Bragg is Guilty of Suborning Perjury

[gatomontes99]

What is suborning perjury?

A person is guilty of suborning perjury if he or she attempts to induce a witness to give false testimony under oath in a court or other proceeding, and the witness actually gives false testimony (if the person is an attorney, simply knowing of the witness's plans is enough; see below). Here is what a prosecutor will have to prove when charging a defendant with suborning perjury.

Costello is saying:

Costello also said Bragg’s office had been “trying to shut me down” during his grand jury testimony last year after he shared with them exculpatory material for the case, including between 200 and 300 emails and text messages with Cohen.  But prosecutors “cherry-picked” that exculpatory material for “two to three” pieces of evidence, he added, describing the rest of the files as “hearsay.”  “You know, and I know, but the grand jurors don’t know, that business records are an exception to the hearsay rule,” Costello said he explained to them, while adding that even hearsay is admissible in grand jury proceedings.

That means Bragg's office knew that Cohen would be lying when they put him on the stand. That is suborning perjury.

[Fluffypants]

This whole case has been a joke from day one, there is a reason the Federal Government and the FEC wouldn't touch it and a reason Bragg didn't want to touch from the beginning, I think he was enticed to do it by the Biden administration.

All the case needed to go up in flames was Cohen not being able to to tell the truth and Cohen isn't the brightest man in the world either and couldn't keep his lies straight. That cross was like something you would see in a bad court TV show it was obvious and brutal.

When Anderson Cooper is like whoa that was bad you know it was devastating.

I hope the bring Costello in he will not only decimate Cohens testimony further but will force the jury to question the motives of the prosecution to boot.

 

 

[CdnFox]

22 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

What is suborning perjury?

A person is guilty of suborning perjury if he or she attempts to induce a witness to give false testimony under oath in a court or other proceeding, and the witness actually gives false testimony (if the person is an attorney, simply knowing of the witness's plans is enough; see below). Here is what a prosecutor will have to prove when charging a defendant with suborning perjury.

Costello is saying:

Costello also said Bragg’s office had been “trying to shut me down” during his grand jury testimony last year after he shared with them exculpatory material for the case, including between 200 and 300 emails and text messages with Cohen.  But prosecutors “cherry-picked” that exculpatory material for “two to three” pieces of evidence, he added, describing the rest of the files as “hearsay.”  “You know, and I know, but the grand jurors don’t know, that business records are an exception to the hearsay rule,” Costello said he explained to them, while adding that even hearsay is admissible in grand jury proceedings.

That means Bragg's office knew that Cohen would be lying when they put him on the stand. That is suborning perjury.

Depends a little on your definition of lying. 

"I Did not have sexual relations with that lewinski woman".  Lie?  Most people would say a bj is "sexual relations" but TECHNICALLY it's not sex. So when he was impeached he was able to get off on that. (so to speak)

I personally believe lying by omission or speaking the truth in such a way as to give a false impression is still a lie, but from a technical legal point of view not so much. People even get off legal charges because they answered "yep" or 'uh huh" instead of "yes" and in court argued that while the person may have taken those words to mean yes they didn't actually say yes. 

As noted in oliver twist - the law is an ass. 

[Nationalist]

I'm an ass, your an ass, everyone's an ass. What is needed is an ass who will turn this lawfare garbage on the perpetrators. 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

I'm an ass, your an ass, everyone's an ass. What is needed is an ass who will turn this lawfare garbage on the perpetrators. 

Are.... are you talking about..  holding the CRIMINALS MISUSING THE SYSTEM RESPONSIBLE?!!?!

What are you,  a witch!?!?!

[Nationalist]

8 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Are.... are you talking about..  holding the CRIMINALS MISUSING THE SYSTEM RESPONSIBLE?!!?!

What are you,  a witch!?!?!

Absolutely. 

Spare the rod and spoil the child.

Which witch?

 

 

[WestCanMan]

16 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Depends a little on your definition of lying. 

"I Did not have sexual relations with that lewinski woman".  Lie?  Most people would say a bj is "sexual relations" but TECHNICALLY it's not sex. So when he was impeached he was able to get off on that. (so to speak)

 

I wouldn't say that he got off due to a technicality. Everyone knew he lied. When someone is regularly dousing someone else with their spermatozoa it's the dictionary definition of having sexual relations.  

It was just too small of an infraction to have such monumental consequences for an entire country. The whole notion is absurd. No reasonable human could be the vote to get that impeachment across the finish line. 

Edited May 20, 2024 by WestCanMan

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

I wouldn't say that he got off due to a technicality. Everyone knew he lied. When someone is regularly dousing someone else with their spermatozoa it's the dictionary definition of having sexual relations.  

It was just too small of an infraction to have such monumental consequences for an entire country. The whole notion is absurd. No reasonable human could be the vote to get that impeachment across the finish line. 

I suppose that's one perspective, but it was the excuse used by those who didn't vote to find him guilty. 

I would agree that it's clearly a lie but it was enough of a 'technicality' that those who said it wasn't a lie could offer a reasonable excuse as to why they didn't impeach him for lying.  The sex wasnt' a big deal but the lying to congress about it was, and they needed an 'out' for why it was ok to dismiss lying.  "well because it's not TECHNICALLY a lie". 

Interestingly while the dictionary says it can mean any sexual acts between people it also can specifically refers to coitus as a specific act, and theres' your technical 'out'. 

What we're talking about here really is how some people use technical definitions to get away with lying. And that is a thing

[robosmith]

On 5/18/2024 at 5:41 PM, gatomontes99 said:

What is suborning perjury?

A person is guilty of suborning perjury if he or she attempts to induce a witness to give false testimony under oath in a court or other proceeding, and the witness actually gives false testimony (if the person is an attorney, simply knowing of the witness's plans is enough; see below). Here is what a prosecutor will have to prove when charging a defendant with suborning perjury.

Costello is saying:

Costello also said Bragg’s office had been “trying to shut me down” during his grand jury testimony last year after he shared with them exculpatory material for the case, including between 200 and 300 emails and text messages with Cohen.  But prosecutors “cherry-picked” that exculpatory material for “two to three” pieces of evidence, he added, describing the rest of the files as “hearsay.”  “You know, and I know, but the grand jurors don’t know, that business records are an exception to the hearsay rule,” Costello said he explained to them, while adding that even hearsay is admissible in grand jury proceedings.

That means Bragg's office knew that Cohen would be lying when they put him on the stand. That is suborning perjury.

You don't even specify the "be lying" that Bragg supposedly knew about. Duh

In FACT, Cohen has already testified that he lied to Costello because he didn't trust Costello due to his connections with Trump, and at that time Cohen was still trying to maintain his role as a Trump loyal servant.

Costello even suggested that Cohen NOT FLIP cause he had "friends in high places."

AKA, Cohen knew about Trump's role in, and knowledge of, the payoff, and lied to Costello when he said there was none, solely to avoid alienating Trump. He was still maintaining the charade at that time BEFORE he flipped.

[gatomontes99]

3 hours ago, robosmith said:

You don't even specify the "be lying" that Bragg supposedly knew about. Duh

In FACT, Cohen has already testified that he lied to Costello because he didn't trust Costello due to his connections with Trump, and at that time Cohen was still trying to maintain his role as a Trump loyal servant.

Costello even suggested that Cohen NOT FLIP cause he had "friends in high places."

AKA, Cohen knew about Trump's role in, and knowledge of, the payoff, and lied to Costello when he said there was none, solely to avoid alienating Trump. He was still maintaining the charade at that time BEFORE he flipped.

Lol...so Cohen is innocent because Costello suggested Trump would save him and that led Cohen to lie to Costello because Costello gave him advice?

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Lol...so Cohen is innocent because Costello suggested Trump would save him and that led Cohen to lie to Costello because Costello gave him advice?

Yes - it makes PERFECT sense if you drop acid first. 

[WestCanMan]

2 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Lol...so Cohen is innocent because Costello suggested Trump would save him and that led Cohen to lie to Costello because Costello gave him advice?

Whatever that was, it looks like something they'd say on CNN and MSNBC.

[robosmith]

4 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Lol...so Cohen is innocent because Costello suggested Trump would save him and that led Cohen to lie to Costello because Costello gave him advice?

Don't ever bother TRYING to ^restate what I write, cause YOU SUCK AT IT.

You got PART of it right. Cohen KNEW that Costello was testing his loyalty to Trump and and that's WHY HE LIED.

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Whatever that was, it looks like something they'd say on CNN and MSNBC.

It's just made up BULLSHIT, like ^this guessing.

 

[CdnFox]

14 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Don't ever bother TRYING to ^restate what I write, cause YOU SUCK AT IT.

 

So you're saying he got it right and now you're pissed?  

[Nationalist]

5 hours ago, CdnFox said:

So you're saying he got it right and now you're pissed?  

He doesn't know what he's saying. It's all just irrational mumbo-jumbo. 

The Libbies are on the ropes and panicking. That's what this nonsense is about.

[gatomontes99]

5 hours ago, robosmith said:

Don't ever bother TRYING to ^restate what I write, cause YOU SUCK AT IT.

You got PART of it right. Cohen KNEW that Costello was testing his loyalty to Trump and and that's WHY HE LIED.

Yeah...ok...so why was he convicted of perjury then? Why did he tell this court a phone call was made to Trump's body guard to tell Trump about the payment when it was actually about some kid that was harassing him?

You are making excuses. The reality is that Cohen was the defense's star witness.

[Rebound]

On 5/18/2024 at 8:41 PM, gatomontes99 said:

What is suborning perjury?

A person is guilty of suborning perjury if he or she attempts to induce a witness to give false testimony under oath in a court or other proceeding, and the witness actually gives false testimony (if the person is an attorney, simply knowing of the witness's plans is enough; see below). Here is what a prosecutor will have to prove when charging a defendant with suborning perjury.

Costello is saying:

Costello also said Bragg’s office had been “trying to shut me down” during his grand jury testimony last year after he shared with them exculpatory material for the case, including between 200 and 300 emails and text messages with Cohen.  But prosecutors “cherry-picked” that exculpatory material for “two to three” pieces of evidence, he added, describing the rest of the files as “hearsay.”  “You know, and I know, but the grand jurors don’t know, that business records are an exception to the hearsay rule,” Costello said he explained to them, while adding that even hearsay is admissible in grand jury proceedings.

That means Bragg's office knew that Cohen would be lying when they put him on the stand. That is suborning perjury.

Your definition of the crime says that the witness must give false testimony. There is no claim or evidence that occurred, so Bragg committed no crime. 

Edited May 21, 2024 by Rebound

[robosmith]

3 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Yeah...ok...so why was he convicted of perjury then?

Because he lied to Congress. Duh

3 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

 

Why did he tell this court a phone call was made to Trump's body guard to tell Trump about the payment when it was actually about some kid that was harassing him?

It was about both. But that has nothing to do with what he told Costello in 2018 in a separate meeting.

3 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

You are making excuses. The reality is that Cohen was the defense's star witness.

Cohen is a minor witness which only serves to tie all the OTHER FACTS together, including 3 instances where he confirmed Trump KNEW ABOUT the payments to Daniels.

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, robosmith said:

 

Cohen is a minor witness which only serves to tie all the OTHER FACTS together, including 3 instances where he confirmed Trump KNEW ABOUT the payments to Daniels.

How stupid can you be? If those other facts are not tied together then there's no case. The whole thing literally hinges on this guy

[WestCanMan]

On 5/18/2024 at 5:41 PM, gatomontes99 said:

What is suborning perjury?

A person is guilty of suborning perjury if he or she attempts to induce a witness to give false testimony under oath in a court or other proceeding, and the witness actually gives false testimony (if the person is an attorney, simply knowing of the witness's plans is enough; see below). Here is what a prosecutor will have to prove when charging a defendant with suborning perjury.

Costello is saying:

Costello also said Bragg’s office had been “trying to shut me down” during his grand jury testimony last year after he shared with them exculpatory material for the case, including between 200 and 300 emails and text messages with Cohen.  But prosecutors “cherry-picked” that exculpatory material for “two to three” pieces of evidence, he added, describing the rest of the files as “hearsay.”  “You know, and I know, but the grand jurors don’t know, that business records are an exception to the hearsay rule,” Costello said he explained to them, while adding that even hearsay is admissible in grand jury proceedings.

That means Bragg's office knew that Cohen would be lying when they put him on the stand. That is suborning perjury.

The FBI and the Demi's prosecutors are obsessed with preventing exculpatory evidence from being seen. It's P1 of their playbook. 

These are vile, treacherous people without an ounce of integrity.

[WestCanMan]

14 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

How stupid can you be? 

He can make oysters look brilliant.

He can make AOC seem enlightened and wise.

If stupidity was an Olympic sport, he'd win by so much that he'd be accused of taking performance enhancing drugs.

He's about tied with Biden.

Edited May 21, 2024 by WestCanMan

[CdnFox]

15 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

He can make oysters look brilliant.

He can make AOC seem enlightened and wise.

If stupidity was an Olympic sport, he'd win by so much that he'd be accused of taking performance enhancing drugs.

He's about tied with Biden.

Yes, granted people like him are the reason we need instructions on shampoo bottles. 

But still...  this seems pretty cut and dry even for someone who can't get the water out of their boot with the instructions written on the heel. 

[Legato]

47 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Because he lied to Congress. Duh

It was about both. But that has nothing to do with what he told Costello in 2018 in a separate meeting.

Cohen is a minor witness which only serves to tie all the OTHER FACTS together, including 3 instances where he confirmed Trump KNEW ABOUT the payments to Daniels.

Have you ever seen what's written on the bottom of a Guinness bottle?

[robosmith]

7 minutes ago, Legato said:

Have you ever seen what's written on the bottom of a Guinness bottle?

I think the only time I ever drank a pint of Guinness might have been at a pub in London last year and it wasn't in a bottle.