Has there ever been a case of someone being convicted of perjury when the only evidence against them was differing uncorroborated testimony?
What G911iani could have said that he has a client who wouldn’t know the truth if it bit him in the ass so that as far as his client is concerned, he always speaks the truth even though his truth isn’t truth.
Exactly. Trump apologists are trying to distort the fact that making an honest mistake is never perjury. So they are trying to make people think that there’s literally no difference between a big fat flaming lie (which can be perjury) and piddly differences of perspective (which aren’t).
It’s sad that people like F-P are willing to entertain such blatant nonsense.
The only way to uphold that view is to deny that there is such a thing as objective fact. But that’s actually what they’re doing.
You misspelled “predictable.”
Any particular reason you picked my username out versus that of several others in this thread who have made the exact same point?
Of course, that was just a rhetorical question.
That’s still stupid (as mentioned above), because that’s not how perjury works. Mueller doesn’t just “decide to believe” one thing or another that’s the end of it. Do you really think that’s what happens? Really?
Mueller collects the evidence and then presents it. He doesn’t just “decide to believe” one thing or another. Trump has no reason not to say under oath what he has been saying in public, except that a preponderance of evidence, from various sources, will strongly indicate that he is the bullshitting, as usual. Sorry–context doesn’t help here.
If Trump shot Michael Cohen in broad daylight, here’s what Republicans would say
The New York Times:
Breaking news: in an eerie echo of Donald Trump’s infamous campaign trail remark – “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters” – many witnesses report, and CCTV footage obtained by the Times confirms, that early this morning the president drew a handgun on his former lawyer Michael Cohen and shot him dead on a street in midtown Manhattan.
House speaker Paul Ryan:
“If these reports are true – I emphasize IF – then yes, I’m very concerned. I don’t think the president should be killing people in broad daylight in front of Tiffany’s. But I’m not a legal expert, I could be wrong.”
White House press secretary Sarah Sanders:
Associated Press: “Ms Sanders, did the president shoot his former lawyer in an effort to stop him from testifying against the president?”
Sarah Sanders: “No, he did not.”
AP: “Are you saying that the shooting was not motivated by Mr Cohen’s recent plea deal, or rather that the president did not shoot him?”
SHS: “You’ve got my answer, Jim. No, no, no.”
AP: “Ms Sanders, I’m still not clear what –”
SHS: “The answer is no. No as in no. N. O. It’s these kinds of questions that have turned the American people against the press.”
CNN:
Anderson Cooper: “We’re seeing incredible images here. The president being taken into custody. Kellyanne, what can you tell us?”
Kellyanne Conway: “I’m not going to comment on rumors, Anderson.”
AC: “Kellyanne, these are not rumors. The president has handcuffs around his wrists. You’re seeing the same footage we are.”
KC: “You’re free to see things your way. I have an alternative perception.”
AC: “But how can you possibly –”
KC: “Let’s agree to disagree, Anderson!”
Senator Mitch McConnell:
“People die every day in this country. I’m not going to let myself get sidetracked by these distractions.”
That was about half of it. The rest is at the link and mainly consists of the tweets Trump would issue.
As a minor aside, you’re wrong about this. Mueller absolutely and definitely can decide that Comey is much more credible than Trump and bring perjury charges on that basis alone. People can be tried and convicted based on the word on one guy alone (as anyone who tries his luck in traffic court finds out). But that’s an aside.
The important point - and pay close attention here - is that I’ve not hitherto claimed that Giuliani was correct that Trump couldn’t avoid perjury by saying the truth. All I’ve said is that this is what Giuliani meant when he said “truth is not truth”. You want to say he’s wrong about the law or his assessment of the situation, take it up with Giuliani, or attack him for that here. But that’s what he meant.
Those are only charges. Trump will not be convicted of perjury based on one other person’s uncorroborated statement. (But if he really believes that’s possible, then he shouldn’t have cleared the room the way he did.
Everyone knows the context perfectly, and has heard the whole conversation–and understands exactly that Giuliani’s sole (desperate) purpose is a PR campaign, nothing more. No one is missing the context–we don’t need that explained to us, thanks anyway.
Sorry to have disturbed you. But perhaps you should stick to MPSIMS.
Nice try, but there are two huge problems with that rationalization.
Problem #1 is that for your rationalization to have any credibility whatsoever, it would have to pertain to a credible president who has some demonstrated concern for the truth. But this is a president and an administration that lies constantly, as a matter of routine. This is the gang that famously publicized “alternative facts”, an administration that, inspired by the liar-in-chief, is so corrupt and so pervasively dishonest that it has taken to calling the legitimate media “fake news” and “the enemy of the people” while the liar-in-chief himself listens to nothing but “Fox and Friends”. To suggest that such a cesspool of mendacity and corruption has the slightest concern about “objective truth” – the slightest concern about anything other than its own self-serving dishonesty – is a claim so sensationally outrageous that it needs a special name. Perhaps in the future, if we encounter a fabrication so sensationally outrageous that it’s beyond all bounds of reason, we can call it a “Fotheringay-Phipps”.
Problem #2 is that Giuliani is so fucking stupid that the kind of nuance you rationalize is completely beyond him. What is typical of the guy, instead, is a constant stream of gaffes just like this – unintentional reveals, if you will. And in fact, listening to the interview, it’s clear that the imbecile is talking about “versions of the truth”, thus tipping his hand as he always does. This is why he’s such fodder for satire, as with Andy Borowitz:
Michael Cohen Pleads Guilty After Giuliani Offers to Be His Lawyer
And be laughed out of court.
The word of a cop versus a civilian, yeah. It sucks, but you’re absolutely right that it happens–we have decided, as a society, that the blue uniform lends increased weight to court testimony. I’m not pleased about it either.
However, that’s a deeply flawed comparison in this case. If it were as simple as Comey’s word against the President’s there would be no case. Mueller knows that, and so do I. So do you.
As with a previous poster, you’ve misunderstood the issue. Giuliani’s job as lawyer is to put advocate for Trump. If you don’t believe him, that’s fine. But that’s what he was saying, regardless of whether you believe the line of argument was valid or not.
This pretty much sums up you and your contributions to this MB. Giuliani, a guy who was US attorney and mayor of NY is “fucking stupid”. You, a RL loser whose main accomplishments in life seem to be long-winded pseudo-intellectual arguments on a MB, are the sharp guy who sees through it. And in your mind it all makes sense.
It doesn’t matter. There are only two interpretations, and they’re both totally idiotic. One interpretation is that Giuliani doesn’t know what “truth” is. This is supported by the interview itself in which he talks about “somebody’s version of the truth”, echoing Conway’s famous “alternative facts”.
The other interpretation is the one you offer, in which Giuliani in his capacity as a crackerjack lawyer supposedly wishes the audience to believe that Trump is so scrupulously honest and ethical – having never told a lie in his life – that he is concerned only with the objective truth.
Since you informed us that “if you insist on ignoring the context of the quote it looks much worse than it is”, tell us again, which one of these preposterous scenarios is the one that makes everyone look good? 
You could have thrown in a “yo mamma” insult and I would’ve been even more devastated!
You appear easily impressed by titles rather than actions. Sure Giuliani was major, but look who’s Prez right now! Oh, wait, you probably voted for the fucker and think he’s the Best Prez Evar! And are of course completely oblivious to the fact that Giuliani has been lurching and ricocheting around in a comical daze ever since Trump set him up as his official protector, going bonkers on a Fox News interview just after being hired, engaging in astonishing public displays of buffoonery, and basically screwing himself and his client every time he opens his mouth. You seem to be seriously devoid of critical thinking skills.
Giuliani’s mistake was in taking that job to begin with. But no one could represent Trump and come off looking good. (Unless he made no public statements at all, but Giuliani’s job seems to entail that.)
It’s like me using the example of Usain Bolt as a fast person, even though he is not the only fast runner out there.
No, that’s not what it’s like. What it’s like is you using Usain Bolt as an example of Jamaicans being the world’s super fast runners, even though you know that most super-fast runners are not Jamaicans and most Jamaicans are not super fast runners.