Could a Republican please explain to me what they mean by "Perjury Trap"?

Did Clinton have a fraudulent college where he was bilking millions from kids? Did Clinton declare bankruptcy over and over when he bombed and hurt thousands who he stiffed? Did Clinton brag about grabbing *******? Did Clinton fight against women’s reproductive freedom? Did Clinton shut up a hooker while his wife was home with a new baby?
By the way we did attack Bill Clinton for his stupidity no one excused it but it certainly was not a high crime and misdemeanor ..

 

Then it must have been the left wing news media that had it wrong.....real wrong!

Oh most? Evidence to back that up? You're just so absorbed with left wing media, you can't see the forest for the trees. You really need to get out, Renee.

 

WTF are you talking about?

 

Is your statement an opinion or a fact? I will accuse President Trump of exaggeration, even gross exaggeration, but he isn't a liar.

To answer your question "Could a Republican please explain to me what they mean by "Perjury Trap"?"
It all depends on what the definition of is is.

 

WTF.....Dis be what I be talk'n 'bout http://freebeacon.com/politics/demo...way-donald-trump-could-get-elected-president/

 

Special Counsel seldom ride off into the sunset w/o at least
One scalp.Not too unlike a Grand Jury can Indict a Ham sandwiche.
A " perjury trap " could be as simple and innocuous as answering in
sworn testimony the wrong date or even time.It is that easy to break
the law or lie under oath.
When a Special Prosecutor lines up a series of questions
with the express intention of tripping up a person under oath
that is what's known as a " perjury trap ".
This sort of thing used to be handled better in the Days of
Film Noir.An obvious guilty underworld character who lies
with ease gets taken into a padded room with a single bright
light bulb.The Toughest detective in the city known for breaking the
biggest of thugs goes into the room with a nice thick phone book.
Before ya know it ... said thug is squealin' louder than a
farm hog who missed it's lunchtime.

 

I love it when you call the media left wing. When they report facts it’s fake news to you. ..and liberal. I guess the left-wing media was wrong and going after Clinton and was wrong going after Nixon. The nerve of the media to expose the facts. They’re not obedient like fox
What news isn’t left wing to you? Trump knows his base. Like other dictators they want to shut down the media..
[

 

I already quoted the legal definition of Perjury Trap and showed that it's not applicable in this case.

I'm asking for what Trump supporters mean by the term. And I am asking for an example in which a fantasy scenario like the one you give has anything even remotely resembling an equivalence in the real world.

You can't? Or course you can't!

 

That would be the 2nd grade level understanding of "perjury".

Find out what perjury is and is not, and then get back to us.

Notice how I underline "is and is not". Take it as a hint to not just look it up in a dictionary, but look at what it really means.

 

Really? Wow!

I found one! You're probably one of a very few people in the world, even among his supporters, who would openly say that Trump is not a liar.

Unfortunately, it's the same one who posts in a thread where a direct question is asked, but refuses to provide a direct answer

 

Uhmmm.... You might want to take a peek at the news one of these days. He already has 4 indictments... And at least 2 (maybe 3) have already confessed.

You won't hear that on fantasy right-wingnut media, though... You would need to get your head out of Hannitty's ass for a few minutes.

 

YOUR QUESTION WAS, “How do you get any variation when you're telling the truth?”

"If you think someone is lying, ask them the same question in three different ways. You might think that it is to catch any differences in their response, but what I’m telling you to look for just the opposite: is there a scripted aspect to their response? Do they use the same careful phrasing over and over again? Politicians are amazing at this. It allows them to answer the question without revealing anything they don't want you to know. If it feels like a prepared and scripted response, that is a sign that they’re either lying or not telling you the whole story." (Use This Secret Military Trick to Tell if Someone Is Lying, Dan Bova • Entrepreneur Staff) https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/281593

There we see that if they keep getting a scripted response, suspect lying.

You get variation because in the real world people add details, an idiot principle in the fourth grade thought differences in response meant lying, variation does not mean lying.

 

Perjury is lying under oath, willfully. But you can get charged for the crime of laying to federal investigators, which is what flyn got charged with.

Our intel head lied under oath to congress, and it must not be a crime when they do it. This would be perjury. Except it looks like it matter as to who does it, before a crime is committed.

Thanks for suggesting I look it up, which I did. Some of us of course used the term perjury when indeed it was lying to federal investigators. Both are lies, but there is a legal distinction involved. Both carry penalties. Two kinds of lying. The bar is much lower for lying when it comes to lying to a federal investigator, as evidenced by flynn lying to the feds and intel heads lying to congress while under oath. Right?

 

In a response to a statement explaining what an interpretation of what a perjury trap is

Wake up! This is what I was responding to when you jumped in

"It means asking the same question a dozen times in hopes to get a slight variation in the answer just once."​

Your response is exactly the opposite of what the conversation was about. If you get a "slight variation" which does not completely contradict the original statement, that would hint that it's not scripted. The poster said exactly the contrary. So my question was to understand what "slight variation" he was talking about that would bring about perjury.

That's what this whole thread is about. You're not in the habit of finding out what a thread is about before responding?

If you do so, you might save yourself some time, and help us avoid wasting ours.

 

No, my first response was not the exact opposite:

 

Close enough. Even though lying under oath is not necessarily always perjury unless it has any relevance to the outcome. And Flynn could still be charged with Perjury according to his plea deal.

But knowing that, do you have an interpretation as to the title of this thread? Or do you think now there is no basis for this "perjury trap"

 

The following is not perjury NOR a perjury trap

Principle: What was the color of the kid who you saw shoot the spitball at the teacher while her back was turned.


Student: Black.


Principle: What was the color of the kid who you saw shoot the spitball at the teacher while her back was turned.


Student: Black, and he had cornrows.


Principle: What was the color of the kid who you saw shoot the spitball at the teacher while her back was turned.


Student: Black, he had cornrows, and a little black fist sticking out of his back pocket.


Principle: Why do you keep changing your story?

 

It was an example of how you get "variation when you're telling the truth," and I already pointed out to you that my response had nothing whatsoever to do with perjury.

 

Well Make up your mind!

If variations to the question are a "trap" when the subject varties, then why are they asking this

According to you latest post, "slight variations" are what would be expected of somebody who is innocent. So this last question would make zero sense!

Don't bother. I see now what happened.

You did see the context in your first response. And when that narrative was debunked (i.e. you couldn't come up with a real-life example of where this could be built into a criminal perjury case), you completely changed your story.

Your incongruity is dully noted and has been exposed.

Better luck next time...

 

I did not change my story.

 

I think lying to a federal investigator can be done with no intention to do that, and this will get a charge of lying. I think a federal investigator can use this for political reasons, if so inclined. I think it can be entrapment, which seems to be legal in the case of federal investigators. Can you actually believe that hillary never lied to federal investigators? She cannot help herself, no more than trump can. Perhaps she got a pass because if she did get caught lying, she would just claim her brain was damaged from hitting it too many times from falling. Punch drunk like Joe Louis was when he worked in Vegas in his retirement from boxing. Which would not have worked with flynn IMO.

Perjury is a serious charge as well, yet it never seems to happen when particular people lie under oath to congress. Like heads of an intel agency. Back in the old days, lying under oath to congress was a serious matter. It no longer is. Why is this? Well, I believe these public congressional hearings are pure theater for the Rubes, and if you listened to one of them, how partisan they are, the partisan driven stumping and accusations, it becomes self evident they are theater. And the rule of law does not exist in regards to perjury when the theater is doing what it does.

But if there was a confusion here, between perjury, lying under oath, and the other crime of lying to a federal investigator, that would be understandable, unless one was schooled in legal terms, or is a convicted perjurer or had a conviction of lying to federal investigators. Some people equate lying to perjury when technically it isn't perjury, and yet both kind of lies can get you locked up. I would not have made a great issue from this, the gnat straining.

 

No. You're taking two steps back in your understanding of the concept of perjury. You cannot be held liable if you lie unintentionally. I thought that was settled.

As for the rest... the question was not political. It's very specific: "perjury trap"

Even though I can think of no better political victory for Trump than undergoing the questioning, under oath, and coming away without so much as a perjury trial.

Heck! At this point it would be a huge political victory for him even if the only charge that comes out of this were perjury.... Remember Bill?

 

Unintentional lying? It isn't so easy to use that ploy to escape a charge of perjury. And I have taken no steps backward.

Flynn did not get charged with perjury, although some people conflate that with lying to a federal investigator. But both charges can get you in prison.

I don't think trump would hold up to being questioned under oath, or as a part of this investigation. And he would be a fool to agree to it. Neither clinton would hold up either. But I do not think any charge against trump for lying would involve being putin's puppet. Or working with russia to beat hillary. I think that ship has sailed already.