Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's a speech tag to kill dead air when there is nothing constructive to say.
Well that is quite evident at this point. Talk about ad nauseam and jaded. It really makes posters that continue to use it appear so intellectually challenged.
The liberals are fleeing from these facts with their tails clamped firmly between their hind legs, trying to pretend they weren't pointed out. So I guess they need them pointed out to them again.
The liberals refuting these facts is out of the question of course, since they are true. So the liberals are left with ignoring and/or diverting from them.
These people live in their own maze of lying, denials, and ignorance.
----------------------
The classic "perjury trap" was pulled on Scooter Libby some years back.
The lawyers kept interviewing him again and again, and demanding that he fill out reams of statements about what he did when, with the same questions repeated over and over.
Twice Libby wrote out accurate descriptions of everything he had done during the period they were grilling him about, leaving out nothing. And the liberals could find nothing wrong with any of it.
And then some time later they repeated the same questions a third time, and this time Libby goofed, forgetting a few details before winding up with his third repetition of "And that's the complete story, that's all I did".
Libby obviously didn't intend to conceal those few details from the government. He had already described them fully, twice, holding nothing back - a fact that the govt acknowledged.
But when he screwed up on the third grilling, they accused him of "perjury", since he had provided a dozen details the first two times and said that was all, and then provided only eleven details the third time and said that was all. And they hit him with the "perjury" accusation, as though he had tried to mislead the government or conceal something.
It's the same "perjury trap" they would like to pull on President Trump, since they have no actual crimes to charge him with.
If you grill somebody enough times, you can accuse him of "perjury" no matter how many times he told you the complete truth. Unless he is perfect and incapable of forgetting anything ever, you've got him.
And he didn't even have to commit any crimes during the entire period you're grilling him on. The only "crime" came months or years later, when he told the complete truth to the interrogators over and over and then finally goofed. Years in jail and exhaustion of his entire resources and livelihood, to pay for a legal defense of his doing nothing wrong, are his reward.
And the liberals innocently pretend they can't understand why Trump's lawyers are telling him not to testify to these people.
Fact 1 - the US legal system, in both criminal and civil cases, is based on the defendant being presumed 100% innocent and the prosecution being required to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt (criminal) or based upon a preponderance of evidence (civil). The reason this is so is because proving guilt (something happened and you did do it) is proving a positive, which is logically possible, and proving innocence (something did not happen and/or you did not do it) is proving a negative, which is logically IMPOSSIBLE.
Fact 2 - the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution states quite clearly:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5th Amendment, in part
No person...shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself...
Fact 3 - if the prosecution has sufficient evidence to warrant indictment/charges and proceeding with trial, then no testimony from the accused is necessary, as that testimony will have nothing to do with the crime for which that person is being investigated and possibly prosecuted. Any "interview" will be solely for the purpose of adding or inventing the crimes of false official statement, perjury and ultimately, obstruction of justice.
Unassailable Conclusion 1 - Nobody is required to, nor should they ever speak to an agent of law enforcement, the court or any other person of legal power concerning their own guilt or innocence in a matter being investigated. If they choose to "speak" it should be a prepared written statement read/submitted through their lawyer, and nothing more, not ever.
Unassailable Conclusion 2 - the defendant/accused has exactly nothing to gain by submitting to direct interviews with agents of the state/court, and everything to lose. Thus, there is exactly NO UPSIDE whatsoever to submitting to such an interview.
Occam's Razor Deduction 1 - therefore, when investigators have spent 14 months and not charged the "investigated" with any crime whatsoever, they go for the direct interview (see: Libby, Clinton, Stewart et al) and statements made under oath to create the false official statement, perjury, obstruction of justice charges out of thin air, since they cannot gather the desired scalp any other way.
The "perjury trap" is real, happens all the time, affects everyone of any ideological stripe, and is the tyranny baked into our legal system. Every American has a patriotic duty to tell the agents of tyranny to pound effing sand whenever those same agents tell them it is in their best interest to submit to a formal interview. It's never in the individual's interest to submit to the machinations and hijinks of a tyrant. Trump is simply one of 330 million individuals who should tell the agents of judicial tyranny to pound sand. It's the one thing I admire about Clinton, Mr and Mrs...they excel at telling harassing investigators and would be prosecutors to gather evidence and try their luck with a real case, or go pound effing sand. Everyone should be like them. Prove it in court or go farq yourself Mueller.
I didn't vote for Trump, I hate the government entirely, and most of this is kabuki theater. But the precedents set in these kinds of cases affects how the low level John and Jane Q American get handled by the courts, and that makes it important, regardless of party. We are all presumed innocent, and if someone seeks to confer guilt, let them prove it in court.
A perjury trap is created when the government calls a witness before the grand jury for the primary purpose of obtaining testimony from him in order to prosecute him later for perjury.
Yet the primary purpose of the Mueller investigation is to investigate the Russian government's efforts to interfere with the 2016 election as well as possible coordination between the Trump Campaign and the Russian Government.
So, it isn't a perjury trap as by that definition.
Where Trump is in danger is:
if he knowingly allowed his campaign to coordinate with Russia to his benefit during the 2016 election
obstructing the investigation into the aforementioned coordination
Yet the primary purpose of the Mueller investigation is to investigate the Russian government's efforts to interfere with the 2016 election as well as possible coordination between the Trump Campaign and the Russian Government.
So, it isn't a perjury trap as by that definition.
Where Trump is in danger is:
if he knowingly allowed his campaign to coordinate with Russia to his benefit during the 2016 election
obstructing the investigation into the aforementioned coordination
lying about either of the previous two bullets
Trump must be a genius. All the things he is alleged to have done, but he hasn't allowed even a whiff of evidence of same to be produced
Name the upside for Trump in submitting to formal, official interview with Mueller. What exactly does he have to gain, since innocence (an absence of guilt, or a negative) cannot be proven legally or logically?
I can't stand Trump, but he would be a fool to voluntarily submit to an interview at this point.
The only thing he has to gain is political capital, but I think at this point he has pretty much polarized the nation and has little to gain in there.
The liberals are fleeing from these facts with their tails clamped firmly between their hind legs, trying to pretend they weren't pointed out. So I guess they need them pointed out to them again.
The liberals refuting these facts is out of the question of course, since they are true. So the liberals are left with ignoring and/or diverting from them.
These people live in their own maze of lying, denials, and ignorance.
----------------------
The classic "perjury trap" was pulled on Scooter Libby some years back.
The lawyers kept interviewing him again and again, and demanding that he fill out reams of statements about what he did when, with the same questions repeated over and over.
Twice Libby wrote out accurate descriptions of everything he had done during the period they were grilling him about, leaving out nothing. And the liberals could find nothing wrong with any of it.
And then some time later they repeated the same questions a third time, and this time Libby goofed, forgetting a few details before winding up with his third repetition of "And that's the complete story, that's all I did".
Libby obviously didn't intend to conceal those few details from the government. He had already described them fully, twice, holding nothing back - a fact that the govt acknowledged.
But when he screwed up on the third grilling, they accused him of "perjury", since he had provided a dozen details the first two times and said that was all, and then provided only eleven details the third time and said that was all. And they hit him with the "perjury" accusation, as though he had tried to mislead the government or conceal something.
It's the same "perjury trap" they would like to pull on President Trump, since they have no actual crimes to charge him with.
If you grill somebody enough times, you can accuse him of "perjury" no matter how many times he told you the complete truth. Unless he is perfect and incapable of forgetting anything ever, you've got him.
And he didn't even have to commit any crimes during the entire period you're grilling him on. The only "crime" came months or years later, when he told the complete truth to the interrogators over and over and then finally goofed. Years in jail and exhaustion of his entire resources and livelihood, to pay for a legal defense of his doing nothing wrong, are his reward.
And the liberals innocently pretend they can't understand why Trump's lawyers are telling him not to testify to these people.
I can't stand Trump, but he would be a fool to voluntarily submit to an interview at this point.
The only thing he has to gain is political capital, but I think at this point he has pretty much polarized the nation and has little to gain in there.
EXACTLY.
At best, in a perfect universe, a person could gain some sort of "oh look, they must be innocent and pure of heart" cred from the court of public opinion, but a) that has nothing to do with the legal, real courts and b) find an American who doesn't already have their mind made up on Donald Trump.
Which intimates that if Mueller does his interview properly, he'll crush Trump on the first try, no subsequent tries required.
So why why why oh why would Trump submit to such an interview? He does not have to, and as your post #20 clearly shows, the goal is to use that interview to take him down, in place of the lack of evidence is currently incapable.
Right? If Mueller just does it "properly" one interview should be sufficient, right?
Why would anyone, Trump or not, submit to such an obvious legal trap?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
