Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mother Jones)   "Didn't testify accurately" is a novel way to say "lied to Congress and committed perjury"   (motherjones.com) divider line
    More: Followup, Joe Biden, Impeachment, Vice President of the United States, United States Senate, United States presidential election, 2008, Ukraine, George W. Bush, Ukraine Kurt Volker  
•       •       •

3470 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Jun 2021 at 5:17 PM (8 days ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



55 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2021-06-10 4:44:18 PM  
"Testified inaccurately" means testified inaccurately. "Perjury" means intentionally testified inaccurately.
 
2021-06-10 4:48:21 PM  

ZAZ: "Testified inaccurately" means testified inaccurately. "Perjury" means intentionally testified inaccurately.


You telling me saying he never witnessed Trump strong-arming Ukraine, when there are receipts of him being in the goddamn room, was unintentional?
 
2021-06-10 4:52:11 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: ZAZ: "Testified inaccurately" means testified inaccurately. "Perjury" means intentionally testified inaccurately.

You telling me saying he never witnessed Trump strong-arming Ukraine, when there are receipts of him being in the goddamn room, was unintentional?


Testifying inaccurately and perjury are can be separated by which side of the 6 figure income bracket you happen to be on.
 
2021-06-10 5:01:16 PM  
"Testified inaccurately" is a novel way to say "he lied to congress and committed perjury"


These people should be 'terminated, with extreme prejudice.'
 
2021-06-10 5:03:11 PM  

sinner4ever: Benevolent Misanthrope: ZAZ: "Testified inaccurately" means testified inaccurately. "Perjury" means intentionally testified inaccurately.

You telling me saying he never witnessed Trump strong-arming Ukraine, when there are receipts of him being in the goddamn room, was unintentional?

Testifying inaccurately and perjury are can be separated by which side of the 6 figure income bracket you happen to be on.


Sadly accurate.
 
433 [TotalFark]
2021-06-10 5:17:39 PM  
Something that just kills me is how, "I do not/cannot recall" is an acceptable answer when we all know that's not true.  It works for politicians but that sh*t won't fly in criminal court.
 
2021-06-10 5:22:58 PM  
Darn shame that Dump isn't in the White House to pardon him...
 
2021-06-10 5:25:40 PM  
Look, laws don't matter anymore.  Want to lie while under oath?  Do it.  Always getting stopped at red lights?  Just go through them?  Upset with an election?  Break into the Capitol, beat up some police, and if your lucky, execute some people you don't like because a tabloid told you they were evil.  Nothing bad will happen to you if you are white and make more than $60,000 a year.
 
2021-06-10 5:26:06 PM  
Yes subby, but you see he had the good sense to be a Republican - so don't worry, it's very unlikely he'll be held accountable for perjury or any other crimes he may have committed.

That's just how America works.
 
2021-06-10 5:28:07 PM  
The entire administration lied their a**es off and didn't give a single f***ing s*** about the country, the citizens or their international reputation.

But they did that for 4 years in every regard, in every aspect.
 
2021-06-10 5:28:29 PM  

433: Something that just kills me is how, "I do not/cannot recall" is an acceptable answer when we all know that's not true.  It works for politicians but that sh*t won't fly in criminal court.


Sure it will.

If you genuinely can't recall something, it isn't perjury.

If you asked me today where I was on a given day last year, and I honestly couldn't recall, even under oath, I'm not lying, even if you know what I really WAS doing. You may say "Oh, we know that's not true," but you don't KNOW what's in my head.

Perjury occurs when someone testifies to X at a grand jury or other sworn hearing, like a deposition; and then says something else in trial, also under oath. Then it becomes a question of "were you lying then or lying now?" Perjury only exists when someone has been sworn to tell the truth.

If you can't recall something, it may be a lie, or it may be true; but "everyone knows" doesn't make it so. Where were you on June 8th 2020? Are you sure?
 
2021-06-10 5:31:40 PM  
Go get him Nancy!

That there's a prosecutable offense!
 
2021-06-10 5:31:42 PM  
How nice to have someone lie for you to cover up your lie.

I farking hate the double standard in this country. And unethical Lawyers basically need to be subjected to a medieval torture.
 
2021-06-10 5:34:19 PM  
These are the smartest people in government until asked a direct question by the opposition.

Then, they get all hurrrr hurrrr goattoaster.

You gotta laugh.
 
2021-06-10 5:36:14 PM  

mrparks: goattoaster.


Totes
 
2021-06-10 5:36:18 PM  
it's pretty pathetic when the left wing rag that nobody reads is pulling punches against the farking trump admin
 
2021-06-10 5:36:33 PM  

Gyrfalcon: 433: Something that just kills me is how, "I do not/cannot recall" is an acceptable answer when we all know that's not true.  It works for politicians but that sh*t won't fly in criminal court.

Sure it will.

If you genuinely can't recall something, it isn't perjury.

If you asked me today where I was on a given day last year, and I honestly couldn't recall, even under oath, I'm not lying, even if you know what I really WAS doing. You may say "Oh, we know that's not true," but you don't KNOW what's in my head.

Perjury occurs when someone testifies to X at a grand jury or other sworn hearing, like a deposition; and then says something else in trial, also under oath. Then it becomes a question of "were you lying then or lying now?" Perjury only exists when someone has been sworn to tell the truth.

If you can't recall something, it may be a lie, or it may be true; but "everyone knows" doesn't make it so. Where were you on June 8th 2020? Are you sure?


That's not right.  Perjury isn't a two-step process requiring two conflicting statements under oath.  Now, that can lead to perjury, but people are convicted of perjury all the time for lying only one time.
 
2021-06-10 5:37:36 PM  

433: Something that just kills me is how, "I do not/cannot recall" is an acceptable answer when we all know that's not true.  It works for politicians but that sh*t won't fly in criminal court.


You can totally do that in criminal court.  To a degree.  Under certain circumstances.  But unless you helped them get the job, expect the prosecutor to have gone to the very ends of the earth to make sure there is actual evidence.  If they are asking you a question on the stand, assume they already know the answer, and that they have the receipts.

/Again, if you bought the man a yacht or helped get him the job, you may see different levels of effort.
 
2021-06-10 5:38:52 PM  
Ok, so when does he report to the Department of Corrections?
 
2021-06-10 5:39:45 PM  
"Your honor, I didn't rape her, That was not my intent. I just didn't wait for her consent!"
 
2021-06-10 5:44:25 PM  
And nothing will be done about it ..
 
2021-06-10 5:53:29 PM  
Fat cats got a great criminal justice system. No crime, no time.
 
2021-06-10 5:53:32 PM  
I say, whats going on in this thread?

media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.comView Full Size


oh shiat, never mind!
 
2021-06-10 5:54:16 PM  

razrez75: Go get him Nancy!

That there's a prosecutable offense!


Yeah thats totally gonna happen. Just like when she impeached bush for starting a war on lies and committing war crimes and crimes against humanity.
 
2021-06-10 5:55:17 PM  

moothemagiccow: it's pretty pathetic when the left wing rag that nobody reads is pulling punches against the farking trump admin


You alright?
 
2021-06-10 5:58:47 PM  
I understand why journalists and their lawyers don't want reporters using "lie" or "lying" or "lied".  When you do you're saying the liar knew he was telling a lie when he lied, as opposed to just being wrong and thinking he's correct.  The burden would be on the reporter to prove the liar knew he was lying, which is usually incredibly difficult, if they get sued.  And even though everybody knows the liar is lying, the reporter would have to have rock solid proof, so everybody has to play like they're not accusing the liar.

But goddamn!  Can't some upright billionaire type put together a fund to pay for reporters who get sued for calling liars liars?  Or something?  If rich people are so damn immune to the law, and have a mile-high cushion of cash to fall safely onto, well dammit, one of them needs to use that power for good!  Fund the anally-penetrating discovery into the liar's emails, internal docs, etc.  Take the risk of losing and being fined.  Somehow the blatant lying has to be called out and made brutally public.  Somehow.
 
2021-06-10 6:01:10 PM  
Well, Volker needs to be hung out to dry, and Jim Jordan and his dimwitted girlfriend "Blanche" should be investigated --- in terms of communications with the campaign and its principals, during the time Volker didn't know he needed to revise history.
 
2021-06-10 6:04:43 PM  
Typical Republican.

media.swncdn.comView Full Size
 
2021-06-10 6:14:05 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
433 [TotalFark]
2021-06-10 6:18:09 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Sure it will.

BeesNuts: You can totally do that in criminal court.  To a degree.


I'm thinking of the congressional hearings and the like where the phrase, "I do not recall" is used as a very convenient excuse/defense.  Those were incredibly frustrating, I apologize for my inability to remember a specific.  I suppose I do not recall...

In criminal court, yes, it's often a fine answer but it has to withstand cross-examination and evidence.  I apologize again for not being clear.
 
2021-06-10 6:21:23 PM  

Troy McClure: Gyrfalcon: 433: Something that just kills me is how, "I do not/cannot recall" is an acceptable answer when we all know that's not true.  It works for politicians but that sh*t won't fly in criminal court.

Sure it will.

If you genuinely can't recall something, it isn't perjury.

If you asked me today where I was on a given day last year, and I honestly couldn't recall, even under oath, I'm not lying, even if you know what I really WAS doing. You may say "Oh, we know that's not true," but you don't KNOW what's in my head.

Perjury occurs when someone testifies to X at a grand jury or other sworn hearing, like a deposition; and then says something else in trial, also under oath. Then it becomes a question of "were you lying then or lying now?" Perjury only exists when someone has been sworn to tell the truth.

If you can't recall something, it may be a lie, or it may be true; but "everyone knows" doesn't make it so. Where were you on June 8th 2020? Are you sure?

That's not right.  Perjury isn't a two-step process requiring two conflicting statements under oath.  Now, that can lead to perjury, but people are convicted of perjury all the time for lying only one time.


You are correct. I am wrong.

Perjury is lying, under oath, about a material fact.

That said, the other part, about being unable to recall something, is still true. You can't point a finger at someone and say "YOU LIE!" if they say they dont recall a thing. Maybe they do. Maybe they don't.

There's no way to know for sure, but it isn't perjury.
 
2021-06-10 6:22:17 PM  
Ain't nothing going to happen because our 2-tier justice system doesn't prosecute the upper tier.
It's only illegal if you're poor or a democrat.

Laws for thee, but not for the GQP.
 
2021-06-10 6:22:21 PM  

Gyrfalcon: 433: Something that just kills me is how, "I do not/cannot recall" is an acceptable answer when we all know that's not true.  It works for politicians but that sh*t won't fly in criminal court.

Sure it will.

If you genuinely can't recall something, it isn't perjury.

If you asked me today where I was on a given day last year, and I honestly couldn't recall, even under oath, I'm not lying, even if you know what I really WAS doing. You may say "Oh, we know that's not true," but you don't KNOW what's in my head.

Perjury occurs when someone testifies to X at a grand jury or other sworn hearing, like a deposition; and then says something else in trial, also under oath. Then it becomes a question of "were you lying then or lying now?" Perjury only exists when someone has been sworn to tell the truth.

If you can't recall something, it may be a lie, or it may be true; but "everyone knows" doesn't make it so. Where were you on June 8th 2020? Are you sure?


I can imagine a situation...:
On Monday, an unrelated investigation wiretap gets a witness on tape talking about Event A.  The witness talks in depth about the event.
On Tuesday the defendant is on the stand and says he "can't recall" details of Event A that the prosecutors now have the witness talking about on tape the day before.
The witness committed perjury and the prosecution can prove that, but only because they had rock solid evidence of the witness remembering just a day earlier.  The "I don't recall" isn't believable.  But without such evidence how can anybody really challenge "I don't recall" even if everybody on the planet knows it's Reaganesque bullshiat?
 
2021-06-10 6:23:53 PM  
Should be jail time, but nothin' gonna happen.

Different rules for the rich and politicians.
 
2021-06-10 6:25:21 PM  

razrez75: Go get him Nancy!

That there's a prosecutable offense!


Except she won't.  She'll make some mealy mouthed statement about how bad it is and opely speculate about action, but won't do it herself, and won't lean very heavily on anyone else to.
 
2021-06-10 6:30:01 PM  

433: Gyrfalcon: Sure it will.
BeesNuts: You can totally do that in criminal court.  To a degree.

I'm thinking of the congressional hearings and the like where the phrase, "I do not recall" is used as a very convenient excuse/defense.  Those were incredibly frustrating, I apologize for my inability to remember a specific.  I suppose I do not recall...

In criminal court, yes, it's often a fine answer but it has to withstand cross-examination and evidence.  I apologize again for not being clear.


"It depends on what your definition of "is" is."
 
2021-06-10 6:36:23 PM  
Sure, ask me about any specific date a few years ago and I might not know what I was doing. I would damned sure know I wasn't, say, authorizing arms shipments to hostile foreign powers.
 
2021-06-10 6:40:53 PM  
The discrepancy between Volker's testimony and the recording of the call has drawn the attention of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who tells Mother Jones that Volker's assertions to Congress amounted to "a disingenuous revision of history." a blatant act of perjury.
 
2021-06-10 6:41:57 PM  

433: Something that just kills me is how, "I do not/cannot recall" is an acceptable answer when we all know that's not true.  It works for politicians but that sh*t won't fly in criminal court.


I'm waiting to use "I don't recall". All I have to do is show them my transaction history on my debit card.

"You bought how much vodka!?"
 
2021-06-10 6:43:26 PM  

Gyrfalcon: 433: Something that just kills me is how, "I do not/cannot recall" is an acceptable answer when we all know that's not true.  It works for politicians but that sh*t won't fly in criminal court.

Sure it will.

If you genuinely can't recall something, it isn't perjury.

If you asked me today where I was on a given day last year, and I honestly couldn't recall, even under oath, I'm not lying, even if you know what I really WAS doing. You may say "Oh, we know that's not true," but you don't KNOW what's in my head.

Perjury occurs when someone testifies to X at a grand jury or other sworn hearing, like a deposition; and then says something else in trial, also under oath. Then it becomes a question of "were you lying then or lying now?" Perjury only exists when someone has been sworn to tell the truth.

If you can't recall something, it may be a lie, or it may be true; but "everyone knows" doesn't make it so. Where were you on June 8th 2020? Are you sure?


I would like to add something.

Let's say that I testify under oath that I cannot recall whether or not I went to the local Walmart last Tuesday. How would you go about proving beyond a reasonable doubt that I actually did remember going to Walmart on that particular day? Even if my later testimony indicates that I do remember, my memory could have been jogged by a question that I was asked or something I noticed in the courtroom, or even a stray thought.
 
2021-06-10 6:44:09 PM  

Night Train to Wakanda: How nice to have someone lie for you to cover up your lie.

I farking hate the double standard in this country. And unethical Lawyers basically need to be subjected to a medieval torture.


Hey now. A disbarred unethical lawyer is how I avoided a lengthy jail stay. They have uses.
 
433 [TotalFark]
2021-06-10 6:45:43 PM  

sinner4ever: "It depends on what your definition of "is" is."


I saw him say that on TV.  It was like he said that to my face.  I couldn't believe it.  Even if you liked the man, and I did, it was a moment of cognitive dissonance where I couldn't believe my eyes and ears.  Did he just say that?

Then you have a man who definitely did pay for sex and... I think we all know who the 45th president was.
 
2021-06-10 6:49:55 PM  

Aquapope: I understand why journalists and their lawyers don't want reporters using "lie" or "lying" or "lied".  When you do you're saying the liar knew he was telling a lie when he lied, as opposed to just being wrong and thinking he's correct.  The burden would be on the reporter to prove the liar knew he was lying, which is usually incredibly difficult, if they get sued.  And even though everybody knows the liar is lying, the reporter would have to have rock solid proof, so everybody has to play like they're not accusing the liar.

But goddamn!  Can't some upright billionaire type put together a fund to pay for reporters who get sued for calling liars liars?  Or something?  If rich people are so damn immune to the law, and have a mile-high cushion of cash to fall safely onto, well dammit, one of them needs to use that power for good!  Fund the anally-penetrating discovery into the liar's emails, internal docs, etc.  Take the risk of losing and being fined.  Somehow the blatant lying has to be called out and made brutally public.  Somehow.


While you are at it, magic me up a shiny rocket ship and a pony.
 
2021-06-10 6:55:32 PM  
starecat.comView Full Size
 
2021-06-10 7:31:28 PM  
And people will keep lying under oath until there are consequences for doing so.
 
2021-06-10 8:41:59 PM  
Investigation > concern > zero action or action and future appeal absolves > repeat
 
2021-06-10 9:03:22 PM  
Put these assholes in prison already
 
2021-06-10 9:12:57 PM  

twat_waffle: Gyrfalcon: 433: Something that just kills me is how, "I do not/cannot recall" is an acceptable answer when we all know that's not true.  It works for politicians but that sh*t won't fly in criminal court.

Sure it will.

If you genuinely can't recall something, it isn't perjury.

If you asked me today where I was on a given day last year, and I honestly couldn't recall, even under oath, I'm not lying, even if you know what I really WAS doing. You may say "Oh, we know that's not true," but you don't KNOW what's in my head.

. . .

Let's say that I testify under oath that I cannot recall whether or not I went to the local Walmart last Tuesday. How would you go about proving beyond a reasonable doubt that I actually did remember going to Walmart on that particular day? Even if my later testimony indicates that I do remember, my memory could have been jogged by a question that I was asked or something I noticed in the courtroom, or even a stray thought.


Volker's testimony wasn't "I don't remember"; it was an unqualified assertion that Biden was never discussed:

FTA:

"Vice President Biden was never a topic of discussion," Volker said in an October 3, 2019 deposition before the House Intelligence Committee. He repeated that claim in televised testimony before the committee the following month: "At no time was I aware of or knowingly took part in an effort to urge Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Biden. As you know from the extensive real-time documentation I have provided, Vice President Biden was not a topic of our discussions."

He also testified the call was just a brief meet and greet:

Again FTA:

In his October 3 deposition, Volker acknowledged arranging and participating in this call with Giuliani and Yermak, but he insisted it was "just an introductory" conversation. "It was literally, you know, 'let me introduce, you know, Mr. Giuliani; let me introduce Mr. Yermak. I wanted to put you in touch.'" Volker said. "Blah, blah, blah."

Assuming the recording can be admitted into evidence, the perjury case is pretty straightforward.  Motive isn't an essential element, but the prosecutor would get to argue Volker whitewashed his "real time documentation" to protect Giuiliani and, by extension, the President.  That wasn't perjury.  But when repeated the whitewash under oath  -- when he had a duty to tell the truth, regardless of the consequence -- that was perjury.
 
2021-06-10 9:15:08 PM  

Aquapope: But goddamn!  Can't some upright billionaire type put together a fund to pay for reporters who get sued for calling liars liars?


I heard someone bought WaPo, but the question becomes, should he have no say about theiur editorial policies, or should he play defense for the team?

There is a billionaire who runs an entire chairty based on Karl Popper's book who honestly put his money into an international group of organizations that:

From my link: We believe that the solutions to the national, regional, and global challenges we face demand the free exchange of ideas and thought, and that everyone should have a voice in shaping the policies that affect them.We therefore work to build vibrant and inclusive societies, grounded in respect for human rights and the rule of law, whose governments are accountable and open to the participation of all people.

Guess which billionaire is the boogeyman in an international conspiracy theory about Jewish control of governments and banks? Fox News has turned the entire Republican Party against him, personally.
 
2021-06-10 9:17:34 PM  

twat_waffle: Let's say that I testify under oath that I cannot recall whether or not I went to the local Walmart last Tuesday. How would you go about proving beyond a reasonable doubt that I actually did remember going to Walmart on that particular day? Even if my later testimony indicates that I do remember, my memory could have been jogged by a question that I was asked or something I noticed in the courtroom, or even a stray thought.


I guess the strategy has to be asking questions about evidence that cannot be refuted with, I can't recall.

But, and I keep beating this drum on Fark.com, high crimes and misdemeanours are different than low crimes like murder or lying under oath. They never had to be prosecuted based on the case law of the criminal code, until Trump.
 
Displayed 50 of 55 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.