Supporters of The Great Himself have criticized the investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller as a "perjury trap" designed to catch the president in responding untruthfully to probers' questions.
But prosecutors have a long tradition of asking questions to which they already know the answer.
So is that a "perjury trap"?
Yes, it is. Absolutely, and you can bet your sweet patootie it is. That's what lawyers do. They're aiming at a conviction based on evidence and truth. If they can prove a person is lying under oath, that in itself is an offense, and helps to buttress the root charge of breaking the law.
This president has a long history of what he has called "truthful hyperbole" in the cause of selling real estate, and he has carried that practice into his political career. Moreover, he has expanded that hyperbolism beyond the bounds of truth, blithely ignoring obvious facts if they contrast with his own goals and beliefs.
Example: The list of questions compiled by his own legal team based on information given them by the Mueller probers dealing with possible areas to be covered in an interview. The list was published by the New York Times, and immediately attacked by the president as proof that there was "no collusion" during the election campaign between his team and the Russian government, since none of the questions dealt with that issue.
In fact, of the 49 published questions, a dozen of them specifically mentioned "collusion." Moreover, the president insisted that since there was "no collusion," there could not have been a crime.
Wrong. Collusion to cover up or interfere with or block an investigation is itself a crime, whether or not there was an underlying crime.
Moreover, lying to investigators is also a crime. And if investigators already know the truth and want the person involved to admit to it, if the person says otherwise under oath despite being warned of the consequences, yes, that is perjury, and probers have successfully sprung a trap and proven guilt.
No comments:
Post a Comment