Elixir
Made in America
Trump is obviously unable to string two sentences together without lying, which means that any attempt to compel him to testify under oath is a "perjury trap". Seems rather straightforward that a perjury conviction would be justified, but not according to Cheato, or according to his super-lawyer Giuliani. I'm trying to wrap my head around their argument that it's "not fair, because people lie" (yes they said that).
Can anyone explain to me why the fact that "people lie" bears on this at all? If someone lies the FBI or Grand Jury in order to make Cheato look bad, they expose themselves to felony charges, if the lie can be proven to be a materially false statement. The same goes for a lie told by Cheato to make himself look good. Where's the inequity here? Are we to understand that Cheato wants the court to assume that anything said in contradiction to any statement HE makes is a lie, even if it can be proven to be true? Is it not the case that if Cheato were to tell the truth he could not be brought up for perjury? I mean wouldn't the scenario that Cheato and Rudi are putting forth as a reason not to testify, require that someone else's lie be accepted as true by the court? So isn't he saying that he doesn't want to testify because he thinks all the witnesses, the courts and Grand Jury are allied in a Deep State conspiracy with Mueller?
Help me out here someone, please! It looks like Team Cheato is betting that Americans are simply too stupid to understand that perjury is only a risk if you lie. Is that REALLY where we are?
Can anyone explain to me why the fact that "people lie" bears on this at all? If someone lies the FBI or Grand Jury in order to make Cheato look bad, they expose themselves to felony charges, if the lie can be proven to be a materially false statement. The same goes for a lie told by Cheato to make himself look good. Where's the inequity here? Are we to understand that Cheato wants the court to assume that anything said in contradiction to any statement HE makes is a lie, even if it can be proven to be true? Is it not the case that if Cheato were to tell the truth he could not be brought up for perjury? I mean wouldn't the scenario that Cheato and Rudi are putting forth as a reason not to testify, require that someone else's lie be accepted as true by the court? So isn't he saying that he doesn't want to testify because he thinks all the witnesses, the courts and Grand Jury are allied in a Deep State conspiracy with Mueller?
Help me out here someone, please! It looks like Team Cheato is betting that Americans are simply too stupid to understand that perjury is only a risk if you lie. Is that REALLY where we are?