If you watched democrats question Brett Kavanaugh, then you now know how a perjury trap works

Flopping Aces ^ | 09-10-18 | DrJohn

[Starman417]

A showdown has been looming between Robert Mueller and Donald Trump. There is zero doubt that Mueller is out to get Trump and Trump is wise to steer clear of an interview with Mueller. Trump has come under criticism from the left for not choosing to expose himself to legal jeopardy in the form of a perjury trap.

Perjury trap doctrine refers to a principle that a perjury indictment against a person must be dismissed if the prosecution secures it by calling that person as a grand-jury witness in an effort to obtain evidence for a perjury charge especially when the person’s testimony does not relate to issues material to the ongoing grand-jury investigation. The perjury trap is a form of entrapment defense, and so must be affirmatively proven by the defendant.

The following are examples of some case law on perjury trap:

A perjury trap is created when the government calls a witness before the grand jury for the primary purpose of obtaining testimony from him in order to prosecute him later for perjury. When testimony is elicited before a grand jury that is attempting to obtain useful information in furtherance of its investigation, or conducting a legitimate investigation into crimes which had in fact taken place within its jurisdiction, the perjury trap doctrine is, by definition, inapplicable. [United States v. Chen, 933 F.2d 793 (9th Cir. Guam 1991)]

When Giuliani said "truth isn't truth" he was quite right. Gen. Michael Flynn told the truth and was exonerated by two FBI agents who did not thing he lied. The newt thing you know he's indicted by Mueller and as forced to accept a plea deal because 1. he was being bankrupted and 2. Mueller was threatening his family. So when the left was arguing that there is no such thing as a perjury trap, you know damn well there is.

Successful perjury traps do not get prosecuted all that often. But that does not mean perjury traps are uncommon. They tend to be used more for leverage than to prosecute as a stand-alone charge. A prosecutor who knows a reluctant witness will lie elicits the lie and then exploits the resulting specter of prosecution — along with other leverage points — to pressure the witness into spilling the beans. Or, in a jury trial, the prosecutor who suspects a defense witness will lie, sets the trap, elicits the lie, and then blows it up — not to lay the groundwork for a future perjury charge but to destroy the witness’s credibility, which helps win the trial.

In any event, it is fatuous to claim that this stuff doesn’t happen. It happens all the time. If you want to say that President Trump’s lawyers are just making excuses for a client who is prone to lie without being trapped, that is a cogent legal argument. If you instead insist that there is no such thing as a perjury trap just because the concept is being invoked by lawyers for a president you despise, then you’re playing politics . . . or you’ve let your contempt for Donald Trump get the better of you.

If you watched any of the democrats questioning  Brett Kavanaugh during the confirmation hearings this week, you saw a perjury trap in action. Led by wannabe Presidential candidates Kamala Harris and Cory "Spartacus" Booker, democrats did their best to ask questions in a leading, obtuse and abstract manner to so as to be able to pounce upon the answers later and level accusations of perjury against Kavanaugh- who by any measure is a decent, honest and honorable man.

David French:

For those keeping score at home, millions of Americans have now been exposed to false and ridiculous claims that Kavanaugh is a slippery perjurer who surrounds himself with racists and a cold, dark soul who deliberately snubbed a murdered child’s father.

...

Then there are the perjury claims. Writing in the widely read online journal, Above the Law, writer Elie Mystal charged that Kavanaugh committed perjury when, during the 2004 hearing from which he was confirmed to the D.C. Circuit court of appeals, he told Ted Kennedy “that he was ‘not involved’ in Bill Pryor’s nomination to the Eleventh Circuit. In fact, Mystal said, “He was involved. In documents made public during Senator Pat Leahy’s questioning, Kavanaugh is shown to have recommended Pryor, and invited to actively discuss Pyror’s hearings.” As proof of the alleged lie, Mystal embedded this tweet:

https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1037737330189185024

This was torn apart by David Lat

https://twitter.com/DavidLat/status/1037818154913816577

Back to David French:

[Retvet]

Mad Max Waters needsto to be expelled under Article 1 Section 5 Clausev2.

[lurk]

When KHarr bore down on Kavanaugh, it could have been a good time for some levity.
KHarr: Did you talk to someone from law firm Dewey Cheatem and Howe? And be careful answering.
Kav: Who we taking about?
KHadr: Ain’t saying.
Kav: Lets play 20 questions. Boy or girl, or other?