Posted on 09/10/2018 10:06:58 AM PDT by Starman417
A showdown has been looming between Robert Mueller and Donald Trump. There is zero doubt that Mueller is out to get Trump and Trump is wise to steer clear of an interview with Mueller. Trump has come under criticism from the left for not choosing to expose himself to legal jeopardy in the form of a perjury trap.
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.When Giuliani said "truth isn't truth" he was quite right. Gen. Michael Flynn told the truth and was exonerated by two FBI agents who did not thing he lied. The newt thing you know he's indicted by Mueller and as forced to accept a plea deal because 1. he was being bankrupted and 2. Mueller was threatening his family. So when the left was arguing that there is no such thing as a perjury trap, you know damn well there is.The following are examples of some case law on perjury trap:
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. When testimony is elicited before a grand jury that is attempting to obtain useful information in furtherance of its investigation, or conducting a legitimate investigation into crimes which had in fact taken place within its jurisdiction, the perjury trap doctrine is, by definition, inapplicable. [United States v. Chen, 933 F.2d 793 (9th Cir. Guam 1991)]
Successful perjury traps do not get prosecuted all that often. But that does not mean perjury traps are uncommon. They tend to be used more for leverage than to prosecute as a stand-alone charge. A prosecutor who knows a reluctant witness will lie elicits the lie and then exploits the resulting specter of prosecution — along with other leverage points — to pressure the witness into spilling the beans. Or, in a jury trial, the prosecutor who suspects a defense witness will lie, sets the trap, elicits the lie, and then blows it up — not to lay the groundwork for a future perjury charge but to destroy the witness’s credibility, which helps win the trial.If you watched any of the democrats questioning Brett Kavanaugh during the confirmation hearings this week, you saw a perjury trap in action. Led by wannabe Presidential candidates Kamala Harris and Cory "Spartacus" Booker, democrats did their best to ask questions in a leading, obtuse and abstract manner to so as to be able to pounce upon the answers later and level accusations of perjury against Kavanaugh- who by any measure is a decent, honest and honorable man.In any event, it is fatuous to claim that this stuff doesn’t happen. It happens all the time. If you want to say that President Trump’s lawyers are just making excuses for a client who is prone to lie without being trapped, that is a cogent legal argument. If you instead insist that there is no such thing as a perjury trap just because the concept is being invoked by lawyers for a president you despise, then you’re playing politics . . . or you’ve let your contempt for Donald Trump get the better of you.
For those keeping score at home, millions of Americans have now been exposed to false and ridiculous claims that Kavanaugh is a slippery perjurer who surrounds himself with racists and a cold, dark soul who deliberately snubbed a murdered child’s father....
Then there are the perjury claims. Writing in the widely read online journal, Above the Law, writer Elie Mystal charged that Kavanaugh committed perjury when, during the 2004 hearing from which he was confirmed to the D.C. Circuit court of appeals, he told Ted Kennedy “that he was ‘not involved’ in Bill Pryor’s nomination to the Eleventh Circuit. In fact, Mystal said, “He was involved. In documents made public during Senator Pat Leahy’s questioning, Kavanaugh is shown to have recommended Pryor, and invited to actively discuss Pyror’s hearings.” As proof of the alleged lie, Mystal embedded this tweet:
https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1037737330189185024
This was torn apart by David Lat
https://twitter.com/DavidLat/status/1037818154913816577
Back to David French:
(Excerpt) Read more at Floppingaces.net...
Are there no editors?
If they will not prosecute Hillary Clinton then couldn’t this be claimed as an unequal application of he law?
Yes.
It’s insane what Harris did. And the rhetoric that Kavanaugh is a perjurer is ubiquitous and insane.
There are, but they ain't cheap.
Insanity is everywhere.
Look at the face on that highly privileged individual. That is not a face you can trust. That is a face that is trying to get you.
Don't need one when you have spell check /s
No unreasonable Leftist Statist vindictive shylock would consider NOT prosecuting President Trump under these circumstances.
When they left claims ANTHING, you know the opposite is true. You can tell they're lying if their mouth is open (or in some cases the very dumbest ones may be mouth-breathing).
Remember we used to mock WJC with his depends what is is and ‘No, I was never in the White House alone with Ms Lewinski - always guards or secretaries around’ etc.
Now most of us would think a question such as
‘Were you ever alone with her in Memphis’ would call for a yes or no answer BUT better specify yes because there is ALWAYS someone else in Memphis.
I had ‘joked’ earlier about Scooter Libby..
Is your name Scooter Libby.
YES does not suffice unless you say ‘Well everyone has always called me ‘Speedo but my real name is Mr Earl’ is necessary.
Martha was that YOUR recipe for cookies...YES..
Martha why did you lie to us when you know your grandmother got that recipe from Mrs X and handed it down to you....NO SOUP FOR YOU!!
6 months in the hoosegow for telling such a blatant lie.
ETC ETC
I watched Harris hector Kavanaugh about having had a meeting with some random law firm in DC, trying to produce a “gotcha” moment. It made her look simplistic, stupid and petty.
No online publised periodical ever seems to be edited these days. Very off-putting.
Speaking of off-putting: something about Kamala Harris makes my skin crawl, much the same way as 0bama makes my skin crawl, only not to the same degree. He’s off the charts.
It’s instructive to see how K. Harris’ questioning progressed. She asked BK if he ever talked to anyone “from the “Kasowitz law firm” about xxxxxxxx.
Now, if you search for this firm and look on its website, you’ll see they have offices in New York, Atlanta, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, Newark, NJ, San Francisco, Silicon Valley, and Washington DC.
You could easily be talking about an 500, maybe 800 attorney law firm (I have no idea) but it’s obviously an enormous firm and those attys leave and new ones are hired on a modestly continuous basis, and BK could have easily talked to any number of them and not known they were employed by that firm, or once were, or any variation, and the idea that a person, even a very smart person, could catalog perhaps 50 or 100 potential contacts (wandering around the Wash DC cocktail circuit) and then filter them on an arbitrary ad hoc basis is absurd.
That is the perjury trap. Note that she asked three different variations of the same question.
I make typos all the time when I post quickly from my phone. FR is not the National Spelling Bee or an Ivy League Grammar Club.
[Look at the face on that highly privileged individual. That is not a face you can trust. That is a face that is trying to get you.]
When she smugly purses her lips during her questioning, I just want to punch her in the mouth.
The Last Chance? [Can Trump revive the aspirational Spirit of '76?]
I watched Harris grill Kavanaugh with questions she knew he couldn’t/wouldn’t answer, and then shut him down when he tried to answer.
I couldn’t help but wonder how any intelligent person could ever vote for her till realizing the question provided the answer; intelligent people didn’t vote for her.
Harris is an evil witch. Lucky for us she’s also quite a stupid one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.