Establishing a pretense to refuse to testify.

Trump going before Mueller would be like a kid with crumbs on his face telling Mom he didn't steal the cookies.

 

Precisely!

 

The word "ignorant" comes from the verb "ignore", meaning to disregard or be unaware of facts in general or of specific subjects.
You can see one black bean in the bag and call it a bag of black beans that way, However- doing so makes you appear ignorant, not wise, and it does not change anything. Bad things don't go away by pretending they don't exist or calling them good things.

You want him to polish the image rather than clean up the mess that has caused you and most all Americans to complain all your life about the corruption, the influence peddling, incompetence, failed programs, political favors and general dishonesty in washington that you have been taxed to pay for while nothing ever gets fixed or done right.
So you really think another round of polishing the egos and patting the backs of the people responsible for botching the job would help?
Do you think electing a nice guy could just ask them to play nice and washington would rehabilitate itself and do the right thing?
Or, do I need to define "ignorance" again?

 

The strategy is being pushed by many in Drumpf's orbit.

CHRIS WALLACE interviewed JOE DIGENOVA on “FOX NEWS SUNDAY”: DIGENOVA: “The President will not sit down for an interview because this investigation has now reached a level of bad faith, this is no longer a good faith investigation.”

There it is again, the fake "bad faith" narrative. Naturally, the minions are blindly accepting it as they do all the lies.

 

You mean like judge Ellis?

 

Wow that was a waste of time.

I think we're all dumber for having been subjected to that

 

You are FOS.
Judge Ellis questioned what the charges being brought against Manafort had to do with the collusion investigation. He may be unaware of evidence Mueller has linking the two. We'll see. In any event, he did not call the investigation a witch hunt, did not accuse Mueller of lying, did not accuse Mueller of an abuse of power, and even if he rules Manafort's violations aren't part of the collusion investigation it's likely the case will be taken up by another US attorney's office.

'Though Ellis appeared to go tougher on prosecutors, he acknowledged that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein did spell out Mueller’s authority to investigate Manafort’s Ukraine work in a memo issued on Aug. 2, 2017, more than two months after the initial order appointing Mueller. The memo made public by Mueller’s team in its response to Manafort’s push to dismiss the indictments against him is heavily redacted, only revealing details related to Manafort.
Ellis asked prosecutors to submit the full unredacted memo to the court under seal so that he could determine whether the parts made public by Mueller’s team were indeed the only portions relevant to Manafort."

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/hearing-motion-to-dismiss-manafort-virgina

http://www.businessinsider.com/right-wing-media-new-court-order-may-exonerate-michael-flynn-2018-2

 

I see you are running with Don's idiotic comments distorting what Ellis said. Not surprising.

 

The judges quotes - accusing the team Mueller of lying, seeking unfettered powers and conducting a witch hunt against Trump. Read and weep:

-"We don't want anyone in this country with unfettered power. It's unlikely you're going to persuade me the special prosecutor has power to do anything he or she wants,"
-“We said this was what the investigation was about but we are not bound by it and we were lying,”
-"it didn't further our core effort to get Trump,"

 

'Though Ellis appeared to go tougher on prosecutors, he acknowledged that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein did spell out Mueller’s authority to investigate Manafort’s Ukraine work in a memo issued on Aug. 2, 2017, more than two months after the initial order appointing Mueller. The memo made public by Mueller’s team in its response to Manafort’s push to dismiss the indictments against him is heavily redacted, only revealing details related to Manafort.
Saying "We don't want anyone in this country with unfettered power" is not the same as accusing Mueller of it.

“We said this was what the investigation was about but we are not bound by it and we were lying,”.....where did that quote come from.....who said it?

"it didn't further our core effort to get Trump,.............same questions.

 

The right-wing media is pushing a dubious claim about Mueller's case against Michael Flynn

• The right-wing media has suggested in recent days that a new court order in the case against former national-security adviser Michael Flynn implies he will be exonerated soon.
• The judge presiding over the Flynn case, Judge Emmet Sullivan, has issued a similar order in every criminal case he's overseen since 2009.
• Legal experts said the order itself was routine practice, adding that the question wasn't whether Flynn would be exonerated, but whether he would be pardoned by President Donald Trump.

http://www.businessinsider.com/right-wing-media-new-court-order-may-exonerate-michael-flynn-2018-2

 

Asha Rangappa, a former FBI special agent, characterized Ellis' remarks about prosecutors aiming to get Manafort to flip as "bizarre commentary."

"Unless there is something legally amiss in the indictment, speculating re motives of the [special counsel] is beyond the judge's purview (and also seems to suggest that there is a connection [between] Manafort's criminal bank fraud and Trump," she tweeted.

Renato Mariotti, a former federal prosecutor, echoed that view.

"Whether the special counsel wants Manafort to flip is not relevant to the question of whether this indictment is within the scope of his jurisdiction," he wrote. "If the judge considers Mueller's motivation in bringing the indictment and dismisses it, that's reversible error."

He added: "Even if the judge ultimately does not take his view of Mueller's motivations into account in his ruling, he politicized the proceeding with comments that were unnecessary and created an appearance that he has a political agenda."

http://www.businessinsider.com/judge-ts-ellis-mueller-manafort-flip-trump-russia-2018-5

 

>>We said this was what the investigation was about but we are not bound by it and we were lying,”
The judge said this mocking/paraphrasing the Mueller team's testimony.

>>it didn't further our core effort to get Trump
Core effort to solve a crime = prosecutors doing their job
Core effort to get Trump = witch hunt

>>It's unlikely you're going to persuade me the special prosecutor has power to do anything he or she wants
Mueller tries to persuade the judge he has unlimited/unfettered power and the judge won't have any of it.

Seriously dude, do I need to translate every word for you or do you seriously think this pathetic hair splitting of yours is fooling anyone? Jeez

 

So judge Ellis accusing the Mueller team of lying is a distortion?

 

Is see what you are referring to now. You've taken the quote out of context if you think he was actually accusing Mueller's team of lying.

But Ellis apparently wasn't buying it, reportedly characterizing the special counsel's office's argument as: "We said this was what the investigation was about, but we are not bound by it, and we were lying."

He was characterizing, in his interpretation, their argument.

 

Yes, it's a made up interpretation, not a accusation of an actual lie.

>>It's unlikely you're going to persuade me the special prosecutor has power to do anything he or she wants
Mueller tries to persuade the judge he has unlimited/unfettered power and the judge won't have any of it.
Ridiculous. Not even close to what Mueller's team did. Ellis acknowledged Mueller's team was given authorization by Rosenstein to investigate Manafort's financial crimes.

it didn't further our core effort to get Trump
That is Ellis once again putting words in the mouth's of prosecutors.

Asha Rangappa, a former FBI special agent, characterized Ellis' remarks about prosecutors aiming to get Manafort to flip as "bizarre commentary."

"Unless there is something legally amiss in the indictment, speculating re motives of the [special counsel] is beyond the judge's purview (and also seems to suggest that there is a connection [between] Manafort's criminal bank fraud and Trump," she tweeted.

Renato Mariotti, a former federal prosecutor, echoed that view.

"Whether the special counsel wants Manafort to flip is not relevant to the question of whether this indictment is within the scope of his jurisdiction," he wrote. "If the judge considers Mueller's motivation in bringing the indictment and dismisses it, that's reversible error."

He added: "Even if the judge ultimately does not take his view of Mueller's motivations into account in his ruling, he politicized the proceeding with comments that were unnecessary and created an appearance that he has a political agenda."

http://www.businessinsider.com/judge-ts-ellis-mueller-manafort-flip-trump-russia-2018-5

 

Yes, finally you are getting it, in this senior federal judge's interpretation the Mueller team is lying, is seeking unfettered power, is ignoring the bounds of the mandate and is working to get Trump (which is a classic definition of witch hunt).

Having thoroughly reviewed the case, these are his conclusions.

 

Subjected? Not because of that, it's because you don't understand it.

 

Absolutely not. I can see how you've misinterpreted what was said and drawn erroneous conclusions since you see all things through the lens of a cultist. If I've learned anything it's once adopted cultists become blind to the lies they believe.

 

It has NEVER been a good faith investigation, it's always been a vendetta. If you can walk through the fish market without smelling fish, maybe you don't smell the odor that has emanated from this "investigation" since day one. I don't believe that is possible, and that leaves only denial and self-deception.

Have you ever looked at the history of things like the Spanish Inquisition, where creating guilt is the objective of the persecution?
Do you have any idea what kind of abuse can be levied when a zealous, biased prosecutor starts looking to create criminals when they can't find crime?
That's only one small facet of your blind side. But start on the small things and hope you can work up to full blown reality someday

 

Slate, the bastion of liberalism:

"His comments accusing Mueller’s team of lying and openly questioning their intentions indicate a broader displeasure with the special counsel."
https://slate.com/news-and-politics...ed-muellers-authority-to-charge-manafort.html

 

Borat, I see you are giving it your best- but no matter what how hard we try, there are some people who simply can't learn. It's not your fault.

 

Entrapment isn't happening here. It's just an investigation, not a sting. It's examining what allegedly happened, not what might happen if a person is tricked into committing a crime. Being caught lying where the act of lying (e.g. perjury) is an offence of itself is not entrapment.

There are two main reasons to interview anyone during a criminal investigation. One is to get information. You can ask questions of anyone to get information. As a result of that information you may identify a suspect. I know this isn't the case in the States but in my jurisdiction when the investigation goes from inquiry to accusation the person under suspicion must be cautioned that they are not required to answer questions from that point on. This is well before any arrest.

Because in my jurisdiction the caution has to be given it's wise to get that information that you have and use it to put questions to the suspect. If they refuse to answer then fine, if you have sufficient evidence, charge them. If they answer questions and give reasonable and plausible answers then you may have the wrong person or insufficient information. If they lie then you simply let them lie because in court you're going to truth bomb them in cross-examination (if they choose to give evidence on their behalf).

It's not rocket science.

 

Mueller sent a lot of innocent people to prison, and cost tens of thousands of people their jobs doing it.

 

Trump would have a very good chance of avoiding having to testify before the Trump Justice Department Special Counsel via a medial exemption.

No, not that "bone spur" pretense.

He could easily submit mountains of compelling evidence that he is a pathological liar.

His chronic spewing of copious lies under oath could be highly injurious.