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

[Jorge Luis Borges]

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.

Actually, your own example makes it clear that a perjury trap is a form of entrapment. A junkie buying drugs does so of their own free will, the problem is not that they have not committed a crime, it's that they would not have without police action. Same with a perjury trap. It isn't that no lie occurred, it's that the opportunity to lie was intentionally created by the prosecutor.

In neither case does the defendant come off looking good; they lied to investigators or committed some other crime. However, it is neither the prosecutor's job nor that of the police to create or help create crimes through the process of investigating crimes.

 

[vengeful]

Actually, your own example makes it clear that a perjury trap is a form of entrapment. A junkie buying drugs does so of their own free will, the problem is not that they have not committed a crime, it's that they would not have without police action. Same with a perjury trap. It isn't that no lie occurred, it's that the opportunity to lie was intentionally created by the prosecutor.

In neither case does the defendant come off looking good; they lied to investigators or committed some other crime. However, it is neither the prosecutor's job nor that of the police to create or help create crimes through the process of investigating crimes.

Ugh no, the junkie didn't want to buy the drugs, the cop coerced him into buying it. Difference. The prosecutor asks questions, they don't coerce a person into lying about the answers to those questions. Intentionally creating an opportunity for a junkie to buy drugs isn't illegal, undercover cops sell all the time to junkies to get arrests. Female cops pretend to be hookers to get arrests. Creating an opportunity for someone to willingly commit a crime isn't entrapment, it's when coercion to commit the crime takes place.

 

[Andy Capp]

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.

Wrong again. I claim the lack is because "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.""

Do you think Jr. has to worry about being grilled with questions unrelated to the case at hand? That is the question you keep dodging but which addresses your concern. So yeah, probably not the best time to be your own counsel.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Wrong again. I claim the lack is because "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.""

Do you think Jr. has to worry about being grilled with questions unrelated to the case at hand? That is the question you keep dodging but which addresses your concern. So yeah, probably not the best time to be your own counsel.

1. Where did you claim that "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." That's a quote from the short wikipedia article on perjury traps, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury_trap. It is not part of the comment you made which I quoted, nor does it show up under a search of this thread except when I myself quoted it. Can you verify where in this thread you made this claim prior to being called out for deceptively quoting the article out of context?

2. What you claimed was this:

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."

So you quoted the wikipedia article in part, and used that one line as if it proved that perjury traps are "so staggeringly uncommon" that no US federal court has ever accepted a motion to dismiss because of one. Of course, the context of the sentence you quoted gives a very different explanation of why no court has accepted motion to dismiss, which is that perjury traps are next to impossible to prove and not that they are "staggeringly rare".

3. You used a quote out of context as if it proved something it doesn't, and then say you claimed something quite different than what you really said once you were called out for it. The irony is that this is in a thread where you and others are intoning self-righteously about perjurers lying.

4. I'm not dodging any questions about Trump, Jr. I have no thoughts on him to give you, which is why when I answered your question previously, I gave my thoughts on Mueller. As I stated earlier, I am not defending Jr. in this thread nor have I defended him elsewhere.

 

[Andy Capp]

1. Where did you claim that "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." That's a quote from the short wikipedia article on perjury traps, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury_trap. It is not part of the comment you made which I quoted, nor does it show up under a search of this thread except when I myself quoted it. Can you verify where in this thread you made this claim prior to being called out for deceptively quoting the article out of context?

2. What you claimed was this: So you quoted the wikipedia article in part, and used that one line as if it proved that perjury traps are "so staggeringly uncommon" that no US federal court has ever accepted a motion to dismiss because of one. Of course, the context of the sentence you quoted gives a very different explanation of why no court has accepted motion to dismiss, which is that perjury traps are next to impossible to prove and not that they are "staggeringly rare".

3. You used a quote out of context as if it proved something it doesn't, and then say you claimed something quite different than what you really said once you were called out for it. The irony is that this is in a thread where you and others are intoning self-righteously about perjurers lying.

4. I'm not dodging any questions about Trump, Jr. I have no thoughts on him to give you, which is why when I answered your question previously, I gave my thoughts on Mueller. As I stated earlier, I am not defending Jr. in this thread nor have I defended him elsewhere.

Dodging, ignoring context, whatever term suits you.

 

[PolishHeadlock2]

Good thread on the Counter Intelligence aspect

 

[Fawlty]

Preet on CNN was adamant that from his eyes as a prosecutor, there is more than enough to charge Trump. Like, a lot more than enough.

 

[bobgeese]

Preet on CNN was adamant that from his eyes as a prosecutor, there is more than enough to charge Trump. Like, a lot more than enough.

Ah, yes... Nobody has been as unpartisan in their views against trump as him.

Oh, on CNN you say. Well, they’re certainly real news...

 

[Andy Capp]

Good thread on the Counter Intelligence aspect

This is why it grinds my gears a little for anyone to point to any given Russian effort and say it had no effect,

It doesn't take an intelligence expert to realize this, IMO.

 

[glenwo2]

1. Where did you claim that "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." That's a quote from the short wikipedia article on perjury traps, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury_trap. It is not part of the comment you made which I quoted, nor does it show up under a search of this thread except when I myself quoted it. Can you verify where in this thread you made this claim prior to being called out for deceptively quoting the article out of context?

2. What you claimed was this: So you quoted the wikipedia article in part, and used that one line as if it proved that perjury traps are "so staggeringly uncommon" that no US federal court has ever accepted a motion to dismiss because of one. Of course, the context of the sentence you quoted gives a very different explanation of why no court has accepted motion to dismiss, which is that perjury traps are next to impossible to prove and not that they are "staggeringly rare".

3. You used a quote out of context as if it proved something it doesn't, and then say you claimed something quite different than what you really said once you were called out for it. The irony is that this is in a thread where you and others are intoning self-righteously about perjurers lying.

Busted.

 

[glenwo2]

Dodging, ignoring context, whatever term suits you.

Deflecting, making up shit, whatever narrative suits you.

 

[glenwo2]

Good thread on the Counter Intelligence aspect

Then Muelller must be LYING!




THIS IS IT!

 

[glenwo2]

Ah, yes... Nobody has been as unpartisan in their views against trump as him.

Oh, on CNN you say. Well, they’re certainly real news...

Who is this Preet person and why should anyone with a brain and common sense give a fuck about his biased opinion?

 

[zebby23]

Preet on CNN was adamant that from his eyes as a prosecutor, there is more than enough to charge Trump. Like, a lot more than enough.

But but but Preet is dem from the deep state

 

[Quipling]

Preet on CNN was adamant that from his eyes as a prosecutor, there is more than enough to charge Trump. Like, a lot more than enough.

Haven't watched this but that's my conclusion after reading the obstruction section. The "collusion" part is a close question, imo.

 

[bobgeese]

Haven't watched this but that's my conclusion after reading the obstruction section. The "collusion" part is a close question, imo.

It’s too bad you’re not the AG...

 

[glenwo2]

It’s too bad you’re not the AG...

If he was, he'd Jail all Republican Presidents and Politicians and make sure Democrat Presidents/Politicians are never investigated.

 

[Quipling]

If he was, he'd Jail all Republican Presidents and Politicians and make sure Democrat Presidents/Politicians are never investigated.

If you're going to write fanfiction about me, it should have a more interesting plot.

 

[Rational Poster]

Interesting. Which "bitch moves" did I make?

You lost a bet and didn't post on the forum for the entire time you had your sig changed as a result of the bet.

Also, you lost a bet and then made pretend it wasn't a bet because you lost it.

 

[SurferH2O]

Preet on CNN was adamant that from his eyes as a prosecutor, there is more than enough to charge Trump. Like, a lot more than enough.

CNN is a joke anymore.

Mueller identified ten possible obstruction situations and investigated. Then we get CNN and other Mainstream Media entities characterizing that element as "ten instances of obstruction". That's straight up lying an corruption by the media... CNN.