The ultimate perjury trap question

[grasswire]

Saw this suggested on another site after news reports of HRC lying/obfuscating to journalist again today.

"Do you know any other information about the [specific matter in question]? If your answer is 'yes', describe the information."

A "no" answer would be perjury.

A "yes" answer would be self incriminating.

[silvershadow]

1. Possible. Expect them to shoot the messenger, though. nt

[anotherproletariat]

2. Lying to a journalist may not be a good idea, but it is not perjury. nt

Nice try though...

[grasswire]

5. whoosh. nt

[Tarc]

3. No one is under any obligation to answer a journalist at all

so whatever point you were struggling to there, is rather irrelevant.

If we're talking about something happening during an actual legal proceeding, i.e. a grand jury, that's what the 5th amendment is for, to prevent the government from mounting entrapment fishing expeditions.

Y'all are getting really desperate lately.

[NWCorona]

10. The likelihood of Hillary using the 5th is about zero.

[Indpndntfrombirth]

4. She's undeniably crooked, but that's not the problem. The problem is she's backward looking.

The future of progressivism, the march forward, follows the radicalism of Bernie. Hillary's danger is that she will derail America for 4 or 8 years of business as usual. Hers is the politics of a failed past - economic marginalization, divisive identity politics, cronyism. The future is otherwise --

[grasswire]

6. true

and we are done with it.

[Samantha]

7. Which is why she might take the Fifth

Obviously, I know nothing and am just speculating. But if she walks in with her attorney, and he asks is this a civil or criminal investigation, if the FBI responds "criminal", he probably will advise her to take the Fifth. Lying to the FBI is itself a criminal act, but telling the truth in some instances might be self-incriminating. If she does take the Fifth, people on the outside looking in will start quacking, "She must be guilty." There is no easy out here.

Sam

Postscript: being the backasswards person I am, I posted this and then read the comments on the thread. My post was intended to apply to the FBI interview, not a comment on a discussion with a journalist....

[grasswire]

8. I was not talking about a discussion with a journalist.

That premise was inserted by some others.

[Tarc]

9. Perhaps, if you're going to solicit comments, your OP should be a bit less obtuse

Then we'd spend less time playing guessing games,

[grasswire]

11. why would I be talking about a conversation with a journalist...

...using the words "perjury trap" and "self incriminating"?

Read for comprehension.

[Juicy_Bellows]

12. That's a tall order for some.

Basic black and white linear shit, that's what they're into.

[Tarc]

13. "...after news reports of HRC lying/obfuscating to journalist again"

It helps when you read your own OP, sport.

[thesquanderer]

14. "Objection, your Honor, the question is too general."

A question cannot be so open-ended as to permit all kinds of irrelevant answers.

A question is too general, broad, or indefinite, if:
It permits the witness to respond with testimony which may be irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible. Each question should limit the witness to a specific answer on a specific subject.

http://mr_sedivy.tripod.com/usgov_9.html

For example, a question like "Do you know any other information about the server" could be answered with entirely irrelevant information. It was gray. It stood about 2 feet high. It ran on 110 volts. etc.

[moriah]

16. People forget that.Hillary practiced law more than Bill.

Plus will have her own lawyers representing her.

As far as journalists, they all haven't exactly treated her kindly over the years, and I can understand her reticence to say much to journalists given that it will always be twisted somehow to fit whatever narrative exists in the story.

At the same time, it doesn't help the usual narrative -- that she's hiding something.

[MineralMan]

15. The answer is, "Not that I can recall."

Easy peasy. No perjury. That is the universal response to such questions.

[GreenPartyVoter]

17. Or "as far as I know." Madam secretary seems fond of both of these statements.

[MineralMan]

18. When you are asked an open question like that by

anyone from law enforcement, "I do not recall" is always the correct answer. Falling into a trap is not required of anyone.

Any halfway decent attorney will advise that answer for such questions, regardless of the situation.