The Pardu

The Pardu
Watchful eyes and ears feed the brain, thus nourishing the brain cells.

Monday, May 7, 2018

Sitting With Mueller?

Fox News: Don't Do It Mr. Presdient, Don't Do it

Perjury-Trap Doctrine Law and Legal Definition
Perjury trap doctrine refers to a principle that a perjury indictment against a person must be dismissed if the prosecution secures it by calling that person as a grand-jury witness in an effort to obtain evidence for a perjury charge especially when the person’s testimony does not relate to issues material to the ongoing grand-jury investigation. The perjury trap is a form of entrapment defense, and so must be affirmatively proven by the defendant. 
The following are examples of some case law on perjury trap:
A perjury trap is created when the government calls a witness before the grand jury for the primary purpose of obtaining testimony from him in order to prosecute him later for perjury. When testimony is elicited before a grand jury that is attempting to obtain useful information in furtherance of its investigation, or conducting a legitimate investigation into crimes which had in fact taken place within its jurisdiction, the perjury trap doctrine is, by definition, inapplicable. [United States v. Chen, 933 F.2d 793 (9th Cir. Guam 1991)]  
The phrase ‘perjury trap’ suggests the deliberate use of a judicial proceeding to secure perjured testimony, a concept in itself abhorant.[United States v. Simone, 627 F. Supp. 1264, 1268 (D.N.J. 1986)]

At a very young age, we all learned the definition of the word "trap": to ensnare or to snare. While most dictionaries don't break down the word like this: To Trap or Trapping is an act perpetrated to capture an unsuspecting subject or object. 

Why are Trump advisers, lawyers, and supporters so NOT interested in his sitting with the Mueller investigators (and Mueller) while using the term "trap?" A very basic syllogism will help explain.

What is Syllogism

A syllogism is a rhetorical device that begins with a major statement, known as a premise, narrows down to a minor statement, or premise, and then arrives at a conclusion using deductive reasoning. The simplest way to explain how this works is by giving examples: 
Major premise: (A) All men are mortal. 
   Minor premise: (B) Socrates is a man. 
    Conclusion: (C) Socrates is mortal. (This is an example of  Aristotle’s famous "Barbara" syllogism.)  
Major premise: (A) Plants need to carbon dioxide to live.
           Minor premise: (B) The oak tree is a plant. 

             Conclusion: (C) The oak tree 

A. Trump lies as a matter of pathology
B. If Trump sits with Mueller and answers questions

C. He will lie

Related image

Clearly, Trump's advisers, Fox News, and his supporters feel he will lie as a matter of inherent paradigm. He cannot avoid the lie. The real tragedy is obvious, they know he will lie; so avoid the interaction.

It seems his supporters would rather have Trump go here:

  What is that old axiom: "The lesser of two evils."

A. Trump lies as a matter of pathology
B. If Trump sits with Mueller and answers questions
C. He will lie

No comments :

Post a Comment