Hillary Clinton: Why Are You So Obsessed With Me? "The reason Trump continues to call-out Hillary is because many on the conservative side are s**k of double standards when it comes to...

Larry the Legend Loc: Not hiding in Milton

"The reason Trump continues to call-out Hillary is because many on the conservative side are s**k of double standards when it comes to investigating politicians. Hillary Clinton is in the middle of many corruption scandals and yet she’s as free as a bird and hasn’t faced legal consequences for anything. She skates while many in Trump’s world now face jail time, mostly over perjury traps and actions taken well before Trump’s p**********l campaign."

https://americant***htoday.com/hillary-clinton-to-trump-why-are-you-so-obsessed-with-me/?utm_source=sprklst&utm_campaign=patriothill-clinton-mar-10-mid

Any questions?

Common_Sense_Matters

Larry the Legend wrote:

"The reason Trump continues to call-out Hilla... (show quote)

Sure, if someone tells the t***h, how would they get caught in a perjury trap? Perhaps you should give that one a quick think, we know you won't but worth a shot.

Larry the Legend Loc: Not hiding in Milton

Common_Sense_Matters wrote:

Sure, if someone tells the t***h, how would they get caught in a perjury trap? Perhaps you should give that one a quick think, we know you won't but worth a shot.

You have no idea what a 'perjury trap' is, do you?

"The perjury trap is a form of entrapment defense, and so must be affirmatively proven by the defendant." In other words, the burden of proof is shifted to the defendant to prove that he did not commit perjury instead of on the prosecution to prove that he did. It is physically impossible to prove a negative, therefore the person is 'trapped'.

Now it's your turn to "give that one a quick think".

Common_Sense_Matters

Larry the Legend wrote:

You have no idea what a 'perjury trap' is, do you?

"The perjury trap is a form of entrapment defense, and so must be affirmatively proven by the defendant." In other words, the burden of proof is shifted to the defendant to prove that he did not commit perjury instead of on the prosecution to prove that he did. It is physically impossible to prove a negative, therefore the person is 'trapped'.

Now it's your turn to "give that one a quick think".

Incorrect, if the person does NOT lie, then there is no proof of said "lie" and therefore they are safe, provided they don't lie. Of course you have it in your mind that it IS possible to get someone that doesn't lie on perjury if they DON'T lie but that would be your own ignorance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury_trap

Edit: To prove perjury, you must first have proof that they told a lie, if they don't, then perjury trap avoided.

Larry the Legend Loc: Not hiding in Milton

Common_Sense_Matters wrote:

Incorrect, if the person does NOT lie, then there is no proof of said "lie" and therefore they are safe, provided they don't lie. Of course you have it in your mind that it IS possible to get someone that doesn't lie on perjury if they DON'T lie but that would be your own ignorance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury_trap

Edit: To prove perjury, you must first have proof that they told a lie, if they don't, then perjury trap avoided.

From the link you provided: "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). Most often a perjury trap is employed because the prosecutor is unable to prosecute the defendant on other charges."

Once again, it is misconduct on the side of the prosecutor wherein the witness is literally coerced into perjuring himself. No lie required, just a crooked prosecutor and an unsuspecting witness. By the way, it's completely unethical but that wouldn't bother you, would it?

Common_Sense_Matters

Larry the Legend wrote:

From the link you provided: "A perjury trap ... (show quote)

Yes, it IS misconduct but if the person being led into the trap remains honest, they have nothing to worry about. If they lie... Well, that is on them.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Common_Sense_Matters wrote:

Yes, it IS misconduct but if the person being led into the trap remains honest, they have nothing to worry about. If they lie... Well, that is on them.

Unless they were coerced... Right?

Common_Sense_Matters

Canuckus Deploracus wrote:

Unless they were coerced... Right?

If an honest man is coerced into lying, well, I can't imagine what type of coercion it would take for me to lie. Please, offer examples that you can think of that might cause an honest man to lie.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Common_Sense_Matters wrote:

If an honest man is coerced into lying, well, I can't imagine what type of coercion it would take for me to lie. Please, offer examples that you can think of that might cause an honest man to lie.

"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)."

From above...
I believe that many individuals could be coerced into lying...
Threatening them with false crimes...
As I recall, Sessions recused himself from the investigation due to undisclosed meetings with Russians.. And it was later shown that he had no need to disclose these meetings..
A capable prosecutor could no doubt cause a petson to doubt their actions and so lie about them...

Common_Sense_Matters

Canuckus Deploracus wrote:

"A perjury trap is a form of prosecutorial mi... (show quote)

If you don't lie, no problem, if you choose to lie, you have only yourself to blame.

Larry the Legend Loc: Not hiding in Milton

Common_Sense_Matters wrote:

If you don't lie, no problem, if you choose to lie, you have only yourself to blame.

No matter what, you will not take the time and put in the effort it requires to understand that a perjury trap does not require a lie or even an exaggeration, all it needs is for a prosecutor to make the claim and the person being attacked is forced to try and prove a negative, an impossible task. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? Are you trying to support an agenda here?

Common_Sense_Matters

Larry the Legend wrote:

No matter what, you will not take the time and put in the effort it requires to understand that a perjury trap does not require a lie or even an exaggeration, all it needs is for a prosecutor to make the claim and the person being attacked is forced to try and prove a negative, an impossible task. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? Are you trying to support an agenda here?

Yes, it does, just because you are so delusional as to think it doesn't, that doesn't make it so. The prosecutor MUST have evidence to support their claim that you lie. They can't prove you lied if you didn't lie.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Common_Sense_Matters wrote:

Yes, it does, just because you are so delusional as to think it doesn't, that doesn't make it so. The prosecutor MUST have evidence to support their claim that you lie. They can't prove you lied if you didn't lie.

Q: Have you ever had any undisclosed meetings with Russian officials?

A: No... Not to my knowledge.

Q: Yet you failed to disclose these meetings with Russian officials... Why?

A: I was informed that I neednt disclose those meetings.. They are on public record.

Q: So you admit that you hava had undisclosed meetings with Russian officials... And have just committed perjury....

Common_Sense_Matters

Canuckus Deploracus wrote:

Q: Have you ever had any undisclosed meetings with Russian officials?

A: No... Not to my knowledge.

Q: Yet you failed to disclose these meetings with Russian officials... Why?

A: I was informed that I neednt disclose those meetings.. They are on public record.

Q: So you admit that you hava had undisclosed meetings with Russian officials... And have just committed perjury....

If the one being question is unaware of having had any undisclosed meetings with Russians, wouldn't they have answered question #2 with "I have not had any undisclosed meetings with Russians so there was nothing to disclose as they were all already disclosed.".

If there had been any "undisclosed meetings" that he failed to recall during the first question, he likely would have suspected that perhaps he had forgotten one and in that case, shouldn't his answer to #2 be along the lines of "I don't recall there being any non-disclosed meeting, perhaps you could refresh my memory.", in which case he never lied during question #1.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Common_Sense_Matters wrote:

If the one being question is unaware of having had... (show quote)

Ideally... Yes