here is the government document for your review:

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE...79-sec1621.pdf

uhm again they are not as proven by title 18 section 1001 , 1621 and 1623.


they are differently coded. particularly the part that one is willfully, the other is willfully and knowingly and require different burden of proof to be found guilty


https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/98-808.pdf


since you need a kindergarten example check "Scooter" Libby sentencing.

No clue what your last sentence meant? Let me guess: that was phonetics again??

Sorry..StirB would confuse that with semantics...

It means you are wrong and refuse to admit it.


also, multiquote to hide your internet rage.



KTXSBYE

Just read your link and??? Here it is:

Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the general false statement statute, outlaws material false statements in matters within the jurisdiction of a federal agency or department. It reaches false statements in federal court and grand jury sessions as well as congressional hearings and administrative matters but not the statements of advocates or parties in court proceedings. Under Section 1001, a statement is a crime if it is false, regardless of whether it is made under oath.
In contrast, an oath is the hallmark of the three perjury statutes in Title 18. The oldest, Section 1621, condemns presenting material false statements under oath in federal official proceedings. Section 1623 of the same title prohibits presenting material false statements under oath in federal court proceedings, although it lacks some of Section 1621’s traditional procedural features, such as a two-witness requirement. Subornation of perjury, barred in Section 1622, consists of inducing another to commit perjury. All four sections carry a penalty of imprisonment for not more than five years, although Section 1001 is punishable by imprisonment for not more than eight years when the offense involves terrorism or one of the various federal sex offenses. The same five-year maximum penalty attends the separate crime of conspiracy to commit any of the four substantive offenses.

You've never heard of "Scooter" Libby?

I think you'll find that a certain US President was prosecuted for perjury quite a long time after Watergate.

did his sworn statement fill the criteria of being under oath or signed "under penalty of perjury"?


nobody denied that false statements are indictable, but they are not the same as an indictment for perjury.


frankly , this is getting a little embarrassing for you.

Or embarrassing for you?? Read if you have the time:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/law-lyin...nd-obstruction

Again Judge signed his statement not under penalty for perjury.. BUT...penalty for FELONY!!

Embarrassing for you Ouchboy?

I went through that article already


which does not mention sworn statements = under oath. as sworn statements fall under section 1001 not 1621.


again , where is the statement under oath/under penalty of perjury infront of a notary?




So no, it isn't getting embarrassing for me, under penalty of felony does not meet the criteria title 28 section 1746.


therefore...not under oath.

Reread the link you sent me please... Are you joking?

Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the general false statement statute, outlaws material false statements in matters within the jurisdiction of a federal agency or department. It reaches false statements in federal court and grand jury sessions as well as congressional hearings and administrative matters but not the statements of advocates or parties in court proceedings. Under Section 1001, a statement is a crime if it is false, regardless of whether it is made under oath.

Why are you arguing the caveat of a notary? That is an affidavit not a sworn statement...

again, are they under oath?

They are guilty of perjury upon issuing a sworn statement if that statement proves to be false... But keep backtracking and trying Ouchboy! Again... semantics at play but the penalty is the same!

Again, your statement makes no sense. In federal law, perjury is a felony, so a statement made "under penalty of felony" (bizarre wording) is effectively equivalent to "under penalty of perjury"—just being specific about the felony.

However:

KIDS: STOP. Enough of the boring bickering. This thread isn't your personal sandpit. If you want to continue the back-and-forth on felony/perjury/under oath/sworn statements and the like, feel free to start a new thread. Or better yet, PM each other, as nobody else is interested.

Thanks.

sorry for the trim job ahead of you.

Can i suggest you just delete all the posts back up to and including the one where Terrifisch claimed the 4 witnesses testified under oath? I think that's the only way to return this thread to normality. Cheers 22Y.

I thought about it. But it's past midnight and my toenails need cutting.

How 'bout that Trump, eh? I wonder if he'll make a good President...

Meanwhile back in the "real" world!

Source

No wonder the FBI can close the background check quickly if they are blocked from talking to the main characters.

At least the FBI will be saved the embarrassment of admitting their last six background checks on Kavenaugh were not OK!