• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

"Perjury Trap" - How stupid are Americans?

Elixir

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
28,212
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
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?
 
You don't understand.

Bad for His Flatulence = wrong.
Good for His Flatulence = right.

Anything else is blasphemy to the GOP religion.
 
A perjury trap is a situation where the entire purpose of the testimony is to get the witness to commit perjury, not to catch him for any other wrongdoing or elicit information relevant to other crimes. So if you can imagine it from point of view of a person who thinks Trump has done no wrong and there was no collusion (as he's tweeted about a million times now), the only reason to call him to testify is to ask him about embarrassing -- but not illegal -- things so that he'd either have to lie, or admit having lied to the public. Hence, a perjury trap.

I don't see a big problem with the president committing perjury anyway. He can't be prosecuted for it, only impeached, right? So basically it's safe to say he could go ahead and testify, whatever he wants to say is not going to hurt him much because the republicans in congress will never impeach him.
 
Jayjay said:
A perjury trap is a situation where the entire purpose of the testimony is to get the witness to commit perjury, not to catch him for any other wrongdoing or elicit information relevant to other crimes. So if you can imagine it from point of view of a person who thinks Trump has done no wrong and there was no collusion (as he's tweeted about a million times now), the only reason to call him to testify is to ask him about embarrassing -- but not illegal -- things so that he'd either have to lie, or admit having lied to the public. Hence, a perjury trap.

I don't see a big problem with the president committing perjury anyway. He can't be prosecuted for it, only impeached, right? So basically it's safe to say he could go ahead and testify, whatever he wants to say is not going to hurt him much because the republicans in congress will never impeach him.
Click to expand...

Zackly. But if they stall and delay, they risk one or more houses of Congress being lost by the time the ball is in their court. Why not just go in and tell the truth NOW, while he's immune to any repercussions?
 
First, nothing seems to embarrass Trump. Second, if Trump has done nothing wrong, then he has no reason to lie about anything. Third, if the Democrats capture a sufficient number of seats in the House and the Senate, even if they do not constitute a majority, there may be enough republicans left with integrity to impeach Trump.

Given that Trump has a long and documented history of "inexact" and counterfactual statements, no competent attorney would want him to testify under oath, because that would, in effect, guarantee perjury.
 
Jayjay said:
A perjury trap is a situation where the entire purpose of the testimony is to get the witness to commit perjury, not to catch him for any other wrongdoing or elicit information relevant to other crimes. So if you can imagine it from point of view of a person who thinks Trump has done no wrong and there was no collusion (as he's tweeted about a million times now), the only reason to call him to testify is to ask him about embarrassing -- but not illegal -- things so that he'd either have to lie, or admit having lied to the public. Hence, a perjury trap.
Click to expand...
Except we are dealing with a Russian Collusion investigation.
1) Is there collusion
2) Who was responsible

Trump doesn't have to be the kingpin for there to be collusion. We already know that there were communications from people close to Trump that indicate a coordinated effort with the help of foreign sources. We know that Trump campaign members were seeking out connections. So the question is, who did what and who knew about it. Trump could have benefited from something he didn't have direct knowledge of. Granted, we know that Donald Jr had a meeting with a Kremlin insider. Mueller might know if Donald Sr talked to Donald Jr before or after the meeting about it. These are details that matter.

So this isn't a trap. Donald did nothing wrong? Then speak the truth.
 
Maybe, just maybe, we shouldn't have a goddam "president" who can't tell the truth without incriminating himself?
Are Americans REALLY so stupid that 30-something percent of them wouldn't prefer that?
 
I wonder if the GOP loses badly enough, some of their people might impeach him in the lame duck session.
 
Jayjay said:
A perjury trap is a situation where the entire purpose of the testimony is to get the witness to commit perjury, not to catch him for any other wrongdoing or elicit information relevant to other crimes. So if you can imagine it from point of view of a person who thinks Trump has done no wrong and there was no collusion (as he's tweeted about a million times now), the only reason to call him to testify is to ask him about embarrassing -- but not illegal -- things so that he'd either have to lie, or admit having lied to the public. Hence, a perjury trap.

I don't see a big problem with the president committing perjury anyway. He can't be prosecuted for it, only impeached, right? So basically it's safe to say he could go ahead and testify, whatever he wants to say is not going to hurt him much because the republicans in congress will never impeach him.
Click to expand...

I believe that sitting Presidents cannot be prosecuted *until* they are impeached. Hence Ford's pardon of Nixon.
 
Saying there is such a thing as a perjury trap is like saying a bank is a robbery trap.
 
laughing dog said:
First, nothing seems to embarrass Trump. Second, if Trump has done nothing wrong, then he has no reason to lie about anything. Third, if the Democrats capture a sufficient number of seats in the House and the Senate, even if they do not constitute a majority, there may be enough republicans left with integrity to impeach Trump.

Given that Trump has a long and documented history of "inexact" and counterfactual statements, no competent attorney would want him to testify under oath, because that would, in effect, guarantee perjury.
Click to expand...

Even innocent people should be careful when talking to police or prosecutors, as they are skilled in trying to get you to trip up and contradict yourself. Imagine how much more careful Trump should be then.
 
Elixir said:
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?
Click to expand...

Everyone lies, therefore perjury isn't wrong when conservatives do it, but it's evidence of a terrible moral failing and a crime when non-fascists do it.

This is all rooted in Christian "morals" where things are good or bad not based on what is done, but based on who does it. So when God orders an entire city slaughtered, even the animals and babies, that's a good thing, but it would be evil if you ordered the same thing. Enslavement of white people would be wrong, but African-Americans need to thank us for enslaving them in the past. Lying is good when Trump lies about treason, but reason for impeachment when Clinton lied about a blowjob.

All authority-based moral systems lead to this kind of extreme moral relativism.
 
Derec said:
Click to expand...


So that's why you and other conservatives are upset about the possibility that Trump be charged with perjury? A special pleading fallacy?

Honestly, how is it possible to "trap" someone into perjury? Just tell the truth.
 
Jason Harvestdancer said:
Even innocent people should be careful when talking to police or prosecutors, as they are skilled in trying to get you to trip up and contradict yourself. Imagine how much more careful Trump should be then.
Click to expand...

Several things come to mind upon reading the above.

First, Trump isn't careful about what he says. Ever. Even now, after almost a year and a half on the job, he's still shockingly reckless about what he says in public. There's no need to have to ask him tricky questions or trip him up via well honed interrogation techniques. It's a matter of, "You said X, then you said the opposite of X. Which statement is true?" And that same question can be asked about literally hundreds, if not thousands of things Trump has said. Then there's the matter of Trump saying 3 or more different things in response to the same question.

What the POTUS says matters because those words can have consequences that reverberate around the world. And that only begins to scratch the surface.

Courts may take notice of what a person says in public. It's why his Muslim ban has so many problems--because the stupid-ass called it a Muslim ban in public as did several of his people. Courts look to the intent behind legislation and the intent behind that legislation was to discriminate against people based on religion.

Now take that policy of judicial notice and apply it to X number of things Trump has said.

Trump was never careful, he was grossly reckless and negligent with his words. The consequences, if there will actually be consequences to him personally, lie fully with his mouth.
 
Elixir said:
Maybe, just maybe, we shouldn't have a goddam "president" who can't tell the truth without incriminating himself?
Are Americans REALLY so stupid that 30-something percent of them wouldn't prefer that?
Click to expand...
Enough of them seem to be. I've met quite a few. Hell, we have a few that post here. ;)
 
Wow, the right wingers really do believe that Trump can be "tricked" into perjury.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom