How come perjury charges aren't slapped on people like MTG?

[Silent3]

It's fucking blindingly obvious that she was lying through her teeth.

Is perjury so hard to prove that even lies obvious to a 4 year-old don't count?

Is "I don't recall" allowed to be that effective an evasion technique, even when supposed lapses of memory are so clearly bullshit?

Simply disqualifying her from running for office isn't anywhere near enough punishment after insultingly obvious perjury like that.

[Jerry2144]

1. IOKIYR applies

Classic case of it

[elleng]

2. Due Process takes time, and evidence.

Unfortunately, most people don't have the patience to wait.

[uponit7771]

3. True, the waiting gets harder when Americans see the not so privileged drug through same process...

.... at lighting speed

[Silent3]

4. But the perjury is freaking obvious

Exactly how much "Due Process" and "time, and evidence" does proving that water is wet take?

[elleng]

5. Sorry, 'freaking obvious' does not pass the Due Process test.

[Silent3]

7. And what would be due process?

Why is it very, very unlikely anyone will start that process going?

Letting people get away with this obvious shit is the correct process?

[we can do it]

27. !

[brooklynite]

6. Because it's not blindingly obvious to a Court.

“We know what she did” is not a legal argument. Providing proof to refute the statement is necessary (see: Kevin McCarthy)

[elleng]

8. Thanks

[Silent3]

9. Why kind of idiot does "a court" need to pretend to be?

Known principles of psychology would prove beyond a reasonable doubt, no matter what the flaws of human memory might be, human memory simply does not work the way that people like MTG are expecting us to believe. People do NOT simply conveniently forget things that important, not unless they have other obvious, huge memory deficits that would be manifest in many other ways.

If her memory were truly that bad, she's be psychologically unfit to hold office anyway.

There is no cherished principle of justice that is aided by pretending that what's going on inside someone's head when they keep claiming "I don't recall" is THAT vastly beyond evidentiary reach.

[brooklynite]

31. Doonsbury...

[TomSlick]

10. Perjury charges from a civil case are rare. Especially if it's the party that's lying.

Lying usually does sufficient damage to the case if made sufficiently clear.

[Silent3]

12. But this is about whether she should be allowed to run for office

And all indications are that "I don't recall" is MTG's ticket to evading any accountability.

What vital legal principle is being supported by pretending her lying isn't blindingly obvious?

How would everyone else's freedom be at jeopardy if our courts don't pretend that seeing beyond obviously fake claims of "I don't recall" is some sort of slippery slope toward evidence-free, lack-of-due-process convictions?

[TomSlick]

34. The question is not about the courts.

The question is whether a prosecutor will file a charge for perjury in a civil case. As I say, it's rare.

[Silent3]

36. That it's rare is my complaint. n/t

[TomSlick]

44. As some who tries civil cases, I agree it would be helpful

if prosecutors were willing to prosecute perjury in civil trials.

Then again, there is perjury is most civil trials. The prisons would be overrun.

[Hamlette]

66. not just the prosecutor but the jury

I would not convict. No evidence.

[Mr.Bill]

11. All In know is we can now claim

that Joe Biden has a better memory than she has.

[Initech]

13. George Carlin was right. It's a big club and we're not in it.

Not the same justice system. Philando Castille gets murdered in his car in front of his wife by a trigger happy police officer. Kyle Rittenhouse literally crossed state lines with a loaded weapon with intent to commit murder and kills people on live television! And he walks scot free because he happens to watch the same TV network that the judge does.

And the same thing is going to happen to Marjorie Greene. Ain't no justice.

[Silent3]

14. We've got other DUers right here in this thread who think this mockery of justice...

...is somehow related to necessary "due process" and totally reasonable, fair standards of proof.

[PufPuf23]

21. Gets rather tiresome too.

My basic approach has devolved to "I'll believe it when I see it" and don't intend to rock the boat in the interim because don't want to make things worse.

[kairos12]

28. My favorite Carlinism was about how Rethugs are all about

symbols like the Cross, and the Flag.

He call them symbol minded people.

Perfect.

[greenjar_01]

15. Wonder if her biggest DU supporter gonna come to the rescue with a very REALIST defense

The Conservative Lawyers Guild will be around presently as well...

(LOL, didn't read the thread before posting this... )

[brooklynite]

40. Are you thinking of someone in particular?

[greenjar_01]

60. Ayup

[Colgate 64]

16. Perjury is very easy to assume

but very difficult to prove.

[Silent3]

18. And why is that?

It's not an assumption that MTG was lying when she kept saying "I don't recall". That she was lying is as close to a no-reasonable-doubt fact as any fact gets.

There is no universe in which a person who doesn't have other obvious, even crippling, memory deficits has a memory that functions so conveniently as that.

It's not leaping to conclusions, it's not pretending you can read minds. Although I can't say I've done a deep dive on the psychological research here, I'd bet a big pile of good money that there's evidence that's hard to dispute that proves human memory simply doesn't not function the way we'd have to believe it might function for MTG to be truthful about here alleged memory lapses. It defies all reasonable credibility.

[Colgate 64]

48. Please explain HOW you would go about proving

to a jury that someone is lying when they say "I don't recall".

[budkin]

17. Looked this up today for this very reason

"I Don't Recall": Witness Memory Lapses and Contempt of Court


https://www.litedepalma.com/i-dont-recall-witness-memory-lapses-and-contempt-of-court#:~:text=A%20witness%20cannot%2C%20however%2C%20repeatedly,and%20accurate%20testimony%20under%20oath.

[Silent3]

19. Thank you!

It's a matter of whether judges and/or prosecutors have the guts to pursue contempt and perjury charges in cases like this, NOT because it's truly difficult to prove when feigned lapses of memory as so blatantly egregious as this.

[Colgate 64]

49. Prosecutors don't demand contempt of court charges.

It's entirely up to the Judge at the Judge's sole discretion. Once more - just HOW would you prove to a jury that a defendant is lying?

[UTUSN]

20. K&R for, thats what id want to know

[Kaleva]

22. If the evidence is so clear, you could make a citizens arrest..

but you won't.

It's one thing to post on a discussion board and quite another to actually make an effort to fight for what you believe in.

[Straw Man]

23. It's very hard to prove what people do and don't remember.

She'd practically have to walk out of the courtroom and say "I was lying -- I do remember," and it would have to be captured, preferably on video.

[Emile]

24. Would you remember if you urged the President of the United States

to impose martial law? Seriously I think everyone would be able to remember something like that. She was in flat out contempt of the court and this bias judge didn't call her on it.

[Straw Man]

45. Yes, I would remember.

And so did she. But can you prove it in a court of law? How?

[Emile]

46. The judge should have slapped her with contempt!

[Colgate 64]

51. Contempt of court for what? Because she

has a bad memory (or was nervous)?

[Emile]

59. Look it up!

[Straw Man]

61. I have.

You're referring to what is sometimes called "evasive contempt." It's a grey area and highly contentious. There has to be some basis on which to impeach the witness beyond just the judge's discretion. I think you can see how allowing such judicial discretion could do great damage to a defendant's civil rights.

[Emile]

62. . . here

I don't recall memory lapses and contempt of court.

https://www.litedepalma.com/i-dont-recall-witness-memory-lapses-and-contempt-of-court

[Straw Man]

63. Yup, already read that one.

Being deliberately obstructive could result in a contempt finding, sanctions and even criminal punishment.

Key words in bold: hence my characterization of it as a grey area. As with anything in court, the burden of proof lies with the state, not the individual.

[Emile]

67. I get it! She was being deliberately obstructive and the bias judge could have found contempt

but was not interested in the discovery process.

[Straw Man]

68. Again, the burden of proof is on the state.

The judge needs a basis -- besides his own gut feelings -- on which to rule that the obstruction is deliberate. Our legal system takes great pains to protect the rights of defendants, and rightly so, even when the defendants are lying scum.

[Emile]

69. Again, judges everyday in discovery depositions find witnesses in contempt

for not answering questions repeatedly!

[Straw Man]

70. And they do this based solely on their own discretion?

Without any evidence to support the finding? Yes, I'm sure judges violate defendants' rights every day in this country, that doesn't mean that's it's the norm, not that it's desirable.

[Emile]

71. Well looks like were in disagreement!

[Colgate 64]

50. You've got it exactly right.

[Novara]

25. Proving whether or not someone remembers something is impossible

Yeah, she's lying and everybody knows it. But no one can actually prove that she really does not remember something, even when she is presented with tapes. Yeah, she said these things. But even when confronted with real, tangible evidence she can still say "I don't remember" and no one can prove whether she really does or does not remember at that moment on the witness stand.

Now, if she said, "I never said those things," and they showed tapes proving otherwise, that is a lie, and THAT is perjury.

This is why lawyers always tell their clients to say they don't remember - because it can't be proven.

But if you watched her testimony, it was glaringly obvious when "I don't remember" really meant, "Yeah, I said those things, I did those things, but I won't cop to it."


I am guessing the burden of proof was not met yesterday.

[Emile]

26. I don't recall memory lapses and contempt of court.

https://www.litedepalma.com/i-dont-recall-witness-memory-lapses-and-contempt-of-court

[msfiddlestix]

30. This article confirms that feigned confusion and lack of memory is not 'permissible'...

but it doesn't address why contempt charges are rarely brought when repeated responses are :I don't recall" occur particularly in situations when that answer is obviously not credible.

but it was good to read theoretically it can be charged with contempt.

[Silent3]

33. It is not impossible. At the level of "beyond a reasonable doubt"...

...scientific evidence exists that human memory simply does not function like that.

[Colgate 64]

53. Please cite to the scientific evidence that confirms this...

[Colgate 64]

52. Excellent explanation of why perjury is so hard to prove

[WhiskeyGrinder]

29. The legal burden of proof is very different than the emotional, social and moral burdens of proof.

You're doing a fine job in this thread of meeting the latter three burdens; not so much the first one, which is the one that matters in a courtroom.

[Silent3]

32. Truth should be what matters in a courtroom, and as a link provided by another poster shows...

...courts are not powerless (if they don't want to be powerless) in the face of farcical claims of convenient memory loss. There is scientific proof in the field of psychology that human memory simply does not function like we'd have to believe it functions to accept MTG's endless "I don't recall"s, certainly not in a individual without other clear functional deficits.

[brooklynite]

41. "There is scientific proof in the field of psychology"

Can you imagine ANY Court and ANY Judge accepting "memory can't be that bad" as a legal argument?

[Silent3]

42. Yes, I can imagine that.

What a wonderful world it would be.

[brooklynite]

43. Let me revise my question: can you find a Court record where that was allowed?

[Colgate 64]

55. No. Which is why it isn't used.

[Colgate 64]

54. Yep.

[mcar]

35. She just testified on Friday

Can you show any case, anywhere, where a person was charged with perjury the second they committed it?

[Silent3]

38. Oh, there's some small room for hope she'll be charged for perjury

The history of this is that childishly transparent "I don't recall" claims routinely go unpunished. In some cases juries are permitted to draw a negative inference from this behavior, possibly leading to a negative outcome for the perpetrator, but even then the blatant perjury itself goes unpunished.

[gldstwmn]

37. She's testifying under oath.

They could be hemming her up for a perjury charge down the road. It's kind of difficult while the trial is ongoing.

[brooklynite]

39. Who is "they"?

DOJ can't go after MTG for perjury (it was a State hearing) and I doubt the Georgia AG would if they don't have something strong to charge her with; and as far as I can see they don't.

[malaise]

47. Great question

She’s a pathological liar

[Colgate 64]

56. She probably is. But how do you prove it in this case?

[malaise]

58. If you can't remember your own words or your own messages

are you mentally competent to represent anyone?

[Straw Man]

64. Fair enough.

But that would be a different type of hearing altogether, not relevant to the current proceedings.

[area51]

72. +1 n/t