I’m late to the game here but could someone explain to me what a “perjury trap” is? Is that where you question someone under oath and they choose to lie? Is it key to such a trap that the person being questioned believes that there’s no way you could already know the truth? I understand perjury, its the trap part I need explained.
BTW, I made a career as a criminal investigator and, while we always sought the truth in an interrogation, if a subject wanted to bury himself with lies, that was O.K. too. It was more ammo for down the road. That piece of road could be twenty minutes later or at trial where his value as a defense witness would be limited due to credibility issues.
Hey, maybe you can answer something. Can you imagine a circumstance in the course of a lengthy investigation where you didn’t want to interview someone one day, and then did want to interview that same person three weeks later?
I’m only asking because certain people seem to be advancing a nonsensical view that once one person on the investigation team advances an opinion that they don’t see a reason to interview someone, that that person is forever immune from being interviewed, especially three weeks later. Or something. I’m not 100% sure because it is a nonsense argument.
The TV says that Judge Sullivan isn’t rolling over just yet - giving time for amicus briefs, whatever that means. I suppose that’s a hopeful sign for fans of the rule of law.
The “perjury trap” theory on why Flynn should (according to the right) get a pass HAS been questioned in this thread:
You’ll be shocked to learn that neither the Flynn-defender I was addressing, nor any other defending Flynn, have (to date) attempted to answer those questions.
(The AP article excerpts referred to are available at the original post.)
Apparently it means that the judge is welcoming other groups to argue the position that the guy who pleaded guilty to something he was caught red handed doing is guilty because the US department of Justice no longer wants to make that argument. Considering 2000 former DOJ employees signed a document expressing their displeasure, I reckon there will be some takers.
A perjury trap is kind of a unicorn. In real law, it doesn’t much exist.
It’s a situation that’s a complete dick move. A prosecutor brings up something he/she knows a reluctant witness may lie about in an effort to coerce testimony from that witness, isn’t material to the case at bar, and is employed solely for the purpose of being able to bring a charge of perjury against the witness. The perjury charge is leverage against the witness.
Maybe the witness suffered an embarrassing arrest in his past, say something like statutory rape. Let’s say the matter was worked out as a diversion and the charges were dismissed as though they had never been brought. The episode has nothing to do with the case for which the witness is intended to testify.
But the prosecutor, seeking an indictment in the new case, asks the witness in front of the grand jury, “Have you ever been arrested for the crime of rape?” The witness, caught off guard and having had the charges diverted/dismissed, says, “No!”
Technically not true. He was arrested for the crime of rape.
That’s a perjury trap.
As you have wisely discerned, the way to avoid a “perjury trap” is to simply… not lie.
Prosecutors who employ such tactics may become vulnerable to charges of prosecutorial misconduct.
Flynn “made a series of materially false statements” to the FBI during a properly authorized investigation.
"FLYNN’s false statements and omissions impeded and otherwise had a material impact on the FBI’s ongoing investigation into the existence of any links or coordination between individuals associated with the [Trump] Campaign and Russia’s efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election”
Flynn PLED GUILTY to this crime.
All the garbage about the investigation being somehow tainted or the “perjury trap” bullshit is just a desperate attempt to cover for this administration. Nothing changed from when he pled guilty to now, except Barr is now emboldened by the Republican party to ignore crimes and to cover up for this administration. It’s a travesty of justice.
And it (and the responses from the Republican’s lackeys here) is entirely predictable.
Late to the thread again. I assume this is a rhetorical question but, of course. Its practically the rule and not an exception.
Judge Sullivan took a ballsy step. This could well end up in the USSC and, with decisions coming along party lines, we all know how it will end. Will the day ever come where the USSC says “No” to Trump?
