Trump's media minions are all atwitter about supposed "perjury traps" being set by Mueller's Men.
The term has been raised regarding Manafort, Cohen, Flynn, Papadopoulos, and even Trump himself, strongly implying that there is something unfair or even corrupt about how this investigation is being conducted.
This is what we are taking about...
"A perjury trap is a form of prosecutorial misconduct in which a prosecutor calls a witness to testify, typically before a grand jury, with the intent of coercing the witness into perjury (intentional deceit under oath.)"
This is a serious allegation. Trump's minions are essentially implying that Mueller and his team are attempting to get witnesses to perjure themselves in order to further their case. Doing this is itself criminal offence.
What do we know?
Cohen lied to Congress.
Manafort lied to the US Government about his taxes and status as an agent of a foreign government, then lied to Muller and his team while interviewed as part of a plea deal that fell apart.
Papodopoulos lied to the FBI about when he had his first contacts with Russians as part of his work for the Trump Campaign.
Flynn lied to the FBI and others about his contacts with the Ambassador for Russia after Trump's victory.
Hicks has admitted to telling "little, white lies" for Trump.
You will note that these people were not lying for the FBI, they have been lying to the FBI and others.
Ladies and gentlemen, this may come as a surprise, but it is a crime to lie to the police. Without a subpoena, you do not have to discuss anything with the police, but if you do and you lie to them, this is known as "obstruction of justice".
But weren't these people coerced? Are they not about to tell lies in court to enable Mueller and his team to get to other people as well?
Consider the defences that every one of these people had in place to guard against a possible "perjury trap".
Every single person who was interviewed by the FBI, and/or who appeared before Congress had the benefit of a lawyer or even multiple lawyers to advise them regarding their answers. One of them actually is a lawyer. They were therefore free to answer every single question in any way they saw fit, with the benefit of legal advice regarding the possible implications of those same answers. Any possible traps would have been noted by their lawyers in advance of answering, enabling them to carefully measure their answers so as to avoid any legal liability.
Not only that, but in the USA there is something called the Fifth Amendment. It says this...
"No person shall...be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself...."
American citizens are permitted to "plead the fifth" whenever they encounter a situation where they are under a legal obligation to reply to a question posed by a state official, and they think that answering that question may place them in legal jeopardy.
Every single person noted above would have understood that, if they thought that by giving an answer to a certain question posed by the FBI pursuant to a subpoena they could incriminate themselves, they could have simply declined to answer, noting that answering could put them in legal jeopardy.
The key thing to understand here is that, in spite of having legal counsel to advise them and the benefit of the Fifth Amendment, these people chose to lie anyways!
And so, there is no mystery here about how these people came to be in legal "hot water". They are known as "liars", who chose to lie to the police, not because they were coerced by anyone, but because they had something to hide from the police and/or from Congress.
The surprise for them, and I think the real source of much of the upset on the part of Trump's media minions, is that what they did not know when they lied - and what Mr. Manafort has recently found out - was that Mueller knew precisely when they were lying, because as is increasingly becoming obvious, he knows all the background information regarding their activities, in detail.
On that, if a police officer asks a question where they already know the answer, and they sit back and watch as a witness lies in response to that same question, this is not a perjury trap. There is no coercion in this scenario - the witness is free to lie or not as they see fit. If the witness chooses to lie, they will pay the price, and it is not a fault of the police that they did some work in advance to assess the true situation before asking any questions.
What about Trump?
Trump not only had the benefit of reams of lawyers to pour over the questions that were sent by Mueller in order to prepare appropriate answers, but his lawyers actually got to negotiate what questions he would be asked by Mueller.
Given that his own lawyers had a hand in crafting the questions he answered, the only way that Trump could have been set up with a perjury trap is if he was trying to set up himself!
Trump was also not subpoenaed - he did not have to answer any questions at all. How anyone could be hinting at a perjury trap regarding Trump where there wasn't even an obligation to answer questions is beyond me.
If Trump lied in his responses to the questions posed by Mueller, he did so with the benefit of legal counsel, in full knowledge of his rights especially the rights to refuse to answer any question that might incriminate himself.
I would have told him to stay silent, given his very obvious problematic relationship with the truth.
No comments:
Post a Comment