Trump’s lawyers are still considering ways for him to testify before Mueller, provided the questions are limited and don’t focus on specifics where the president might perjure himself. https://t.co/tgUJzaP3VU
— Rebecca Ballhaus (@rebeccaballhaus) February 25, 2018
Swear to Murphy the Trickster God, Trump’s defenders sound like they have no idea what the concept of “ethics” involves; they seem to think it’s a synonym for “tactics”.
Trump’s lawyers keep talking about Trump being interviewed by Mueller as a “perjury trap.” But that’s not an actual thing. It’s like calling a barn filled with hay “an arson trap.” It’s only a “trap” if you’re an arsonist. https://t.co/z3it5fTAud
— Brian Klaas (@brianklaas) February 25, 2018
(The legal use of ‘perjury trap’ is specific to a form of prosecutorial misconduct that amounts to entrapment—and it’s definitely not the same thing as the very real risk that a known serial liar will, well, lie under oath). https://t.co/X1T0pBzc46
— Brian Klaas (@brianklaas) February 25, 2018
Randall D. Eliason, in the Washington Post:
… The word “trap” connotes a snare set by investigators for the innocent and unwary. Should the president end up charged with perjury or false statements, you can expect to hear arguments that the charges are illegitimate because Mueller unfairly caught the president in a trap. Or perhaps the president and his lawyers will use the perjury-trap claim to justify refusing to be interviewed altogether.
But “perjury trap” is a specific legal defense, related to entrapment. A claim of a perjury trap is really a claim of prosecutorial misconduct. It refers to an abuse of the legal process, whereby a prosecutor subpoenas a witness to testify not for a legitimate investigative purpose but to try to catch him in an inconsistency or falsehood — even a relatively minor one — that can then trigger a perjury charge…
Being called to testify and therefore having the opportunity to commit perjury does not make that testimony a perjury trap. If that were the case, every witness could make the same argument. Claiming that Trump’s testimony would be a perjury trap is like saying driving a car is a “speeding trap” because being behind the wheel gives you the opportunity to exceed the speed limit.
Characterizing the president’s interview as a potential perjury trap is simply wrong. But it is of a piece with the broader effort by the president and his political allies to discredit Mueller’s investigation. It suggests — wrongly — that Mueller is treating the president unfairly. If the president commits perjury or false statements, it will be because he chose to lie — not because he was caught in a “trap.”…
Of course, Ken Starr’s freewheeling ‘Whitewater’ investigation hinged on exactly this kind of ‘perjury trap’ — the Repubs couldn’t prove Clinton had committed any of the crimes they were sure he was responsible for, but by GOP Jeebus they could indict him for lying about what he did with Monica Lewinsky. I guess they must still consider that incident a great success, and can’t understand why Democrats wouldn’t pull the same sort of two-bit theatrical shystering, given a chance…
I suspect they are at least equally concerned that he will be truthful about things they’d prefer he not discuss. Some of his biggest problems have occurred by telling the truth (Holt interview, blabbing to Putin, incrimitweet, etc) https://t.co/4KEtOIgzMR
— Dana Houle (@DanaHoule) February 26, 2018