- Joined
- Aug 14, 2012
- Messages
- 34,914
- Reaction score
- 26,674
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
Maricopa County Judge: "Your solicitation of witnesses yielded some affidavits, from people, sworn affidavits that you yourself determined are clearly false, and 'spam', as you phrased it, correct?"
Trump Lawyer: "That's correct."
Judge: "The affidavits you submitted are the ones you could not prove are false. So am I correct in saying: You solicited affidavits. You received some. Some you could prove were false. You set those aside. Those you couldn't prove are false you submitted to the court."
Lawyer: "Correct, they were submitted under penalty of perjury."
Judge: "But the affidavits that you yourself found to be false were also submitted under penalty of perjury, right?"
Lawyer: "Correct. Improperly."
Judge: "The fact that your process yielded affidavits that you yourself found to be false does not support a finding that this process generates reliable evidence. This is concerning. The fact that you solicited affidavits. Some you know are false. Some you don't know if they're false or not. You exclude the ones you can prove are false and submit the others. How is that a reliable process of gathering evidence? If your process for gathering declarations has yielded sworn statements under oath that your investigation has determined to be false that doesn't give me any reason to believe your process is one that generates trustworthy affidavits. It simply generated affidavits you can't prove are not true. That's not the same as being trustworthy.
GIF SUMMARY:
Trump Lawyer: "That's correct."
Judge: "The affidavits you submitted are the ones you could not prove are false. So am I correct in saying: You solicited affidavits. You received some. Some you could prove were false. You set those aside. Those you couldn't prove are false you submitted to the court."
Lawyer: "Correct, they were submitted under penalty of perjury."
Judge: "But the affidavits that you yourself found to be false were also submitted under penalty of perjury, right?"
Lawyer: "Correct. Improperly."
Judge: "The fact that your process yielded affidavits that you yourself found to be false does not support a finding that this process generates reliable evidence. This is concerning. The fact that you solicited affidavits. Some you know are false. Some you don't know if they're false or not. You exclude the ones you can prove are false and submit the others. How is that a reliable process of gathering evidence? If your process for gathering declarations has yielded sworn statements under oath that your investigation has determined to be false that doesn't give me any reason to believe your process is one that generates trustworthy affidavits. It simply generated affidavits you can't prove are not true. That's not the same as being trustworthy.
GIF SUMMARY: