Best information at the time asked is perjury?

[RodISHI]

I recall being question by lawyers in a hostile manner and it sucks. You are being interrogated as they try to find some crack in what you say for they can call you a liar. It seems like you are still trying to figure out what the hell was the previous question all about. Not knowing that lil shit game they play in order to coverup their clients fraud and deception. I am glad to see someone take a stand for truth. There is no way I would admit to something I did that I did not do. If an attorney ask you to go against what you know is right and tell a lie tell him to get bent.

Jerome Corsi refuses Mueller's plea deal

"Describing his experience with Mueller's team as "like being interrogated as a POW in the Korean War," Corsi said after two months of questioning, prosecutors believed they caught him in various lies and did not appear to believe him when he said he could not recall certain events.

Corsi insisted he had no contact with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and that "investigators were so mad because I didn't give them what they wanted."

He claimed that Mueller's team wanted to keep any plea agreement sealed, a point that particularly incensed him. Corsi said he would be required to report legal infractions to financial regulators.

In a statement on Monday following Corsi's latest comments, Stone said the special counsel was harassing Corsi "not for lying, but for refusing to lie" and continued to maintain his own innocence.

"It is inconceivable that in America someone would be prosecuted for refusing to swear to a false narrative pushed on him by the Muller investigators," Stone said.
"

 

[Rambunctious]

Trump said last week that the Mueller team has lost it...that they are screaming at witnesses and breaking things....They want Trump implemented and its not possible because he is innocent....so they are getting frustrated...

 

[Ricky LIbtardo]

I recall being question by lawyers in a hostile manner and it sucks. You are being interrogated as they try to find some crack in what you say for they can call you a liar. It seems like you are still trying to figure out what the hell was the previous question all about. Not knowing that lil shit game they play in order to coverup their clients fraud and deception. I am glad to see someone take a stand for truth. There is no way I would admit to something I did that I did not do. If an attorney ask you to go against what you know is right and tell a lie tell him to get bent.

Jerome Corsi refuses Mueller's plea deal

"Describing his experience with Mueller's team as "like being interrogated as a POW in the Korean War," Corsi said after two months of questioning, prosecutors believed they caught him in various lies and did not appear to believe him when he said he could not recall certain events.

Corsi insisted he had no contact with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and that "investigators were so mad because I didn't give them what they wanted."

He claimed that Mueller's team wanted to keep any plea agreement sealed, a point that particularly incensed him. Corsi said he would be required to report legal infractions to financial regulators.

In a statement on Monday following Corsi's latest comments, Stone said the special counsel was harassing Corsi "not for lying, but for refusing to lie" and continued to maintain his own innocence.

"It is inconceivable that in America someone would be prosecuted for refusing to swear to a false narrative pushed on him by the Muller investigators," Stone said.
"

This is the kind of shit that goes on when you have an investigation in search of a crime. Self righteous assholes threatening you with prosecution if you don't confirm their invented assumptions.

 

[RodISHI]

I recall being question by lawyers in a hostile manner and it sucks. You are being interrogated as they try to find some crack in what you say for they can call you a liar. It seems like you are still trying to figure out what the hell was the previous question all about. Not knowing that lil shit game they play in order to coverup their clients fraud and deception. I am glad to see someone take a stand for truth. There is no way I would admit to something I did that I did not do. If an attorney ask you to go against what you know is right and tell a lie tell him to get bent.

Jerome Corsi refuses Mueller's plea deal

"Describing his experience with Mueller's team as "like being interrogated as a POW in the Korean War," Corsi said after two months of questioning, prosecutors believed they caught him in various lies and did not appear to believe him when he said he could not recall certain events.

Corsi insisted he had no contact with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and that "investigators were so mad because I didn't give them what they wanted."

He claimed that Mueller's team wanted to keep any plea agreement sealed, a point that particularly incensed him. Corsi said he would be required to report legal infractions to financial regulators.

In a statement on Monday following Corsi's latest comments, Stone said the special counsel was harassing Corsi "not for lying, but for refusing to lie" and continued to maintain his own innocence.

"It is inconceivable that in America someone would be prosecuted for refusing to swear to a false narrative pushed on him by the Muller investigators," Stone said.
"

This is the kind of shit that goes on when you have an investigation in search of a crime. Self righteous assholes threatening you with prosecution if you don't confirm their invented assumptions.

When the bank went after me for the fraud they committed they wanted me to sign off I would not sue them. They took the lawsuit against the manufacturer that blew up my equipment and designed equipment to fail from the factory. My attorney told me we were receiving their scorched earth policy for not going along. Its been very tough ever since but I would still do the same and deny them being able to continue with a lie by me signing off and a non-disclosure to protect them. It doesn't pay to let bullies keep on bullying because they just grow into bigger monsters.

 

[SavannahMann]

Honestly, that is one of my big complaints against the Grand Jury. You are called in to testify, and you are not permitted to bring an attorney with you. The Attorney’s job is to catch the other side trying to trick you into giving conflicting statements, and that is where they get most of the lying under oath nonsense. If I am facing a conviction for what I say in that room, I would want a lawyer present, otherwise, I would refuse to answer under the fifth amendment.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

I recall being question by lawyers in a hostile manner and it sucks. You are being interrogated as they try to find some crack in what you say for they can call you a liar. It seems like you are still trying to figure out what the hell was the previous question all about. Not knowing that lil shit game they play in order to coverup their clients fraud and deception. I am glad to see someone take a stand for truth. There is no way I would admit to something I did that I did not do. If an attorney ask you to go against what you know is right and tell a lie tell him to get bent.

Jerome Corsi refuses Mueller's plea deal

"Describing his experience with Mueller's team as "like being interrogated as a POW in the Korean War," Corsi said after two months of questioning, prosecutors believed they caught him in various lies and did not appear to believe him when he said he could not recall certain events.

Corsi insisted he had no contact with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and that "investigators were so mad because I didn't give them what they wanted."

He claimed that Mueller's team wanted to keep any plea agreement sealed, a point that particularly incensed him. Corsi said he would be required to report legal infractions to financial regulators.

In a statement on Monday following Corsi's latest comments, Stone said the special counsel was harassing Corsi "not for lying, but for refusing to lie" and continued to maintain his own innocence.

"It is inconceivable that in America someone would be prosecuted for refusing to swear to a false narrative pushed on him by the Muller investigators," Stone said.
"

Welcome to my world, investigators have gotten to the point the best way handle them is to shut up and just refuse to answer the questions. Wait for you day in court to answer anything that is asked. Fact is if they knew the answers why do they ask the questions?

 

[SavannahMann]

I recall being question by lawyers in a hostile manner and it sucks. You are being interrogated as they try to find some crack in what you say for they can call you a liar. It seems like you are still trying to figure out what the hell was the previous question all about. Not knowing that lil shit game they play in order to coverup their clients fraud and deception. I am glad to see someone take a stand for truth. There is no way I would admit to something I did that I did not do. If an attorney ask you to go against what you know is right and tell a lie tell him to get bent.

Jerome Corsi refuses Mueller's plea deal

"Describing his experience with Mueller's team as "like being interrogated as a POW in the Korean War," Corsi said after two months of questioning, prosecutors believed they caught him in various lies and did not appear to believe him when he said he could not recall certain events.

Corsi insisted he had no contact with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and that "investigators were so mad because I didn't give them what they wanted."

He claimed that Mueller's team wanted to keep any plea agreement sealed, a point that particularly incensed him. Corsi said he would be required to report legal infractions to financial regulators.

In a statement on Monday following Corsi's latest comments, Stone said the special counsel was harassing Corsi "not for lying, but for refusing to lie" and continued to maintain his own innocence.

"It is inconceivable that in America someone would be prosecuted for refusing to swear to a false narrative pushed on him by the Muller investigators," Stone said.
"

This is the kind of shit that goes on when you have an investigation in search of a crime. Self righteous assholes threatening you with prosecution if you don't confirm their invented assumptions.

When the bank went after me for the fraud they committed they wanted me to sign off I would not sue them. They took the lawsuit against the manufacturer that blew up my equipment and designed equipment to fail from the factory. My attorney told me we were receiving their scorched earth policy for not going along. Its been very tough ever since but I would still do the same and deny them being able to continue with a lie by me signing off and a non-disclosure to protect them. It doesn't pay to let bullies keep on bullying because they just grow into bigger monsters.

I’ve got you beat. The bank once accused me of forging my own name. It took nearly all day talking to one person after another, to explain that there are certain crimes I am incapable of committing. It is simply impossible. I can’t steal my own identity. I can’t break and enter my own house, and I can’t forge my own name. I even had to have a chat with the Postal Inspectors, as the check had come by mail. Imagine that conversation if you will. How the hell do I forge my own name? It’s my name. It’s my name, and the check was made out to me. It had my name, and address on it. How the fuck can I forge my own name?

 

[RodISHI]

I recall being question by lawyers in a hostile manner and it sucks. You are being interrogated as they try to find some crack in what you say for they can call you a liar. It seems like you are still trying to figure out what the hell was the previous question all about. Not knowing that lil shit game they play in order to coverup their clients fraud and deception. I am glad to see someone take a stand for truth. There is no way I would admit to something I did that I did not do. If an attorney ask you to go against what you know is right and tell a lie tell him to get bent.

Jerome Corsi refuses Mueller's plea deal

"Describing his experience with Mueller's team as "like being interrogated as a POW in the Korean War," Corsi said after two months of questioning, prosecutors believed they caught him in various lies and did not appear to believe him when he said he could not recall certain events.

Corsi insisted he had no contact with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and that "investigators were so mad because I didn't give them what they wanted."

He claimed that Mueller's team wanted to keep any plea agreement sealed, a point that particularly incensed him. Corsi said he would be required to report legal infractions to financial regulators.

In a statement on Monday following Corsi's latest comments, Stone said the special counsel was harassing Corsi "not for lying, but for refusing to lie" and continued to maintain his own innocence.

"It is inconceivable that in America someone would be prosecuted for refusing to swear to a false narrative pushed on him by the Muller investigators," Stone said.
"

This is the kind of shit that goes on when you have an investigation in search of a crime. Self righteous assholes threatening you with prosecution if you don't confirm their invented assumptions.

When the bank went after me for the fraud they committed they wanted me to sign off I would not sue them. They took the lawsuit against the manufacturer that blew up my equipment and designed equipment to fail from the factory. My attorney told me we were receiving their scorched earth policy for not going along. Its been very tough ever since but I would still do the same and deny them being able to continue with a lie by me signing off and a non-disclosure to protect them. It doesn't pay to let bullies keep on bullying because they just grow into bigger monsters.

I’ve got you beat. The bank once accused me of forging my own name. It took nearly all day talking to one person after another, to explain that there are certain crimes I am incapable of committing. It is simply impossible. I can’t steal my own identity. I can’t break and enter my own house, and I can’t forge my own name. I even had to have a chat with the Postal Inspectors, as the check had come by mail. Imagine that conversation if you will. How the hell do I forge my own name? It’s my name. It’s my name, and the check was made out to me. It had my name, and address on it. How the fuck can I forge my own name?

Some of these banks are simply a scourge, My banker admitted I had not seen over a 100 documents they submitted. The court recorder gave an erroneous certified court transcript conveniently leaving out my defense and all the stuff the bankers admitted. It was a fraud all the way around on the banks part for almost a million dollars cost to the government SBA program and a full stripping of anything of value both my husband and I owned. It was a loan to my sole corporation that they demanded be totally separate from personal property before the loan was made. Basically a take out by any means whatsoever. And of course they claimed it was all my fault that they stole my name and signature. Since then I am very guarded what I will sign as anyone can copy your name and make up whatever bullshit story they want if they have enough money, the courts and a judge in their pocket.

 

[joaquinmiller]

If you can't believe Roger Stone and Jerome Corsi, who can you believe?

 

[joaquinmiller]

Honestly, that is one of my big complaints against the Grand Jury. You are called in to testify, and you are not permitted to bring an attorney with you. The Attorney’s job is to catch the other side trying to trick you into giving conflicting statements, and that is where they get most of the lying under oath nonsense. If I am facing a conviction for what I say in that room, I would want a lawyer present, otherwise, I would refuse to answer under the fifth amendment.

The answer to the OP is 'No.'

18 U.S. Code § 1623 - False declarations before grand jury or court

(a)
Whoever under oath (or in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code) in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States knowingly makes any false material declaration or makes or uses any other information, including any book, paper, document, record, recording, or other material, knowing the same to contain any false material declaration, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(b)
This section is applicable whether the conduct occurred within or without the United States.

(c) An indictment or information for violation of this section alleging that, in any proceedings before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States, the defendant under oath has knowingly made two or more declarations, which are inconsistent to the degree that one of them is necessarily false, need not specify which declaration is false if—
(1)
each declaration was material to the point in question, and

(2)
each declaration was made within the period of the statute of limitations for the offense charged under this section.

In any prosecution under this section, the falsity of a declaration set forth in the indictment or information shall be established sufficient for conviction by proof that the defendant while under oath made irreconcilably contradictory declarations material to the point in question in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury. It shall be a defense to an indictment or information made pursuant to the first sentence of this subsection that the defendant at the time he made each declaration believed the declaration was true.

Seriously, you are poorly informed if you think the purpose of a Grand Jury is tricking you into perjury.

 

[SavannahMann]

Honestly, that is one of my big complaints against the Grand Jury. You are called in to testify, and you are not permitted to bring an attorney with you. The Attorney’s job is to catch the other side trying to trick you into giving conflicting statements, and that is where they get most of the lying under oath nonsense. If I am facing a conviction for what I say in that room, I would want a lawyer present, otherwise, I would refuse to answer under the fifth amendment.

The answer to the OP is 'No.'

18 U.S. Code § 1623 - False declarations before grand jury or court

(a)
Whoever under oath (or in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code) in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States knowingly makes any false material declaration or makes or uses any other information, including any book, paper, document, record, recording, or other material, knowing the same to contain any false material declaration, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(b)
This section is applicable whether the conduct occurred within or without the United States.

(c) An indictment or information for violation of this section alleging that, in any proceedings before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States, the defendant under oath has knowingly made two or more declarations, which are inconsistent to the degree that one of them is necessarily false, need not specify which declaration is false if—
(1)
each declaration was material to the point in question, and

(2)
each declaration was made within the period of the statute of limitations for the offense charged under this section.

In any prosecution under this section, the falsity of a declaration set forth in the indictment or information shall be established sufficient for conviction by proof that the defendant while under oath made irreconcilably contradictory declarations material to the point in question in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury. It shall be a defense to an indictment or information made pursuant to the first sentence of this subsection that the defendant at the time he made each declaration believed the declaration was true.

Seriously, you are poorly informed if you think the purpose of a Grand Jury is tricking you into perjury.

Ok. Prove you didn’t knowingly lie when you made a mistake.

 

[joaquinmiller]

Honestly, that is one of my big complaints against the Grand Jury. You are called in to testify, and you are not permitted to bring an attorney with you. The Attorney’s job is to catch the other side trying to trick you into giving conflicting statements, and that is where they get most of the lying under oath nonsense. If I am facing a conviction for what I say in that room, I would want a lawyer present, otherwise, I would refuse to answer under the fifth amendment.

The answer to the OP is 'No.'

18 U.S. Code § 1623 - False declarations before grand jury or court

(a)
Whoever under oath (or in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code) in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States knowingly makes any false material declaration or makes or uses any other information, including any book, paper, document, record, recording, or other material, knowing the same to contain any false material declaration, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(b)
This section is applicable whether the conduct occurred within or without the United States.

(c) An indictment or information for violation of this section alleging that, in any proceedings before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States, the defendant under oath has knowingly made two or more declarations, which are inconsistent to the degree that one of them is necessarily false, need not specify which declaration is false if—
(1)
each declaration was material to the point in question, and

(2)
each declaration was made within the period of the statute of limitations for the offense charged under this section.

In any prosecution under this section, the falsity of a declaration set forth in the indictment or information shall be established sufficient for conviction by proof that the defendant while under oath made irreconcilably contradictory declarations material to the point in question in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury. It shall be a defense to an indictment or information made pursuant to the first sentence of this subsection that the defendant at the time he made each declaration believed the declaration was true.

Seriously, you are poorly informed if you think the purpose of a Grand Jury is tricking you into perjury.

Ok. Prove you didn’t knowingly lie when you made a mistake.

(under oath) knowingly made two or more declarations, which are inconsistent to the degree that one of them is necessarily false

If you're determined to commit perjury, no one can stop you. The burden of proof isn't on the speaker, it's on the court to prove you knowingly lied.

 

[SavannahMann]

Honestly, that is one of my big complaints against the Grand Jury. You are called in to testify, and you are not permitted to bring an attorney with you. The Attorney’s job is to catch the other side trying to trick you into giving conflicting statements, and that is where they get most of the lying under oath nonsense. If I am facing a conviction for what I say in that room, I would want a lawyer present, otherwise, I would refuse to answer under the fifth amendment.

The answer to the OP is 'No.'

18 U.S. Code § 1623 - False declarations before grand jury or court

(a)
Whoever under oath (or in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code) in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States knowingly makes any false material declaration or makes or uses any other information, including any book, paper, document, record, recording, or other material, knowing the same to contain any false material declaration, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(b)
This section is applicable whether the conduct occurred within or without the United States.

(c) An indictment or information for violation of this section alleging that, in any proceedings before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States, the defendant under oath has knowingly made two or more declarations, which are inconsistent to the degree that one of them is necessarily false, need not specify which declaration is false if—
(1)
each declaration was material to the point in question, and

(2)
each declaration was made within the period of the statute of limitations for the offense charged under this section.

In any prosecution under this section, the falsity of a declaration set forth in the indictment or information shall be established sufficient for conviction by proof that the defendant while under oath made irreconcilably contradictory declarations material to the point in question in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury. It shall be a defense to an indictment or information made pursuant to the first sentence of this subsection that the defendant at the time he made each declaration believed the declaration was true.

Seriously, you are poorly informed if you think the purpose of a Grand Jury is tricking you into perjury.

Ok. Prove you didn’t knowingly lie when you made a mistake.

(under oath) knowingly made two or more declarations, which are inconsistent to the degree that one of them is necessarily false

If you're determined to commit perjury, no one can stop you. The burden of proof isn't on the speaker, it's on the court to prove you knowingly lied.

I’m sorry, have you not noticed our criminal justice system of late? These days, it is supposed to fall on the prosecution to prove you did it, but in reality, it is the simple truth that you have to prove you didn’t once accused.

Didn’t you see the story where a Selfie saved a guy from spending nearly a century in prison? He was accused, and arrested, and charged with a crime he didn’t commit. He had to PROVE he didn’t do it.

The stories like that come one after the other. When the question of perjury comes up, you have to prove you told the truth, good luck proving you didn’t lie. The easiest way to avoid that, is to say nothing. Provide nothing. Tell them your name, address, and other required information, and then remain mute. Because if it comes down to proving you didn’t “knowingly lie” then you’re screwed.

 

[RodISHI]

Honestly, that is one of my big complaints against the Grand Jury. You are called in to testify, and you are not permitted to bring an attorney with you. The Attorney’s job is to catch the other side trying to trick you into giving conflicting statements, and that is where they get most of the lying under oath nonsense. If I am facing a conviction for what I say in that room, I would want a lawyer present, otherwise, I would refuse to answer under the fifth amendment.

The answer to the OP is 'No.'

18 U.S. Code § 1623 - False declarations before grand jury or court

(a)
Whoever under oath (or in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code) in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States knowingly makes any false material declaration or makes or uses any other information, including any book, paper, document, record, recording, or other material, knowing the same to contain any false material declaration, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(b)
This section is applicable whether the conduct occurred within or without the United States.

(c) An indictment or information for violation of this section alleging that, in any proceedings before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States, the defendant under oath has knowingly made two or more declarations, which are inconsistent to the degree that one of them is necessarily false, need not specify which declaration is false if—
(1)
each declaration was material to the point in question, and

(2)
each declaration was made within the period of the statute of limitations for the offense charged under this section.

In any prosecution under this section, the falsity of a declaration set forth in the indictment or information shall be established sufficient for conviction by proof that the defendant while under oath made irreconcilably contradictory declarations material to the point in question in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury. It shall be a defense to an indictment or information made pursuant to the first sentence of this subsection that the defendant at the time he made each declaration believed the declaration was true.

Seriously, you are poorly informed if you think the purpose of a Grand Jury is tricking you into perjury.

Ok. Prove you didn’t knowingly lie when you made a mistake.

(under oath) knowingly made two or more declarations, which are inconsistent to the degree that one of them is necessarily false

If you're determined to commit perjury, no one can stop you. The burden of proof isn't on the speaker, it's on the court to prove you knowingly lied.

I’m sorry, have you not noticed our criminal justice system of late? These days, it is supposed to fall on the prosecution to prove you did it, but in reality, it is the simple truth that you have to prove you didn’t once accused.

Didn’t you see the story where a Selfie saved a guy from spending nearly a century in prison? He was accused, and arrested, and charged with a crime he didn’t commit. He had to PROVE he didn’t do it.

The stories like that come one after the other. When the question of perjury comes up, you have to prove you told the truth, good luck proving you didn’t lie. The easiest way to avoid that, is to say nothing. Provide nothing. Tell them your name, address, and other required information, and then remain mute. Because if it comes down to proving you didn’t “knowingly lie” then you’re screwed.

Not knowing, not fully understanding what they are asking or not remembering something at the time a questioned was ask is not a lie. If someone actively participates in something like admitted to something they did not do would be a lie. Once that happens basically you own that lie whatever it may be.

 

[SavannahMann]

Let’s say you call me into the Grand Jury. You ask me what I discussed with John Smith. I say I don’t know John Smith, and haven’t ever discussed anything with him. You present a photograph of me shaking a guy’s hand without giving me the context. You say that I am smiling in the photograph, and seem to be very friendly with John Smith. This doesn’t ring a bell for me, because I shook his hand at a party, and spoke with him in one of those thousands of forgettable conversations people have at such events. Having a good time bullshit.

If I say yeah, I remember now, I just said hello and are you enjoying the party. I am admitting that I conveniently forgot the information you wanted before. If I continue to say I don’t know him, when obviously I do, I am lying aren’t I?

How do I tell the truth about something I honestly don’t remember? Am I being pranked, set up, or what?

Now, you and I both know that the police plant drugs. Why they do so in one case, but not another is beyond understanding. So trusting that the photo is real is tricky. I would just as soon avoid every possible issue by refusing to answer any questions without a lawyer present. The Lawyer isn’t allowed to help the witness in the Grand Jury, so I’d be on my way rather quickly.

 

[RodISHI]

Let’s say you call me into the Grand Jury. You ask me what I discussed with John Smith. I say I don’t know John Smith, and haven’t ever discussed anything with him. You present a photograph of me shaking a guy’s hand without giving me the context. You say that I am smiling in the photograph, and seem to be very friendly with John Smith. This doesn’t ring a bell for me, because I shook his hand at a party, and spoke with him in one of those thousands of forgettable conversations people have at such events. Having a good time bullshit.

If I say yeah, I remember now, I just said hello and are you enjoying the party. I am admitting that I conveniently forgot the information you wanted before. If I continue to say I don’t know him, when obviously I do, I am lying aren’t I?

How do I tell the truth about something I honestly don’t remember? Am I being pranked, set up, or what?

Now, you and I both know that the police plant drugs. Why they do so in one case, but not another is beyond understanding. So trusting that the photo is real is tricky. I would just as soon avoid every possible issue by refusing to answer any questions without a lawyer present. The Lawyer isn’t allowed to help the witness in the Grand Jury, so I’d be on my way rather quickly.

Lawyers don't allow for the explanation when there is an agenda going down. I'd say from your example the question was not understood as we meet people all the time and do not recall them because we don't really know them. I'd have to say 'oh yeah I recall when so and so introduce me to that guy/gal. Still wouldn't be a lie as we meet people everyday and never think twice about it.

 

[SavannahMann]

Let’s say you call me into the Grand Jury. You ask me what I discussed with John Smith. I say I don’t know John Smith, and haven’t ever discussed anything with him. You present a photograph of me shaking a guy’s hand without giving me the context. You say that I am smiling in the photograph, and seem to be very friendly with John Smith. This doesn’t ring a bell for me, because I shook his hand at a party, and spoke with him in one of those thousands of forgettable conversations people have at such events. Having a good time bullshit.

If I say yeah, I remember now, I just said hello and are you enjoying the party. I am admitting that I conveniently forgot the information you wanted before. If I continue to say I don’t know him, when obviously I do, I am lying aren’t I?

How do I tell the truth about something I honestly don’t remember? Am I being pranked, set up, or what?

Now, you and I both know that the police plant drugs. Why they do so in one case, but not another is beyond understanding. So trusting that the photo is real is tricky. I would just as soon avoid every possible issue by refusing to answer any questions without a lawyer present. The Lawyer isn’t allowed to help the witness in the Grand Jury, so I’d be on my way rather quickly.

Lawyers don't allow for the explanation when there is an agenda going down. I'd say from your example the question was not understood as we meet people all the time and do not recall them because we don't really know them. I'd have to say 'oh yeah I recall when so and so introduce me to that guy/gal. Still wouldn't be a lie as we meet people everyday and never think twice about it.

If it was a lie would depend on the jury. Just as if the cop planted the drugs would be up to the jury. Rhetoric has sent many people to prison when evidence was iffy.

 

[foggedinn]

The truth of what I knew to the questions that I was asked when I witnessed were lies that I knew to be lies. My interrogators knew it. I did my duty and told the truth of all that I knew: nothing hidden, all revealed. It was clear to the grand jury that I had been deliberately fed full of lies. Such is the truth of undercover schemes and scams. I walked away free and clear. Of coarse, so did the people who had lied to me. Another truth of undercover schemes and scams.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Honestly, that is one of my big complaints against the Grand Jury. You are called in to testify, and you are not permitted to bring an attorney with you. The Attorney’s job is to catch the other side trying to trick you into giving conflicting statements, and that is where they get most of the lying under oath nonsense. If I am facing a conviction for what I say in that room, I would want a lawyer present, otherwise, I would refuse to answer under the fifth amendment.

Never answer questions without a lawyer. If you don't have one, don't say anything.