No…that is not at all the legal definition of a perjury trap.
We’ve been through this many times.
The ONLY definition of a perjury trap that would hold up on court is the one I gave…where they ask you a question about something unrelated to the case at hand…usually about an older, expired crime…and you lie about it…they can then bring up a new charge of perjury.
THAT is against due process, and THAT is the only way a charge of a perjury trap can be made.
Which is why any time anyone has ever raised a perjury trap as a defense against perjury…they have not been successful.
Well if the deep state wasn’t so blatant in their disgustingly political wicked, crooked, and seditious anti-Trump activity it wouldn’t be so obvious. You’d have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to see the TDS!
As long as we are going with hypotheticals… is there any reason to believe Hillary Clinton would have dissolved the NSC’s Office of Pandemic Preparedness or cut the funding for the CDC’s pandemic work in China. I mean a BIG GOVERNMENT WITCH like Hillary probably would have sent more government scientists to China.
If those organizations had been functional, US preparedness probably would have begun sooner and then the lockdowns would probably have been shorter and less severe. Having eyes and ears looking for threats makes one better prepared.
That’s a most likely scenario based on Hillary’s belief in a large interventionist government.
The criminal offense of perjury consists of making a false statement under oath, either in writing or verbally, that one knows is false, and that is material to the proceedings in which the statement is made. The definition of perjury is therefore much more complicated than many people realize. It requires proof of more than just a false statement in a court proceeding or otherwise under oath. In a sense, a person must make a false statement with an intent to defraud.
Definition of Perjury
Federal law defines two types of perjury, each of which has multiple elements. The first type of perjury involves statements made under oath, and requires proof that:
A person took an oath to truthfully testify, declare, depose, or certify, verbally or in writing;
The person made a statement that was not true;
The person knew the statement to be untrue;
The person made the false statement willfully; and
The subject matter of the statement was material to the proceeding in which it was made."
" A perjury trap is a form of prosecutorial strategy, which is sometimes claimed to be prosecutorial misconduct in which a prosecutor calls a witness to testify, typically before a grand jury, with the intent of coercing the witness into perjury (intentional deceit under oath)."
Since lying to the FBI is considered perjury, you could add “or a person a witness knows is an FBI agent asks them a question”.
Being able to make an accusation of perjury only requires the FBI to find a conflict between something the target said and something someone else or the target said. Whether the perjury charge itself is upheld by a court is irrelevant to whether the questioning by the FBI was a perjury trap.
The crooked FBI agent is aiming to harass the witness before any trial into expending their resources in legal fees before any trial occurs.
This is not the legal definition of a perjury trap.
There is only one legal definition…you bring the subject in to talk about one matter, but get him to lie about another matter, thus creating the new crime of perjury.
You can’t “coerce someone into lying” about the matter about which they know they are being questioned.
They’re either going to lie or they aren’t.
It’s not coercion if the questioners know what a person’s truthful responses should be ahead of time, but the person doesn’t know the questioners know this.
