THE REPORT, buttoned up (SCO Thread v. 33)

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Um.
Now tell me all about how that applies to asking questions of Trump Jr.

1. First, can we acknowledge that your previous statements about perjury traps were off base?
2. Second, it's obvious when applying it to the case of Trump Jr or anyone, that they are alleging that Mueller or whatever prosecutor was involved was using their broad ranging prosecutorial powers to trap the questioned into a lie, intentional or otherwise, to create a crime that did not previously exist. A great example imo would be James Comey's prosecution of Martha Stewart.

 

[vengeful]

Um. Perjury trap is not something invented to defend Trump. It has long been recognized as a form of prosecutial misconduct.

https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/lawfaculty/170/

Yeah, read that article and the only thing you'll see is that "The Perjury Trap" isn't a trap if the person simply tells the truth. No such thing as a perjury trap, don't lie.

 

[Andy Capp]

1. First, can we acknowledge that your previous statements about perjury traps were off base?
2. Second, it's obvious when applying it to the case of Trump Jr or anyone, that they are alleging that Mueller or whatever prosecutor was involved was using their broad ranging prosecutorial powers to trap the questioned into a lie, intentional or otherwise, to create a crime that did not previously exist. A great example imo would be James Comey's prosecution of Martha Stewart.

1. No. I stand by my statement that people such as the one I quoted haul out that term every time the subject comes up of people they root for being subject to questioning in a legal investigation, whether or not it has any relevance or likelihood of occurring.
2. No such thing is obvious. But since, going by #1, you apparently couldn't parse my earlier statement, I don't expect you to see why, so let's drop it right here.

 

[glenwo2]

You're gonna need better logic to win this game, nutbar.

I trust @IngaVovchanchyn 's logic more than I trust your "logic".

 

[glenwo2]

It's not really a disagreement. I'm just able to recognize that someone who pulls a bitch move like ignoring people can't lament other people being bitches and expect to be taken seriously.

That's nice. We done here?

 

[Andy Capp]

Yeah, read that article and the only thing you'll see is that "The Perjury Trap" isn't a trap if the person simply tells the truth. No such thing as a perjury trap, don't lie.

No, that's not strictly the truth, it's a real thing, but it's so staggeringly uncommon at the federal level as to be a reach of epic proportions, to wit, "No US federal court has ever accepted a motion to dismiss because of claimed perjury trap."

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Yeah, read that article and the only thing you'll see is that "The Perjury Trap" isn't a trap if the person simply tells the truth. No such thing as a perjury trap, don't lie.

Yes, refusing to lie is a great defensive stratagem against perjury traps, but noting that is not at all the same as saying perjury traps don't exist.

It doesn't take a deep understanding of human nature to realize that people often lie to defend themselves. A clever prosecutor can abuse this tendency by continually broaching matters in which he knows the person being deposed will be tempted to lie or otherwise obscure the truth. It isn't hard, if that is what you are aiming for as a prosecutor, to eventually catch almost anyone in a lie. Now, obviously if the lie is about a core matter being investigated, the lie is a crime. But in tangential matters, or in areas where it is conceivable that the deposed person has become confused, then the perjury charge is an abuse. Relevant to this is that we now know the FBI agents who questioned Flynn continually asked him about subjects which they had independent hard sources for. In essence, they did not question him for information, they questioned him to see if he'd lie. It's a crime according to the letter of the law but it violates the spirit of the law.

I found Dershowtiz' comments at the time to be fitting: "Is it the proper role of law enforcement to conduct criminal morality tests to determine whether citizens will tell the truth or lie when given the opportunity to do either by FBI agents? Is it proper to target individuals for such tests for the purpose of pressuring them into becoming witnesses against the real target? These are important questions for all citizens who care about civil liberties and prosecutorial abuses. They should not be addressed in a partisan manner."

Please note that here I am not defending Trump, Jr. I am expressing skepticism of the tactics used by a prosecutor under tremendous pressure to not come up empty handed creating process crimes as he began to realize that the core investigation had found insufficient evidence of Trump-Russian conspiracy.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

No, that's no strictly the truth, it's a real thing, but it's so staggeringly uncommon at the federal level as to be a reach of epic proportions, to wit, "No US federal court has ever accepted a motion to dismiss because of claimed perjury trap."

No, it's not that it is uncommon. It is that it is impossible to prove. In fact, you deceptively quoted wikipedia here. Here's the full wikipedia quote: "Claims of a perjury trap are common when perjury charges result from testimony before a grand jury, but are rarely proven. No US federal court has ever accepted a motion to dismiss because of claimed perjury trap. The defense is extremely difficult, because the question that elicited the perjured testimony must be immaterial to the case in which it was asked, and courts construe very broadly what questions count as material to a case."

You claim the lack of accepted motions to dismiss is because the crime is rare, while the full quote explains the lack of successful motions to dismiss not on the rareness of the tactic but because it is impossible to prove.

A better prosecutor than I no doubt could have strung you along with questions along this line before nailing you for your deception.

 

[vengeful]

Yes, refusing to lie is a great defensive stratagem against perjury traps, but noting that is not at all the same as saying perjury traps don't exist.

It doesn't take a deep understanding of human nature to realize that people often lie to defend themselves. A clever prosecutor can abuse this tendency by continually broaching matters in which he knows the person being deposed will be tempted to lie or otherwise obscure the truth. It isn't hard, if that is what you are aiming for as a prosecutor, to eventually catch almost anyone in a lie. Now, obviously if the lie is about a core matter being investigated, the lie is a crime. But in tangential matters, or in areas where it is conceivable that the deposed person has become confused, then the perjury charge is an abuse. Relevant to this is that we now know the FBI agents who questioned Flynn continually asked him about subjects which they had independent hard sources for. In essence, they did not question him for information, they questioned him to see if he'd lie. It's a crime according to the letter of the law but it violates the spirit of the law.

I found Dershowtiz' comments at the time to be fitting: "Is it the proper role of law enforcement to conduct criminal morality tests to determine whether citizens will tell the truth or lie when given the opportunity to do either by FBI agents? Is it proper to target individuals for such tests for the purpose of pressuring them into becoming witnesses against the real target? These are important questions for all citizens who care about civil liberties and prosecutorial abuses. They should not be addressed in a partisan manner."

Please note that here I am not defending Trump, Jr. I am expressing skepticism of the tactics used by a prosecutor under tremendous pressure to not come up empty handed creating process crimes as he began to realize that the core investigation with insufficient evidence of Trump-Russian conspiracy.

No, asking questions you know the answer to already isn't a perjury trap or even something wrong to do. How do you establish credibility of a witness? If you know the answers already and his testimony corroborates that, then it gives that witness more credibility for when you ask questions that you don't know the answer to. How much confidence would you have in a witness that you know has already lied to you? Would you have confidence in the testimony of someone that you know has already lied to you when questioning them on material you don't have an answer to?

And last I checked, that's not a prosecutorial abuse, you have the right to refuse to answer a question if you don't want to. You don't have the right to lie to a question, just take your 5th and keep your mouth shut on questions you don't want to answer.

 

[waiguoren]

In the pantheon of Sherdog Bitch Moves, you're responsible for 2 all time greats (as if you didn't know lol). But someone managed to top you.

Interesting. Which "bitch moves" did I make?

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

No, asking questions you know the answer to already isn't a perjury trap or even something wrong to do.

If a prosecutor asks questions not to glean information but in order to give the deposed witness the the opportunity to lie and thus create a process charge, then yes it is a wrong thing to do and it is a perjury trap.

 

[vengeful]

No, it's not that it is uncommon. It is that it is impossible to prove. In fact, you deceptively quoted wikipedia here. Here's the full wikipedia quote: "Claims of a perjury trap are common when perjury charges result from testimony before a grand jury, but are rarely proven. No US federal court has ever accepted a motion to dismiss because of claimed perjury trap. The defense is extremely difficult, because the question that elicited the perjured testimony must be immaterial to the case in which it was asked, and courts construe very broadly what questions count as material to a case."

You claim the lack of accepted motions to dismiss is because the crime is rare, while the full quote explains the lack of successful motions to dismiss not on the rareness of the tactic but because it is impossible to prove.

A better prosecutor than I no doubt could have strung you along with questions along this line before nailing you for your deception.

lol "perjury trap" isn't a crime. It's a defense to a crime, not an actual crime. Sort of like Entrapment.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

lol "perjury trap" isn't a crime. It's a defense to a crime, not an actual crime. Sort of like Entrapment.

Exactly. It is a prosecutorial abuse like entrapment, but harder to prove. Did I mistakenly call it a crime somewhere? If so, thanks for correcting me. I was obviously not suggesting Mueller committed any crimes.

 

[vengeful]

If a prosecutor asks questions not to glean information but in order to give the deposed witness the the opportunity to lie and thus create a process charge, then yes it is a wrong thing to do and it is a perjury trap.

No it's not a wrong thing to do, it establishes the credibility of a witness. A witness lying is the dumb thing to do and is illegal.

 

[waiguoren]

If a prosecutor asks questions not to glean information but in order to give the deposed witness the the opportunity to lie and thus create a process charge, then yes it is a wrong thing to do and it is a perjury trap.

This happened to William Clinton circa 1997. I imagine the incentive for prosecutors to do this is very strong.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

No it's not a wrong thing to do, it establishes the credibility of a witness. A witness lying is the dumb thing to do and is illegal.

Er, ok. That's your opinion. Everyone else thinks it is an obvious abuse of a prosecutor's already overweening power.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Tomorrow gonna be good if Klein testifies.

 

[vengeful]

Exactly. It is a prosecutorial abuse like entrapment, but harder to prove. Did I mistakenly call it a crime somewhere? If so, thanks for correcting me. I was obviously not suggesting Mueller committed any crimes.

Yes, yes you did. Entrapment is basically law enforcement convincing someone to do a crime they wouldn't have committed. (I remember a case where an undercover cop got a junkie to buy drugs, after the junkie had said no repeatedly, the cop convinced him to do so then arrested the junkie for possession. That's entrapment.) A person lying under their own freewill isn't an abuse of any sort, it's a dumb choice. I can understand why Dershowitz talks about a perjury trap, he's a defense attorney, they have to have a way to defend clients caught lying under oath.

 

[hillelslovak87]

That's nice. We done here?

Where'd you get that scar, tough guy?

 

[glenwo2]

Where'd you get that scar, tough guy?

From my little friend.....