http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511925721Oh my.
grasswire (48,174 posts) Sun May 8, 2016, 09:14 PM
The ultimate perjury trap question
Saw this suggested on another site after news reports of HRC lying/obfuscating to journalist again today.
"Do you know any other information about the ? If your answer is 'yes', describe the information."
A "no" answer would be perjury.
A "yes" answer would be self incriminating.
anotherproletariat (556 posts) Sun May 8, 2016, 09:21 PM
2. Lying to a journalist may not be a good idea, but it is not perjury.
Nice try though...
Tarc (6,061 posts) Sun May 8, 2016, 09:26 PM
3. No one is under any obligation to answer a journalist at all
so whatever point you were struggling to there, is rather irrelevant.
If we're talking about something happening during an actual legal proceeding, i.e. a grand jury, that's what the 5th amendment is for, to prevent the government from mounting entrapment fishing expeditions.
Y'all are getting really desperate lately.
grasswire (48,174 posts) Mon May 9, 2016, 12:42 AM
8. I was not talking about a discussion with a journalist.
That premise was inserted by some others.
Tarc (6,061 posts) Mon May 9, 2016, 12:45 AM
9. Perhaps, if you're going to solicit comments, your OP should be a bit less obtuse
Then we'd spend less time playing guessing games,
grasswire (48,174 posts) Mon May 9, 2016, 02:47 AM
11. why would I be talking about a conversation with a journalist...
...using the words "perjury trap" and "self incriminating"?
Read for comprehension.
Tarc (6,061 posts) Mon May 9, 2016, 08:14 AM
13. "...after news reports of HRC lying/obfuscating to journalist again"
It helps when you read your own OP, sport.
But Judy can't help it; she's sort of, well, doddering.
thesquanderer (4,791 posts) Mon May 9, 2016, 08:33 AM
14. "Objection, your Honor, the question is too general."
A question cannot be so open-ended as to permit all kinds of irrelevant answers.
A question is too general, broad, or indefinite, if:
It permits the witness to respond with testimony which may be irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible. Each question should limit the witness to a specific answer on a specific subject.
http://mr_sedivy.tripod.com/usgov_9.html
For example, a question like "Do you know any other information about the server" could be answered with entirely irrelevant information. It was gray. It stood about 2 feet high. It ran on 110 volts. etc.
moriah (5,648 posts) Mon May 9, 2016, 09:34 AM
16. People forget that.Hillary practiced law more than Bill.
Plus will have her own lawyers representing her.
As far as journalists, they all haven't exactly treated her kindly over the years, and I can understand her reticence to say much to journalists given that it will always be twisted somehow to fit whatever narrative exists in the story.
At the same time, it doesn't help the usual narrative -- that she's hiding something.
MineralMan (83,554 posts) Mon May 9, 2016, 09:14 AM
15. The answer is, "Not that I can recall."
Easy peasy. No perjury. That is the universal response to such questions.
GreenPartyVoter (66,439 posts) Mon May 9, 2016, 09:46 AM
17. Or "as far as I know." Madam secretary seems fond of both of these statements.
MineralMan (83,554 posts) Mon May 9, 2016, 09:51 AM
18. When you are asked an open question like that by
anyone from law enforcement, "I do not recall" is always the correct answer. Falling into a trap is not required of anyone.
Any halfway decent attorney will advise that answer for such questions, regardless of the situation.
I'm curious about something.
Does Judy
want Messalina Agrippina to get into trouble, to have something bad happen to her?
If so, then Judy's a cad.
