- Joined
- Jul 24, 2011
- Messages
- 59,717
- Reaction score
- 51,773
- Location
- Georgia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Which statement by Michael Cohen in last week's hearing was untrue?
-
This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
Perjury Before Congress: Big Deal? (e.g what M Cohen is accused of)
- Thread starter Simon W. Moon
- Start date
Which statement by Michael Cohen in last week's hearing was untrue?
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2008
- Messages
- 106,864
- Reaction score
- 98,918
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
That he didn't want to work at the White House. So basically he admitted to killing twenty girl scouts but insists on lying about what he had for breakfast? Yeah, weird.
I don't see it being prosecutable though because pinning down a person's frame of mind (criminal intent to commit perjury) is absolute murder. Also, this particular lie (if it is indeed a lie) isn't material to anything.
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2011
- Messages
- 59,717
- Reaction score
- 51,773
- Location
- Georgia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
That feels like a bit of a stretch. He may not have wanted to join a new presidential administration, but if tRump really does act like a mob boss, then Cohen basically had no choice.
Also, if your point is that that's the least trustworthy thing he said all-day, then yeah, his testimony was solid. And damaging to the Trump presidency.
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2009
- Messages
- 1,734
- Reaction score
- 713
- Location
- Houston
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
It depends what you are lying about, whether it is a minor forgetfulness, or whether it is a major issue, like treason. The more serious the behavior being investigated, the heavier the sentence. Therefore, heavy sentences must be allowed. Then discretion must be allowed, because not all lies are created equal. Let the punishment fit the crime.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2005
- Messages
- 30,545
- Reaction score
- 14,775
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
The statute of limitations has not expired.
When will Trump's DoJ get on with prosecuting these scofflaws [and Killary]?
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2005
- Messages
- 34,960
- Reaction score
- 12,356
- Location
- Pennsylvania
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
...result in potential major criminal repercussions & lengthy prison sentences
But it depends on the case, if someone lies to get someone convicted and that person is executed as a result, the person who lied effectively committed murder, using the state as their weapon.
Thus in that case perjury would be a capital offence.
But it depends on the case, if someone lies to get someone convicted and that person is executed as a result, the person who lied effectively committed murder, using the state as their weapon.
Thus in that case perjury would be a capital offence.
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133,631
- Reaction score
- 30,937
- Location
- Bagdad, La.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
When is Mueller going to go after McCabe and Strzok?
The answer is, he isn't, because it won't be damaging to President Trump.
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2012
- Messages
- 7,302
- Reaction score
- 3,402
- Location
- Northern Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Or because neither are within the scope of his investigation. But out of curiosity, which specific crimes do you think McCabe and Strozk might be guilty of?
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2018
- Messages
- 10,257
- Reaction score
- 4,161
- Location
- Washington, D.C.
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I cannot choose from among the substantive poll-answer options because of the ambiguity of the following:
- "Major criminal repurcussions" --> What does that mean? Our criminal justice system has two classes of crimes: felonies and misdemeanors. The two are, AFAIK, distinguished by the maximum incarceration length and maximum allowable fine. Also, there's no jurisdictionally uniform standard of whether a given criminally culpable act is classed as a felony or misdemeanor. For instance, certain instances of the following behavior are variously Class A and less-than-Class-A misdemeanors depending on the jurisdiction, yet in others, some are felonies.
- Assault resulting in bodily injury
- DUI/DWI (see also Felony DUI)
- Conspiracy
- Misdemeanor Domestic Violence
- Burglary
- Resisting arrest
- Obscenity
- Perjury
- Possession of a controlled substance
- Property theft over $1,000
- Harboring a runaway child
- Deadly conduct
- Making a false report
- Unlawful possession of a weapon
- Violating a restraining order
- "Lengthy sentences" --> What, IYO, is the minimum duration of a "lengthy sentence?"
- "Minor jail time" --> What, IYO, is the minimum duration of "minor jail time?"
- "Assorted repercussions" -- American jurisprudence does not have "assorted" penalties for unlawful behavior. The penalties for infractions include fines, incarceration, community service, and restitution.
- "Minor criminal fines" --> What, IYO, is the maximum sum of a "minor criminal fine?"
Of the answer options in the poll, I can tell you the first six and the last two are not one's I'd select.
- Perjury is definitionally unlawful. Distinguishing between lies one tell under "regular" circumstances and lies told on the occasion of one's having sworn not to lie is the raison d'etre for the word "perjury." If perjury isn't going to be unlawful, then we have no need for the word "perjury" for "lying" and its synonyms would suffice. Accordingly, the notion that perjury should not be unlawful is preposterous from the start.
- I wouldn't cotton to perjury being a civil offense because the instant it's so, it becomes something that one can treat as a "cost of doing business;" thus people having access to sufficient means can perjure themselves and simply pay the fine and face no consequences for obscuring part or all of the the truth of the matter about which they perjured themselves. Abetting more so than our current jurisprudential code such a decision-making calculus would, in turn, make our system even more dependent on witness' character. Jurisprudence, though it will always be somewhat dependent on the characters of participants in its execution, discovering at truth is easier when there are life-altering consequences for lying when one has sworn to tell the truth.
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133,631
- Reaction score
- 30,937
- Location
- Bagdad, La.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Those are crimes that arose during his investigation. Just like when Cohen lied to Congress.
They're guilty of perjury.
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2012
- Messages
- 7,302
- Reaction score
- 3,402
- Location
- Northern Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
If they'e already been found guilty, then no need for an investigation.
But in any case, the accusations of "lacking candor" under oath were the results of an IG investigation, not the Mueller investigation.
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2012
- Messages
- 40,615
- Reaction score
- 9,087
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
If it is related to the conduct laid out in the criminal information against him, he is immune to further prosecution.
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2015
- Messages
- 16,568
- Reaction score
- 7,253
- Location
- California Caliphate
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
In fact, Cohen was charged by Mueller for lying to congress. Not by a congressional referral to DoJ. The only people I've heard of getting prosecuted for lying were relatively small fry civilians outside the political umbrella.
I suspect the new AG may look at things differently.
If it is related to the conduct laid out in the criminal information against him, he is immune to further prosecution.
If Congress or the DoJ has the stomach for it, they can revoke his plea deal. But he's just collateral damage, and he is more trouble to the democrats than he is worth at this point.
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2015
- Messages
- 3,325
- Reaction score
- 2,348
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
Let's start here:
1. Which of Cohen's statement do you contest? What, specifically, is he lying about?
2. What is your evidence (i.e. would hold up in a court of law) that he lied to Congress on Feb 27th?
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2017
- Messages
- 13,794
- Reaction score
- 7,497
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Perjury in most American jurisdictions should be against the law, subject to fines and prison time, same with lying to a police officer or Federal authority.
Wait a moment, that already is the case.
Wait a moment, that already is the case.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2005
- Messages
- 30,545
- Reaction score
- 14,775
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
If they committed crimes shouldn't Trump's DoJ do their ****en job and get them indicted?
I'm sure Trump's DoJ will get right on these cases just any moment now.
It's not like you're just bringing up empty CT BS.
You are bringing up super cereal crimes that Trump's DoJ is ignoring.
There's absolutely zero chance that you could ever be mistaken about crap like that.
But what a ****en mystery that Trump's DoJ is not being more aggressive with these super cereal crimes.
Just a big ol' ****en mystery.
:shrug:
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2005
- Messages
- 30,545
- Reaction score
- 14,775
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Shouldn't we start with the places where I made the assertions you are asking me to defend?
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133,631
- Reaction score
- 30,937
- Location
- Bagdad, La.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
You're right, but, the system is rigged. Lying to Congress just isn't big of a deal, unless the deep staters are targeting certain people.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2005
- Messages
- 30,545
- Reaction score
- 14,775
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Trump is unable to effectively run the executive branch?
Say it ain't so.
Trump is the greatest executiver ever.
He can dealmake the executive branch to do his bidding,
Trump is the greatest dealmakerer ever.
Given these big league facts, I find your assertion that Trump is unable to do his job and run the executive branch
totally ****en laughable.
There's no ****en way that Trump is so incompetent that he cannot run the govt.
He's a ****en billionaire guy who's been on TV.
That means he's the best at everythings. Duh.
So, take your silly assertions that Trump is unable to effectively run his branch of govt and go sit in the corner with Jane Fonda.
Are you some sort of victim of TDS that you are accusing Trump of being unable to do his job and run the executive branch?
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2012
- Messages
- 40,615
- Reaction score
- 9,087
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
No, Congress can not revoke a plea deal. And at this point time it is after Cohen has been found guilty on the basis of the Court accepting his plea, and has been sentenced. So no in regards to the DOJ doing any such thing. He has immunity and they have to hold to the plea they made and the Court accepted.
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133,631
- Reaction score
- 30,937
- Location
- Bagdad, La.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Is this an example of how weak your argument is?
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2018
- Messages
- 19,882
- Reaction score
- 3,781
Spot on, we have two justice systems, one for sleezy democrats and one for everyone else. Lynch and Comey ought to be breaking rocks right now.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2005
- Messages
- 30,545
- Reaction score
- 14,775
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Inorite?
If only we could get a member of the GOP to take charge of the executive branch and maybe have the GOP control one or two houses of Congress.
Then we would see these innumerable criminals face justice.
But until that day we will just have to cast about aspersions of how unfair Life is.
'Cause that's what conservatism is all about — playing the victim card.
UNFAIR! UNFAIR! UNFAIR!
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2005
- Messages
- 30,545
- Reaction score
- 14,775
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Since it's such a weak argument, then it should be easy-peasy for you to show that Trump is actually unable to run the executive branch and thus unable to bring these criminal to justice.
Feel free to start when you're ready.
Until then, the rest of us will take comfort in the fact that the US Govt has never been in better more competent hands than Trump's.
Trump has the executive branch of the USG running like a 'well oiled machine'.
Totally no chaos or incompetence or w/e else it is you're accusing Trump of when you say Trump is unable to bring these criminals to justice.
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133,631
- Reaction score
- 30,937
- Location
- Bagdad, La.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
That's some great deflection. :lamo