Political funny pictures thread, part IV. Bring on the leather!

[T.Lex]

Well, fair enough. But. I don't think there's a reason to believe Mueller didn't lay any perjury traps. He's done it with everyone. It's just that he didn't need it with Stone and some others, because they were perfectly willing to lie. Probably it would be helpful to have an attorney present during questioning who can help them traverse the questions and hint at what they don't have to lie about.

hahaha

Absolutely! I think some of Trump's unforced errors (and those around him) are because they are new to this. Well, Stone and Manafort weren't, but they have other issues.

In terms of perjury traps, that's something the FBI does regularly. That isn't unique to Trump or the Mueller investigation. Heck, arguably, Clinton (Bill) got caught by one, and it wasn't even set by federal law enforcement.

 

[Phase2]

I haven't looked into it that deeply, and you may not like the source, But....

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...-trump-falsely-claims-hillary-clinton-lied-f/

Given politifact's history of political bias, I give them little credence. You might not like the source, but here are her own words. She should have been treated like Roger Stone if there was one standard of justice.

[video=youtube;pG4P5_nON4Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pG4P5_nON4Q[/video]

 

[indiucky]

 

[jamil]

hahaha

Absolutely! I think some of Trump's unforced errors (and those around him) are because they are new to this. Well, Stone and Manafort weren't, but they have other issues.

In terms of perjury traps, that's something the FBI does regularly. That isn't unique to Trump or the Mueller investigation. Heck, arguably, Clinton (Bill) got caught by one, and it wasn't even set by federal law enforcement.

Bill Clinton was caught by one because Star was motivated to get him for something...anything.

Hillary Clinton, however, no such thing. The fix was in. She was not guilty before the investigation happened. She was always going to be not guilty.

 

[printcraft]

Some don't like it when you bring weak ass memes.

FTFY

 

[printcraft]

THINGS YOU WILL NEVER SEE RETURN >>>>>

 

[Kutnupe14]

Well, fair enough. But. I don't think there's a reason to believe Mueller didn't lay any perjury traps. He's done it with everyone. It's just that he didn't need it with Stone and some others, because they were perfectly willing to lie. Probably it would be helpful to have an attorney present during questioning who can help them traverse the questions and hint at what they don't have to lie about.

What's a perjury trap? A trap that convinces you to lie? On the face of it, it's ridiculous.

 

[HoughMade]

What's a perjury trap? A trap that convinces you to lie? On the face of it, it's ridiculous.

I get what you're saying, and agree with the proposition that if you lie under oath, you lie under oath and there need to be consequences.

...but if the only crimes being prosecuted are ones that result from lying during the investigation and NOTHING from what you were investigating in the first place, one has to question the value of starting the investigation.

 

[T.Lex]

I see a perjury trap more along the lines of a situation in which law enforcement knows the truth, then leads a witness to testify about a version of events that they know is false.

Let's say A and B are equally plausible explanations for something. LE knows A is what happened. They lead the witness to believe that they think B happened. So, the witness provides information supporting B, but doesn't say anything about A. That's perjury, to the extent they asked about things that could fit under A and B, and the witness only provided information about B.

"Is there anything else you can tell us?" suggesting anything else about B.

"No." about B.

The trap is that the question invites a response that includes A, but the witness didn't necessarily know that. (Granted, in real life, things aren't this simple.)

If LE doesn't know if A or B is true, and is trying to determine that, when the witness says a bunch about B, and leaves out anything about A, then that's a perjury problem, but not a trap.

In Stone's case, it was along the lines of, "Give us everything you have about contact - either directly or indirectly - with Assange." "I got nothing."

Turns out, he had a bunch.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I get what you're saying, and agree with the proposition that if you lie under oath, you lie under oath and there need to be consequences.

...but if the only crimes being prosecuted are ones that result from lying during the investigation and NOTHING from what you were investigating in the first place, one has to question the value of starting the investigation.

I'm sure you know that happens at ALL levels of LE. Should all those investigations be suspect as well?

 

[Doug]

https://definitions.uslegal.com/p/perjury-trap-doctrine/

A perjury trap is a technique in which you record a person under oath while asking them questions designed to cause them to misreport details such as dates, times, persons present, etc. for the purpose of charging them with perjury at a later date. The questioning is not designed to solicit information as much as it is to provide the basis for a charge of perjury. It is dificult or impossible to prove.

Hilary Clinton could not be charged with lying to the FBI because she was not placed under oath, no recordings were made, and no notes were taken during the "discussion" about her server.

 

[jamil]

I see a perjury trap more along the lines of a situation in which law enforcement knows the truth, then leads a witness to testify about a version of events that they know is false.

Let's say A and B are equally plausible explanations for something. LE knows A is what happened. They lead the witness to believe that they think B happened. So, the witness provides information supporting B, but doesn't say anything about A. That's perjury, to the extent they asked about things that could fit under A and B, and the witness only provided information about B.

"Is there anything else you can tell us?" suggesting anything else about B.

"No." about B.

The trap is that the question invites a response that includes A, but the witness didn't necessarily know that. (Granted, in real life, things aren't this simple.)

If LE doesn't know if A or B is true, and is trying to determine that, when the witness says a bunch about B, and leaves out anything about A, then that's a perjury problem, but not a trap.

In Stone's case, it was along the lines of, "Give us everything you have about contact - either directly or indirectly - with Assange." "I got nothing."

Turns out, he had a bunch.

That's how I meant it. As I said, likely they set a bunch of traps so they could get him on something. But they didn't need to because he helped them along nicely.

 

[printcraft]

I get what you're saying, and agree with the proposition that if you lie under oath, you lie under oath and there need to be consequences.

...but if the only crimes being prosecuted are ones that result from lying during the investigation and NOTHING from what you were investigating in the first place, one has to question the value of starting the investigation.

Seems like that would be fruit of the poisonous tree to me...

 

[Kutnupe14]

Seems like that would be fruit of the poisonous tree to me...

Wrong application of the reference.

 

[printcraft]

Wrong application of the reference.

I get the "illegally" obtained aspect of it.

It just seems like:

"You are a witch!"
"No I'm not"
"Well, did you have toast last week?"
"No, I don't believe I did."
"Well, we know for a FACT you had toast last week, you LIED, you are under arrest."
"WTF does that have to do with being a witch?"
"Doesn't matter, lied."

 

[Kutnupe14]

I get the "illegally" obtained aspect of it.

It just seems like:

"You are a witch!"
"No I'm not"
"Well, did you have toast last week?"
"No, I don't believe I did."
"Well, we know for a FACT you had toast last week, you LIED, you are under arrest."
"WTF does that have to do with being a witch?"
"Doesn't matter, lied."

The "no, I don't believe I did," does not satisfy the requirement to charge for perjury. The lie has to be knowing and willful, none of the wishy-washy stuff.

 

[SEIndSAM]

 

[Kutnupe14]

apologies

 

[printcraft]

The "no, I don't believe I did," does not satisfy the requirement to charge for perjury. The lie has to be knowing and willful, none of the wishy-washy stuff.

It's nothing remotely related or in any way connected to the original "you are a witch" basis of the investigation. It's a fishing expedition.

 

[actaeon277]

Political FUNNY PICTURES thread.