The Frankish Reich Posted May 8 Author Share Posted May 8 10 hours ago, SCBills said: What a pathetic way to frame this. Rich people get away with stuff all the time. What I have a problem with are misdemeanors, at best, being juiced up into felonies by politically motivated DA’s going after the regimes political opps. Who gave you an “awesome” reaction for this nonsensical comparison of whats going on?.. I expect gibberish from you, but it’s sad to see someone actually think what you say has any merit. It wasn't me that gave that comment an "awesome." But it isn't an unfair comparison. Republicans back then (very different from Republicans now) took the position that lying under oath by denying a sexual encounter was a "high crime or misdemeanor" that made a man unfit to serve as President. I would say that this is more similar than it is different ... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sherpa Posted May 8 Share Posted May 8 13 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: It wasn't me that gave that comment an "awesome." But it isn't an unfair comparison. Republicans back then (very different from Republicans now) took the position that lying under oath by denying a sexual encounter was a "high crime or misdemeanor" that made a man unfit to serve as President. I would say that this is more similar than it is different ... Perjury is perjury. The subject matter is irrelevant. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted May 8 Author Share Posted May 8 7 minutes ago, sherpa said: Perjury is perjury. The subject matter is irrelevant. No it isn't. The law has always treated false statements under oath differently when testimony involves things that go to the heart of the claim as opposed to collateral matters. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted May 8 Share Posted May 8 (edited) The mob went from he is guilty of the crime, to he had an affair two decades ago. Edited May 8 by Tommy Callahan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sherpa Posted May 8 Share Posted May 8 1 hour ago, The Frankish Reich said: No it isn't. The law has always treated false statements under oath differently when testimony involves things that go to the heart of the claim as opposed to collateral matters. It was perjury. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 8 Share Posted May 8 And hush money payments are hush money payments Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted May 8 Author Share Posted May 8 32 minutes ago, sherpa said: It was perjury. https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1748-elements-perjury-materiality#:~:text=1748.-,Elements Of Perjury -- Materiality,was addressed." Kungys v. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted May 8 Share Posted May 8 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted May 8 Author Share Posted May 8 So I took a look at what we have so far from Stormy. A standard jury instruction regarding credibility is "you may believe all of a witness's testimony, none of a witness's testimony, or you may find a witness credible with respect to certain matters but not credible with respect to others." I believe any reasonable/unbiased jury would say: Credible: - that Trump had her invited up to his hotel suite for the purpose of having sex with her - that they did have sex - that Trump continued to want to "see" (read: screw) her, and that he egged her own with vague/illusory promises of a role on The Apprentice, including inviting her to Trump Tower to talk about that - that she was offered and accepted a payment in exchange for not talking about this to anyone Not credible: - that she was surprised that Trump wanted sex, not a discussion of her career (and The Apprentice) over dinner - that she was surprised to find him partially undressed when she exited the bathroom - that she "blacked out" and can't recall much after the sex began - that she felt intimidated by the old man and his bodyguard such that the sex could be considered something less than consensual - that she didn't have sex with him for the purpose of helping her career (The Apprentice again) - that she had no interest in money when Cohen approached her with the offer, and that she just wanted to make the story go away. She realized that the story of "I had sex with the host of The Apprentice" wasn't worth much at the time, but "I had sex with the Republican candidate for President" was worth a whole lot in 2016. So ... not a perfect witness for the prosecution by any means, but the prosecution can argue that you don't have to think she's perfect and honorable, and that as long as you believe the parts any reasonable person would believe, her testimony fits together perfectly with the rest of the evidence. The defense, at Trump's bidding, seems stuck with the "you can't believe a word she says" theory, even when I can't see any other reason Trump would invite an "adult film actress" (sex worker) to come to his hotel suite alone. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 9 Share Posted May 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts