The republicans bailed because it became obvious the “hearing” was noting but a democratic tirade against Trump.
The only reason anyone being targeted by Mueller is their association with Trump and his campaign.
There’s been zero evidence of any crimes committed by Trump or his team relating to their associations with the Russians.
1 Like
That’s really not how perjury works but thanks for playing…
That’s exactly how it works and particularly in Mueller’s prosecutions.
Please seek real legal advice if ever under threat of perjury…
You forgot the entire phrase…Perjury trap…
The elements of perjury are very clearly defined in the federal statutes… The only way to “trap” yourself is to knowingly make a false material declaration…
1 Like
A little primer for those less well read than our resident experts…
Historically, American law has been sensitive to distinctions among different kinds of lies. It’s only in the post-Watergate era that almost any misrepresentation to a federal official has become a potential felony. When Starr’s critics lament the criminalization of sex, they are missing an equally disturbing legal change: the indiscriminate criminalization of lying. For most of English and American history, defendents were not put under oath. After the Civil War, white Southerners introduced the defendent’s oath as a reaction to blacks being allowed into courtrooms. The most dramatic expansion of the American law of lying has taken place in the post- Watergate era–after the passage of the Independent Counsel Act, in 1978. An old law called the False Statements Act–which prohibits “any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements” to federal officials–was invoked during the '80s and '90s by a parade of independent counsels. The writer spoke with Lawrence Walsh, the independent counsel in the Iran-Contra investigation, who prosecuted Oliver North and John Poindexter for lying to Congress. During the past few decades, judges have begun to worry about the fairness of prosecuting people for the natural impulse to deny their guilt, and several federal courts carved out an exception to the False Statements Act, called the “exculpatory no,” which held that certain lies of self-protection weren’t felonies. Last January, however, in Brogan v. U.S., the Supreme Court dismissed the “exculpatory no” exception. In a situation in which any lie to a federal official is a crime, any government inquiry that strays into the area of sexual behavior is apt to become a self-fuelling machine for producing felonies. In a recent book, “The Appearance of Impropriety,” Glenn Reynolds and Peter Morgan, former professors at the University of Tennessee College of Law, warn that the expansion of the False Statements Act means that even innocent people are subject to potential felony investigations every time they are questioned by federal officials.
What me worry? Yes everyone should worry.
Well that’s certainly not true. People aren’t indicted for perjury over a misremembered detail or because someone else lied about something. Maybe on TV, but not in the real world.
Not a single indictment for perjury was based on an innocent misremembering of a detail or because someone else lied and they took the liars words over someone else. Good grief. 
1 Like
Really? Start with Michael Flynn, even the agents who interviewed him said they didn’t believe he was lying.
Earth shattering… A 20 year old article… What does Jeffrey Rosen have to say about Mueller?
Interesting side note…Jeffrey Rosen and his wife were married in a ceremony officiated by Justice Ginsberg… 
So when Flynn filed a FARA registration with statements he knew were false that doesn’t meet the standard for false statements?
1 Like
The 302’s were later altered by supervisors.
That does NOTHING to explain the false statements in his FARA registration… Whether the agents believed he was lying is kind of immaterial… Perhaps he is a very good liar…
He plead guilty tot false statements made at that interview. That interview was the basis for his investigation and eventual plea.
No, that’s not how it works.
Tell that to Flynn and the rest who are being forced to plea to those charges, I’m sure they’ll be highly entertained.
The expansion of the false statements act made that not only possible but the rule rather than the exception.
They don’t have to prove any intent to deceive in your part to convict you under that act.
Not true.
Well that’s not entirely accurate either. They said his body language did not denote someone they perceived as lying. But he was lying. He was just a good liar and good at concealing his lies in his body language. And now he is an admitted liar as well.
