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.
My question was a direct response to another posters post, a dialog which you have inserted yourself into with a response that had no bearing on the initial post or my follow up question.
No special rules just for you in an open public forum. Suck it up and stop
Maybe you could/should have studied law instead of gross liberal infantilism
Perjury trap doctrine refers to a principle that a perjury indictment against a person must be dismissed if the prosecution secures it by calling that person as a grand-jury witness in an effort to obtain evidence for a perjury charge especially when the person’s testimony does not relate to issues material to the ongoing grand-jury investigation. The perjury trap is a form of entrapment defense, and so must be affirmatively proven by the defendant.
I imagine that you Googled 'perjury trap definition' and then quoted the first link. I doubt you were aware of this term, prior to the last week or two, anymore than I (though perhaps I should have been aware, but I do not have anything to do with criminal law, for the past 30 years).
Regardless, you gave me a starting point for some investigation. For instance, I found that some had warned President Bill Clinton against testifying under oath during the Whitewater investigation, as a 'perjury trap'. Here is a 1998 article:
It seems that it worked. Mr. Clinton perjured himself concerning his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, and even was impeached for such (though found not guilty by the Senate).
Now, some of the articles about Mr. Clinton point out that a 'perjury trap' has a narrow definition, concerning calling a person to testify under oath in front of a grand jury for the purpose of hoping that person tells a lie about anything, whether it be connected to the investigation at hand, or otherwise.
I can see where Mr. Trump's attorney (I see it was Ty Cobb that brought up perjury trap), are fearful of this. However, there is a lot of ground that Mr. Mueller can ask Mr. Trump about concerning Russian connections.
In other words, Mr. Trump would have relevant information, even if it is all negative.
I can certainly join in with the thought that, during such questioning, Mr. Mueller must refrain from questioning Mr. Trump about unrelated matters, such as whether he committed adultery.
However, I rather doubt that a person can refuse to undergo any and all questioning, under oath, based on the fear that the attorney would begin asking unrelated questions. From my reading, if the attorney does so, and Mr. Trump is caught in a lie, then, yes, there should be no prosecution for perjury under oath.
Of course, in Mr. Clinton's case, the House and Senate did not have to abide by these rules. No doubt, if a district attorney brought perjury charges in a Federal court against Mr. Clinton, then the 'perjury trap' defense would have been raised. However, Mr. Clinton was not so charged, in court.
I assume the same here. If Mr. Trump were to commit perjury on some matter utterly unrelated to the matter at hand, I doubt that any DA will seek indictment. If so, Mr. Trump would move to have the matter dismissed.
I imagine that you Googled 'perjury trap definition' and then quoted the first link. I doubt you were aware of this term, prior to the last week or two, anymore than I (though perhaps I should have been aware, but I do not have anything to do with criminal law, for the past 30 years).
Regardless, you gave me a starting point for some investigation. For instance, I found that some had warned President Bill Clinton against testifying under oath during the Whitewater investigation, as a 'perjury trap'. Here is a 1998 article:
It seems that it worked. Mr. Clinton perjured himself concerning his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, and even was impeached for such (though found not guilty by the Senate).
Now, some of the articles about Mr. Clinton point out that a 'perjury trap' has a narrow definition, concerning calling a person to testify under oath in front of a grand jury for the purpose of hoping that person tells a lie about anything, whether it be connected to the investigation at hand, or otherwise.
I can see where Mr. Trump's attorney (I see it was Ty Cobb that brought up perjury trap), are fearful of this. However, there is a lot of ground that Mr. Mueller can ask Mr. Trump about concerning Russian connections.
In other words, Mr. Trump would have relevant information, even if it is all negative.
I can certainly join in with the thought that, during such questioning, Mr. Mueller must refrain from questioning Mr. Trump about unrelated matters, such as whether he committed adultery.
However, I rather doubt that a person can refuse to undergo any and all questioning, under oath, based on the fear that the attorney would begin asking unrelated questions. From my reading, if the attorney does so, and Mr. Trump is caught in a lie, then, yes, there should be no prosecution for perjury under oath.
Of course, in Mr. Clinton's case, the House and Senate did not have to abide by these rules. No doubt, if a district attorney brought perjury charges in a Federal court against Mr. Clinton, then the 'perjury trap' defense would have been raised. However, Mr. Clinton was not so charged, in court.
I assume the same here. If Mr. Trump were to commit perjury on some matter utterly unrelated to the matter at hand, I doubt that any DA will seek indictment. If so, Mr. Trump would move to have the matter dismissed.
Trump can refuse to answer any questions, and Mueller can't really do anything about it.
Mueller can threaten to subpoena Trump before a grand jury, but he doesn't really want to do that. Trump's legal team can argue to have the scope of questions narrowed, or simply plead the fifth, and answer no questions at all.
Mueller needs to come to an agreement with Trump's legal team to voluntarily answer questions. Which means a narrow scope of questions, and most likely, the questions will be in written form, and not an in person interview.
No special rules just for you in an open public forum. Suck it up and stop
This guy inserts himself into a conversation with an off topic red herring relative to the conversation hes entering, when it is pointed out that what he is talking about is unrelated to the conversation he inserted himself into, he then calls the original response off topic. When it is pointed out that he was the one who initially inserted himself into the conversation with an unrelated post, he then says anyone can post whatever they want on a public forum and to "suck it up" - directly contradicting his OWN criticism from earlier.
LMAO f*** off with that tortured troll logic. Obey your own advice and Suck it up and stop crying
Trump can refuse to answer any questions, and Mueller can't really do anything about it.
Mueller can threaten to subpoena Trump before a grand jury, but he doesn't really want to do that. Trump's legal team can argue to have the scope of questions narrowed, or simply plead the fifth, and answer no questions at all.
Mueller needs to come to an agreement with Trump's legal team to voluntarily answer questions. Which means a narrow scope of questions, and most likely, the questions will be in written form, and not an in person interview.
You are correct. I was referring more to simply using the 'perjury trap' as an excuse to refuse to testify at all (which I believe Ty Cobb was arguing). Certainly, and as I have stated, I believe it is best for Mr. Trump to refuse to testify on any matter. Mainly because I believe his natural inclination to lie will surface. As we are establishing, if he lies about irrelevant matters, then he should be shielded from prosecution for perjury. If he perjures himself about some relevant, that is a different matter.
Most people that are subpoenaed to testify in front of a grand jury do not, I imagine, get to refuse based on the 'perjury trap' claim. Of course, I have never heard of this term before, but now it is quite popular, seemingly.
I imagine that you Googled 'perjury trap definition' and then quoted the first link. I doubt you were aware of this term, prior to the last week or two, anymore than I (though perhaps I should have been aware, but I do not have anything to do with criminal law, for the past 30 years).
Regardless, you gave me a starting point for some investigation. For instance, I found that some had warned President Bill Clinton against testifying under oath during the Whitewater investigation, as a 'perjury trap'. Here is a 1998 article:
It seems that it worked. Mr. Clinton perjured himself concerning his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, and even was impeached for such (though found not guilty by the Senate).
Now, some of the articles about Mr. Clinton point out that a 'perjury trap' has a narrow definition, concerning calling a person to testify under oath in front of a grand jury for the purpose of hoping that person tells a lie about anything, whether it be connected to the investigation at hand, or otherwise.
I can see where Mr. Trump's attorney (I see it was Ty Cobb that brought up perjury trap), are fearful of this. However, there is a lot of ground that Mr. Mueller can ask Mr. Trump about concerning Russian connections.
In other words, Mr. Trump would have relevant information, even if it is all negative.
I can certainly join in with the thought that, during such questioning, Mr. Mueller must refrain from questioning Mr. Trump about unrelated matters, such as whether he committed adultery.
However, I rather doubt that a person can refuse to undergo any and all questioning, under oath, based on the fear that the attorney would begin asking unrelated questions. From my reading, if the attorney does so, and Mr. Trump is caught in a lie, then, yes, there should be no prosecution for perjury under oath.
Of course, in Mr. Clinton's case, the House and Senate did not have to abide by these rules. No doubt, if a district attorney brought perjury charges in a Federal court against Mr. Clinton, then the 'perjury trap' defense would have been raised. However, Mr. Clinton was not so charged, in court.
I assume the same here. If Mr. Trump were to commit perjury on some matter utterly unrelated to the matter at hand, I doubt that any DA will seek indictment. If so, Mr. Trump would move to have the matter dismissed.
Assumptions and unfounded accusations come from the same place. Lack of facts and knowledge given safe harbor in the ego.
Actually I learned about it several years ago in an article written in The National Law Journal. It was brought up in relation to the Martha Stuart case. Reading the article explains why it was not a perjury trap that got Martha, like so many people/pundits in the media are saying.
They are trying to catch him in a mistruth, it be like asking you what you had for dinner 12-13-1985, and then catch him.
It be ok if they really want to know the truth but they don't, it's all about impeachment
Bingo !
We have a winner.
Get him out of office by any means possible.
Usurp the voters who have no business electing someone outside the elite political class.
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.
