Trump's SCOTUS

[Speaker to Animals]

I am not backing down from this. Fuck that.

She lied. The people she named as witnessing the event have contradicted her. If you tell the police one thing, and they get witnesses who contradict you, the police will fucking charge you for lying.

Unless you are a woman and this has anything to do with "rape" or family law, anyway. Then women get a free pass. And men like you two will defend it. It's absolutely fucking amazing.

Every one of us knows that, if the accuser were a man and this were about anything else, you'd be ready to charge him. Don't even deny that.

I mean.. for fuck sake.. if a man ever lies about sexual assault by a woman against himself, they are going to charge him. We all fucking know this is a fact. How do you defend this shit??

[DBTrek]

Lying requires the intent to deceive. You can’t prove anything was done with an intention to deceive because the only person who knows their intent is the one making the claims.

“You said you were afraid of flying but you’re a world traveler”

“I am afraid of flying, but I take trips to relax. It’s very hard for me. This hearing is no relaxation trip so it was extremely hard to overcome my fears while knowing what awaited at the end of this journey”

“Your witnesses don’t corroborate your claims”

“Well, I’ve told you what I remember. Maybe they don’t want to get dragged through this process.”

You can prove questionable and unsubstantiated statements. You can’t prove the intent behind them. That might be why the folks who made false claims against you are not sitting in jail for them, eh? Same reason all the birthers, flat earthers, and anti-Vaxxers aren’t in jail - being sincerely wrong is no crime, and proving intent to deceive almost impossible.

[Speaker to Animals]

No. The law requires no such thing.

The police only need show that you gave them one statement, and several witnesses contradict you. Boom. You are getting charged. Fact.

You may be confusing this with perjury, which is also a crime, but I think does require proof of intent.

Making false claims to law enforcement is another matter. I.e. "I cannot fly out to speak with your investigators because my attack makes it impossible for me to fly" when she has a giant frequent flyer account.

[pineapplemike]

Well, I've definitely rolled my eyes a few times during her testimony. Where is Brett, is he not testifying too? For some reason I thought they would both be there, going back and forth. That would have been more entertaining, seems like they should hash this out themselves. Involving the entire country, and lawyers, and the media, and congressmen, all the way up to the president in this alleged affair from so long ago just seems silly to me.

[Speaker to Animals]

Here is some irony from a #Resist article about the implications of Trump cabinet members lying to the authorities:

By far the broadest federal statute criminalizing lying is 18 U.S.C. § 1001, which makes it a crime to “knowingly and willfully . . . make[] any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation” in the course of “any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch” of the federal government. There’s no requirement that the statement be under oath.

The statute’s history reveals creeping expansion over time: Section 1001 traces back to 1863, initially applying to servicemember claims against the government. It was amended in 1934 to apply more broadly to any person and covered “any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States.” In United States v. Bramblett, the Supreme Court held that “any department or agency” included the Disbursing Office of the House of Representatives. (Congressman Bramblett lied to the House Disbursing Office in order to collect a salary for a nonexistent employee.)

In the Iran-Contra prosecutions, several federal district judges assumed, based on Bramblett, that executive branch officers could be held to have violated § 1001 when they lied in unsworn statements to Congress, even on matters unrelated to collecting federal benefits. Though the Iran-Contra indictments largely centered on perjury and withholding evidence, this was an analytically significant expansion—to cover interbranch unsworn lying. The first practical use of § 1001 came shortly thereafter, forming the basis for the independent counsel investigation of Ted Olson that would give rise to Morrison v. Olson, in which the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the independent counsel statute.

In 1996, § 1001 was revised to explicitly apply to “any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch.”

The statement must be “material” but materiality means only that the statement is “predictably capable of affecting . . . [an] official decision.” This same definition of materiality applies to perjury. In United States v. Gaudin, the Supreme Court held that the issue of materiality is to be determined by juries.

In its present form, § 1001 sweeps incredibly broadly: just about any material statement to an official of any branch of the federal government on a matter they are investigating. It implicates many written representations to the federal government as well. In yesterday’s hearing, Representative Adam Schiff requested that Director Comey provide the committee with a copy of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn’s SF-86, presumably to see if Flynn disclosed foreign contacts and payments. In three separate locations on the form, the SF-86 warns of criminal penalties under § 1001. It even requires an affirmative acknowledgment that the preparer understands that withholding, falsifying, or misrepresenting information on the form is “subject to the penalties for inaccurate or false statement (per U.S. Criminal Code, Title 18, section 1001).”

Because the lie need not occur in an official proceeding under oath, the existence of an ongoing investigation raises the likelihood that § 1001 would be relevant: it will sweep up almost all misrepresentations made to government officials in the course of that investigation. To the extent any leak investigations proceed, § 1001 is commonly the basis for charges in those cases as well. As Susan and I wrote in February:

This provision is used far more frequently than [substantive antileak laws], in part because of the aggravating nature of lying to law enforcement and in part because the offense is easier to prove.

Another major crime echoing in the public discourse around the Russia Connection is obstruction of justice. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1505, a felony offense is committed by anyone who “corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation in being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress.”

An accompanying code section, 18 U.S.C. § 1515(b), defines “corruptly” as “acting with an improper purpose, personally or by influencing another, including making a false or misleading statement, or withholding, concealing, altering, or destroying a document or other information” (emphasis added). This is where obstruction of justice intersects with the false statements law. If you knowingly and willfully make a false statement of material fact in a federal government proceeding, you’ve potentially violated § 1001, and when you add an objective to influence, obstruct, or impede an investigation, you’ve now possibly violated § 1505 as well. Perjury can intersect with obstruction of justice in the same way.

Under the statute, a “proceeding” can be an investigation. Section 1503 criminalizes the same conduct in judicial proceedings. So obstruction during an investigation might violate § 1503, while if that same investigation leads to a criminal prosecution, obstruction during the prosecution itself would violate § 1505. The individual also has to know that a proceeding is happening in order to violate the statute, and must have the intent to obstruct—that is, act with the purpose of obstructing, even if they don’t succeed.

Relatedly, 18 U.S.C. § 1512 makes it a crime to lie to a witness in an attempt to induce that witness to lie before Congress or a judicial hearing. So if a Trump campaign official lies to a witness that’s about to go before Congress to testify hoping that witness will pass the lie along, that’s a federal offense. Under § 1512(e), it is an affirmative defense if the conduct was otherwise lawful and was merely an effort to persuade the witness to testify truthfully, but the burden to prove that is on the defendant.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/law-lying-p ... bstruction

[DBTrek]

Where’s the “knowing and willful” false statements?

She flew out to the hearing, what are you going to charge her with?

She made claims that others did not corroborate, what are you going to charge her with? Can you prove she knew the witnesses wouldn’t back her story?

Claims other witnesses won’t verify isn’t a crime. In fact, a large body of psychological research shows that eyewitness accounts are notoriously flawed.

Most of us here think she’s lying, but that’s different than being able to prove it in a court of law.

[Speaker to Animals]

Where’s the “knowing and willful” false statements?

She flew out to the hearing, what are you going to charge her with?

She made claims that others did not corroborate, what are you going to charge her with? Can you prove she knew the witnesses wouldn’t back her story?

Claims other witnesses won’t verify isn’t a crime. In fact, a large body of psychological research shows that eyewitness accounts are notoriously flawed.

Most of us here think she’s lying, but that’s different than being able to prove it in a court of law.

The biggest example would be that she named several witnesses, and every single witness denies any such party took place or that they ever witnessed anything of the sort. That's usually how people get pinched for lying to the police. Hell, people get pinched for lying to police when they didn't even lie because police conjured up some witnesses to contradict them. That was one of the core arguments in that famous YouTube lecture about why you should never talk to the police.

She was the one who mentioned these witnesses and the witnesses are saying she is not telling the truth. Unless she is batshit crazy -- a possibility I now willingly admit upon watching her conduct -- she had to know they weren't there if this party ever took place somewhere at some time, even though she can't be bothered to name the location or even the year.

Let's just say there was some kind of party. She knows those women were not there and yet she named them anyway. They contradicted her. If we are to believe all these rape hoaxes because multiple women made the allegations, then are we not also to believe even more witnesses named by the hoaxers who deny it ever happening??

[DBTrek]

Maybe I need to see these YouTube videos.
/shrug

Because it seems to me the whole house of cards comes tumbling down when you have to prove “knowing and willful” misrepresentation of the truth. You can’t prove what she knows, she can only tell you.

[Speaker to Animals]

I am looking at it now to find the specific point. This video is amazing and you should watch the entire thing, but I am looking for one specific point and will link to it shortly.

The gist of the point is that, even if you tell the police the truth, you can STILL be prosecuted for lying to the police if the police find some witness to contradict your statement. It's a strong argument against ever talking to the police (let your lawyer do that).

Over 20% of the people exonerated by the Innocence Project (quite a lot of men imprisoned based on nothing more than false allegations by women) are there because of incriminating statements or contradicting witnesses.

[Speaker to Animals]

https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE?t=12m44s