requiring testimony in 'ambush-style' setting is utterly chickenshit.

Yeah, but to paraphrase the left, why's she afraid of the interview if she did nothing wrong?

I guess you forgot about Jeff Session's oopsee mistake about Russians.

Or Martha Stewart's oopsey moment as well.

Sorry, taking testimony in an ambush setting is utterly chickenshit, no matter which side does it.

Obtuse much? I'm agreeing with you.

I was answering the question of 'why is she afraid to testify' that you yourself posed. Perhaps you should read your own question as well.

(07-10-2018 09:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 09:54 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 09:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 09:30 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 09:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Considering he had to backtrack and say 'I was only answering about Russians I met as part of a campaign' or somefink.... he sure as hell did get bound up in an oopsie moment. He made a statement before Congress that *could* be taken as false in nature -- the imperative word being 'could'.

Picture perfect example of the 'gotcha' games that are played at that level. Picture perfect reason why I think Page is in the right on this, especially with the documents being 'delayed'.

The FBI admitted that they told him he DID NOT HAVE TO DISCLOSE those meetings on his form because they were already accounted for as part of business of the senate. Please stop falling for the fake news.

And again, he *still* got caught in that fing morass of an answer in front of Congress. I dont give a crap about the form -- his answer in front of Congress put him in a fing hole.

Was that the 'horseshit' that I speak of? Absolutely. And precisely and exactly why I seemingly take the Page side on this.

Here is the USA Today article on it.

Quote:Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Tuesday denied that he lied during his confirmation hearing when asked about whether he had spoken with Russian officials.

"He asked me a rambling question that included dramatic, new allegations that the United States intelligence community had advised President-elect Trump that 'there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump's surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government,'" Sessions said during his opening statement. "I was taken aback by these explosive allegations, which he said were being reported in breaking news that day."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli...102819246/

Im not saying 'Sessions lied', but he fing absolutely got caught in the 'gotcha' testimony trap. Cant deny that.

Note that Sessions has to *repeatedly* deny 'he lied' in response to a 'rambling question'. Hard to say that he didnt get caught up in the chickenshit given that he *repeatedly* has to deny lying in front of Congress.

Sorry, that give and take is the fing poster boy for Page not testifying, *especially* when denied access to documents prior to testimony.

If she wants documents, tell her to pull up the past two years worth of text messages on her phone . She may not want her husband around as she re-reads them.

So ambush style testimony is A-Ok in your book. Got it. Thank you for clearing that up for us. Or is that just 'selectively' A-OK?

If she doesnt recall, she doesnt recall. Its not AMBUSH testimony. Its her own text messages. She was subpoena'ed (likely because her attorney was refusing to nali down a date just like Strojk did). When I get subpoenaed, I have to show up. So does she. You dont get to avoid a subpoena because you want time to prepare. Shes' had a year to prepare.

(07-10-2018 09:59 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 09:55 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 09:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 09:10 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 09:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Actually I kind of side with Page on this.

They were setting her up with no opportunity to review any documents at all. In the slightest.

Kind of a turd move, imo.

Lawyer gave the absolute best advice in the situation. Advice that I would have given if it were me giving the advice in that situation.

Look, Page *should* be compelled to testify. But requiring testimony in 'ambush-style' setting is utterly chickenshit.

Yeah, but to paraphrase the left, why's she afraid of the interview if she did nothing wrong?

I guess you forgot about Jeff Session's oopsee mistake about Russians.

Or Martha Stewart's oopsey moment as well.

Sorry, taking testimony in an ambush setting is utterly chickenshit, no matter which side does it.

Obtuse much? I'm agreeing with you.

I was answering the question of 'why is she afraid to testify' that you yourself posed. Perhaps you should read your own question as well.

So you are obtuse.

facetious: treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humor; flippant, tongue-in-cheek, ironic, sardonic, joking, jokey, jocular, playful, sportive, teasing, mischievous

If you still fail to understand, lemme spell it out for ya then.

When I say, "paraphrasing the left, if she did nothing wrong, then why not testify?", it's because I know, you know, everyone knows that these interviews can be perjury traps. Though in her case, the chances of committing perjury are much greater because she and Stork discussed so much under-handed shyte that looks so bad on its face, that trying to explain it away is a huge risk for her.

(07-10-2018 10:10 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 09:59 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 09:55 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 09:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 09:10 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  Yeah, but to paraphrase the left, why's she afraid of the interview if she did nothing wrong?

I guess you forgot about Jeff Session's oopsee mistake about Russians.

Or Martha Stewart's oopsey moment as well.

Sorry, taking testimony in an ambush setting is utterly chickenshit, no matter which side does it.

Obtuse much? I'm agreeing with you.

I was answering the question of 'why is she afraid to testify' that you yourself posed. Perhaps you should read your own question as well.

So you are obtuse.

facetious: treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humor; flippant, tongue-in-cheek, ironic, sardonic, joking, jokey, jocular, playful, sportive, teasing, mischievous

If you still fail to understand, lemme spell it out for ya then.

When I say, "paraphrasing the left, if she did nothing wrong, then why not testify?", it's because I know, you know, everyone knows that these interviews can be perjury traps. Though in her case, the chances of committing perjury are much greater because she and Stork discussed so much under-handed shyte that looks so bad on its face, that trying to explain it away is a huge risk for her.

So you get uppity when you pose a 'facetious question' (i.e. a real question in which I have to subjectively know your answer) and I answer. Awesome job there sparky. Real clever. Then you go off on a snark asshat hunt with it.

Good follow up technique to continue to influence people. Keep it up. Or patent it. Make riches from that system.

(07-10-2018 11:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So you get uppity when you pose a 'facetious question' (i.e. a real question in which I have to subjectively know your answer) and I answer. Awesome job there sparky. Real clever. Then you go off on a snark asshat hunt with it.

Good follow up technique to continue to influence people. Keep it up. Or patent it. Make riches from that system.

I apologize. I didn't realize you were a dick as well.

Gummy is guilty, busted and this is just stalling. If this is an ambush she is dumber than a sack of hammers. I personally think they are still hiding worst stuff. Maybe just hyperbole talk between two narcissistic idiots but much worse stuff. Like as bad as you can imagine stuff.

(07-10-2018 11:23 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Gummy is guilty, busted and this is just stalling. If this is an ambush she is dumber than a sack of hammers. I personally think they are still hiding worse stuff. Maybe just hyperbole talk between two narcissistic idiots but much worse stuff. Like as bad as you can imagine stuff.

XACLY!

it's in the public domain and transparent at this point.....

#yum-yum-gummy

(07-10-2018 11:23 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 11:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So you get uppity when you pose a 'facetious question' (i.e. a real question in which I have to subjectively know your answer) and I answer. Awesome job there sparky. Real clever. Then you go off on a snark asshat hunt with it.

Good follow up technique to continue to influence people. Keep it up. Or patent it. Make riches from that system.

I apologize. I didn't realize you were a dick as well.

Awww.... poor sparky sure can throw the facetious rock but sure gets snarly when it gets tossed back his way.... bummer.

Being called a 'dick' from the piehole that launched the 'obtuse' comment is really fing rich. Seriously. Think about it a bit. It just might hit you how rich it is....

(07-10-2018 11:33 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 11:23 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Gummy is guilty, busted and this is just stalling. If this is an ambush she is dumber than a sack of hammers. I personally think they are still hiding worse stuff. Maybe just hyperbole talk between two narcissistic idiots but much worst stuff. Like as bad as you can imagine stuff.

XACLY!

it's in the public domain and transparent at this point.....

#yum-yum-gummy

I will go one further, I think we will never see the worst stuff. It's too dangerous for the country. I hate conspiracy theorists but I just have a feeling that these FBI idiots commited treason.

(07-10-2018 11:42 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 11:33 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 11:23 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Gummy is guilty, busted and this is just stalling. If this is an ambush she is dumber than a sack of hammers. I personally think they are still hiding worse stuff. Maybe just hyperbole talk between two narcissistic idiots but much worst stuff. Like as bad as you can imagine stuff.

XACLY!

it's in the public domain and transparent at this point.....

#yum-yum-gummy

I will go one further, I think we will never see the worst stuff. It's too dangerous for the country. I hate conspiracy theorists but I just have a feeling that these FBI idiots commited treason.

1000% completely agree....

and that's a shame.....

that's why #henceDJT and how/what powerful our gooberment 'faithful' have transformed into.....

(07-10-2018 09:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Actually I kind of side with Page on this.

They were setting her up with no opportunity to review any documents at all. In the slightest.

Kind of a turd move, imo.

Lawyer gave the absolute best advice in the situation. Advice that I would have given if it were me giving the advice in that situation.

Look, Page *should* be compelled to testify. But requiring testimony in 'ambush-style' setting is utterly chickenshit.

Soooo,

Same as everything Bueller has done, minus the forged 302's?!?

Seems close to SOP's, these days.

(07-10-2018 09:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Actually I kind of side with Page on this.
They were setting her up with no opportunity to review any documents at all. In the slightest.
Kind of a turd move, imo.
Lawyer gave the absolute best advice in the situation. Advice that I would have given if it were me giving the advice in that situation.
Look, Page *should* be compelled to testify. But requiring testimony in 'ambush-style' setting is utterly chickenshit.

It's good advice to give any client in this situation. Including Donald Trump.

(07-10-2018 09:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 09:15 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 09:10 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 09:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Actually I kind of side with Page on this.

They were setting her up with no opportunity to review any documents at all. In the slightest.

Kind of a turd move, imo.

Lawyer gave the absolute best advice in the situation. Advice that I would have given if it were me giving the advice in that situation.

Look, Page *should* be compelled to testify. But requiring testimony in 'ambush-style' setting is utterly chickenshit.

Yeah, but to paraphrase the left, why's she afraid of the interview if she did nothing wrong?

I'm currently taking care of a 'open case' murdered woman's estate that I handled for the previous 8 yrs.......I was called in twice......I looked the detective straight in the eye and asked, "why would I want to give up 500/mo easy money......swab me."

no bs....

if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear......

however, they play a different game at that level.....

one misstep and you're toast.....

Stinkman -- love ya and respect ya. But on this we are just going to disagree.

I know (not 'know of', but 'know') two or three people that 'didnt do anything wrong' *but* got caught cross with the Feds for interviews. Sorry, Feeb or US Attorney, or Federal fing dogcatcher for that matter, asks questions, Im not saying anything nor is anyone I am advising saying anything until *everything* is out in the open.

The locals dont have the laws to charge someone in that manner that the Feds do, but again I know a handful of people that, while not having done anything, got caught crossways for answers that the investigators didnt really want to hear.

Better to dig oneself out of a 'no answer' than doing the 'you didnt hear me correctly' version of that method.

Just saying, you and I will probably just have to agree to disagree on this point -- (salute)

I'd say this is spot on.

BUT, counter to what we get when it's coming from the other side. We have a disgraced fmr atty gen who wouldn't cooperate, FFS

The entire Fed system is f%^&'ed to the rotten, bloated core, or corpse.

Beyond the time to turn the page. disgusting.

(07-10-2018 11:57 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 09:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Actually I kind of side with Page on this.

They were setting her up with no opportunity to review any documents at all. In the slightest.

Kind of a turd move, imo.

Lawyer gave the absolute best advice in the situation. Advice that I would have given if it were me giving the advice in that situation.

Look, Page *should* be compelled to testify. But requiring testimony in 'ambush-style' setting is utterly chickenshit.

Soooo,

Same as everything Bueller has done, minus the forged 302's?!?

Seems close to SOP's, these days.

Agreed. Flynn's situation is utter chickenshit as well. Did you expect me to disagree?

She and the stork said, in writing, things that could expose the FBI in a criminal manner. They knew they did it and didn't think of the consequences if caught, which they didn't think would happen. When the texts were discovered, they should have known what could happen.
They lawyered up and are stalling. Could be the tip of the iceberg and they have no real defense. They're in deep shiiiit.

(07-11-2018 12:01 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-10-2018 09:06 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Actually I kind of side with Page on this.
They were setting her up with no opportunity to review any documents at all. In the slightest.
Kind of a turd move, imo.
Lawyer gave the absolute best advice in the situation. Advice that I would have given if it were me giving the advice in that situation.
Look, Page *should* be compelled to testify. But requiring testimony in 'ambush-style' setting is utterly chickenshit.

It's good advice to give any client in this situation. Including Donald Trump.

been waiting for you to chime in....was as expected....and you're both not wrong....

astronaut fluid guy isn't a dumbarse.....he might be the smartest poster on the board....

the point others (including myself) are making is it's time to put some hands on the chopping block.......

it's simply time to put 'em in front of the public eye after raising 'their right hand' to swear to tell the truth.....

people need to go to jail over all this bs......