Someone please tell me that putting "to the best of my knowledge"

[maxrandb]

In front of answers to Federal prosecutors does NOT immunize you from perjury.

They were discussing on Chris Hayes that Donnie Shit for Brains answered written questions like that, and they were saying that gives Donnie Short Fingers wiggle room.

Maybe I'll try that the next time I get stopped by the police.

Well officer... to the best of my knowledge...

[Glimmer of Hope]

1. I used to work on white collar and criminal investigations and attorney questions always had

supporting evidence for the witness to deny or confirm. He has subpar attorneys so he is most likely screwed even with the caveat.

[NanceGreggs]

2. No, it doesn't immunize you from perjury.

It can, however, actually lead to a charge of perjury in certain instances.

EG: "To the best of my knowledge, I have never communicated with John Smith."

Well, if the prosecution has two years worth of emails between you and John Smith, you've committed perjury - and you're fucked.

[unblock]

3. this is essentially a jury question; but yes, it might make a difference.

in answering a question like, "did you direct anyone on your campaign to make contacts with senior russian officials or their liasons?"

there is possibly a big difference between

(a) "i did not."
and
(b) "to the best of my knowledge, i did not."


in order to prove (a) is perjury, a prosecutor would have to show that donnie did, in fact do so.
in order to prove (b) is perjury, a prosecutor would have to show that donnie *knows* (at the time of he answered the question) that he did so.

that leaves wiggle room, for instance, if donnie said something like "wouldn't it be nice the russians helped us", then donnie could easily say he didn't think that constituted "directing" anyone to actually do it. what *donnie* thinks matters in (b), but not so much in (a).


that said, there has to be criminal intent in either case.