Why isn't Mayor Karen Bass guilty of lying to a federal official?

[sefnfot]

What is the name of your state? California

Why isn't Mayor Karen Bass guilty of lying to a federal official?

Right after the palisades fire there was a round table town hall meeting. President Trump, Karen Bass, and congressman Sherman were there.
In it, Karen Bass obviously lied to the president when she stated that she would expedite the permit process and fast track the rebuilding process.
If Martha Stewart was guilty of lieing to a federal officer for saying "no" then why is KB allowed to get away with her blatant and provable demonstration that she never intended to what she stated.
She was only interested in getting Trump off of her back so she could hide her negligence.

PT was there in his official capacity, so technically lieing to him, especially with intent to deceive, should be actionable.

 

[Zigner]

What is the name of your state? California

Why isn't Mayor Karen Bass guilty of lying to a federal official?

Right after the palisades fire there was a round table town hall meeting. President Trump, Karen Bass, and congressman Sherman were there.
In it, Karen Bass obviously lied to the president when she stated that she would expedite the permit process and fast track the rebuilding process.
If Martha Stewart was guilty of lieing to a federal officer for saying "no" then why is KB allowed to get away with her blatant and provable demonstration that she never intended to what she stated.
She was only interested in getting Trump off of her back so she could hide her negligence.

PT was there in his official capacity, so technically lieing to him, especially with intent to deceive, should be actionable.

I'm sorry, did you have a legal question related to a matter you are currently involved in?

 

[zddoodah]

Why isn't Mayor Karen Bass guilty of lying to a federal official?

Rather obviously, she isn't guilty because (1) she hasn't pleaded guilty and (2) no jury has found her guilty.

Karen Bass obviously lied to the president when she stated that she would expedite the permit process and fast track the rebuilding process.

Please explain clearly how this was an obvious lie? Did you attend the meeting in question? Do you have a transcript? As you described the statement, it appears to have been a statement of intent to do something in the future. Have you ever made a new years resolution that you didn't stick to? Does your failure to stick to the resolution mean that you "obviously lied" when you made the resolution? Isn't it possible that, when the statement was made, she fully intended to follow through with it? As importantly, what ability do you think the mayor of a city has to "fast track the rebuilding process"?

If Martha Stewart was guilty of lieing to a federal officer for saying "no" then why is KB allowed to get away with her blatant and provable demonstration that she never intended to what she stated.

What reason do you have to believe that she'll be "allowed to get away" with the things you allege? If her crimes are as blatant and easy to prove as you claim, then she shouldn't get away with them. By the way, before writing your post, I assume you carefully read 18 U.S.C. sections 371 and 1001. Right?

 

[quincy]

Here are links to 18 USC §371 and §1001 as referred to by zzdoodah, for your reading convenience:

https://law.justia.com/codes/us/title-18/part-i/chapter-19/sec-371/

https://law.justia.com/codes/us/title-18/part-i/chapter-47/sec-1001/

sefnfot, you have participated on this forum since 2005. Certainly you have learned in this time that the questions forum members answer are those that deal with the real life personal legal issues facing the poster. FreeAdvice is not a discussion forum.

 

[cbg]

I was just coming here to remind all of this poster's Hx. But Q said it better.

 

[stealth2]

I was just coming here to remind all of this poster's Hx. But Q said it better.

As was I...

 

[Taxing Matters]

.If Martha Stewart was guilty of lieing to a federal officer for saying "no" then why is KB allowed to get away with her blatant and provable demonstration that she never intended to what she stated.

Martha Stewart's case involved a lot more than a verbal "no" to some federal employee and is in no way comparable to the situation you describe with Karen Bass.

Karen Bass didn't lie to the president about any existing known facts. She simply made a commitment she failed to keep. That's poor performance, not a crime. Furthermore, even if she had lied the statement made to a federal official or on documents submitted to the federal government has to made either with a sworn statement in court or other legal proceeding or signed under penalty of perjury (what the law calls a perjury jurat. Look at the statetment right above where you sign a federal tax return. It says:

"Under penalties of perjury, I declare I have examined this return and accompanying schedules and statements, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, they are true, correct, and complete."

That's an example of a perjury jurat. That statement is there because without it the federal government could not get a perjury conviction for false statements on the return (though those statements might be evidence of another crime, like tax evasion).

PT was there in his official capacity, so technically lieing to him, especially with intent to deceive, should be actionable.

As I said, she didn't lie to Trump in the sense used in federal law. She had to make a false statement of fact that she knew at the time she gave it was false. From the information available all we can really know for sure is that she simply made a commitment she didn't keep. Even if she never intended to follow through with her promises that's not a false statement of fact. That's a false statement of her intent.

Even if it was a crime, how would a prosecutor prove that she intended not to keep those promises at the time the promises were made? The prosecutor can't get inside her head to see what was thinking and, absent some admissible confession from her, what evidence would the prosecutor have to show the jury? It's not enough that a prosecutor thinks a crime was committed. The prosecutor has to present admissible evidence sufficient to prove it to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

Finally, do you really think Trump would want her prosecuted even if were possible to win a conviction? The last thing he needs now is to remind voters of the election mess of 2020. His poll numbers are already bad, and that prosecution won't help him bring them back up. Trump's Attorney General isn't going to prosecute anyone Trump doesn't want prosecuted.

 

[sefnfot]

Here are links to 18 USC §371 and §1001 as referred to by zzdoodah, for your reading convenience:

https://law.justia.com/codes/us/title-18/part-i/chapter-19/sec-371/

https://law.justia.com/codes/us/title-18/part-i/chapter-47/sec-1001/

sefnfot, you have participated on this forum since 2005. Certainly you have learned in this time that the questions forum members answer are those that deal with the real life personal legal issues facing the poster. FreeAdvice is not a discussion forum.

Thank you for pointing that out.
I usually come here to initiate legal questions that I find confusing, to overcome cognitive dissonance on legal issues.
I had a heart attack in 2023 and since then it has become more difficult to express myself assertively.
my question was not meant to trigger a political discussion.
I simply was curious why KB was allowed to deceive the President? Simply answering that there was no oath taken, is inconsistent with the Martha Stewart case.
( I can at least say that my inquisitive nature changed Wilshire BLVD - I had them change the bus lane to only rush hour times.)

 

[sefnfot]

Martha Stewart's case involved a lot more than a verbal "no" to some federal employee and is in no way comparable to the situation you describe with Karen Bass.

As I said, she didn't lie to Trump in the sense used in federal law. She had to make a false statement of fact that she knew at the time she gave it was false. From the information available all we can really know for sure is that she simply made a commitment she didn't keep. Even if she never intended to follow through with her promises that's not a false statement of fact. That's a false statement of her intent.

Thank you for analyzing the points for me and pinpointing the flaws in my comparison.
It is very clear that PT has a personal interest in the LA fires community. The fact that he came in so quickly and bravely conducted the town hall meeting so soon after being wounded.

 

[quincy]

…
I had a heart attack in 2023 and since then it has become more difficult to express myself assertively.
my question was not meant to trigger a political discussion. …

I am sorry to hear that you had a heart attack in 2023, sefnfot.

Thank you for recognizing and accepting that FreeAdvice is not the proper place for political discussions.

 

[Bali Hai Again]

I am sorry to hear that you had a heart attack in 2023, sefnfot.

Thank you for recognizing and accepting that FreeAdvice is not the proper place for political discussions.

Is there something in writing to support your claim? Does this apply to political statements as well? I see this supposed rule violated and overlooked by members of the senior clique frequently. It appears to depend on hooo or where you are for equal application.

 

[quincy]

Is there something in writing to support your claim? Does this apply to political statements as well? I see this supposed rule violated and overlooked by members of the senior clique frequently. It appears to depend on hooo or where you are for equal application.

Yes, there is something in writing. Most senior members received notice. And yes, this is sometimes ignored by a few members.

But it can be important to remember that the purpose of this forum is to assist posters with their real-life legal problems. It is not a place to argue political views. Political discussions have in the past led to conflicts on the forum and made the forum an unpleasant place for visitors to come for legal information and advice. FA wants to avoid that unpleasantness.

You can use the “contact us” feature at the bottom of this and every page to let the forum administrators know of your desire to express your political views and engage in political debates.

 

[Bali Hai Again]

Yes, there is something in writing. Most senior members received notice. And yes, this is sometimes ignored by a few members.

But it can be important to remember that the purpose of this forum is to assist posters with their real-life legal problems. It is not a place to argue political views. Political discussions have in the past led to conflicts on the forum and made the forum an unpleasant place for visitors to come for legal information and advice. FA wants to avoid that unpleasantness.

You can use the “contact us” feature at the bottom of this and every page to let the forum administrators know of your desire to express your political views and engage in political debates.

Thanks, but I’m not interested in asking permission to exercise my first amendment right to free speech on a public forum. If you have a problem with my input addressing erroneous political statements attempted by others, then ban me.

 

[Just Blue]

Thanks, but I’m not interested in asking permission to exercise my first amendment right to free speech on a public forum. If you have a problem with my input addressing erroneous political statements attempted by others, then ban me.

There is no 1st amendment right to post on a privately owned website. You know, or should know, that.

For the Constitutionally challenged:

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/

First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Thanks, but I’m not interested in asking permission to exercise my first amendment right to free speech on a public forum. If you have a problem with my input addressing erroneous political statements attempted by others, then ban me.

It's worth remembering that all the rights you have under the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments) of the Constiution are rights you have against federal government action, and through the 14th Amendment, most of those rights also extend that protection to state and local government actions. The key word in all this is government. With just one exception the rights we have under the federal constitution do not regulate the actions of private businesses and individuals. What speech you may express in someone's private home, place of business, privately owned and operated internet site, a privately owned and operated media product (e.g. newspapers, magazines, etc) may be restricted in any way the owner wishes except that private businesses may not adopt practices that violate federal and state anti-discrimination laws. The basic principal, which was set out as far back as the 1880s, was clearly stated again in a 2019 opinion of the Supreme Court:

The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment constrains governmental actors and protects private actors. To draw the line between governmental and private, this Court applies what is known as the state-action doctrine. Under that doctrine, as relevant here, a private entity may be considered a state actor when it exercises a function “traditionally exclusively reserved to the State.”​

Manhattan Cmty. Access Corp. v. Halleck, 587 U.S. 802, 804, 139 S. Ct. 1921, 1926, 204 L. Ed. 2d 405 (2019).

The owner of the FreeAdvice forums is a private business and therefore may restrict what visitors may post on its forums and where on its forums any allowed speech may be posted.

I have frequently heard people say that the first Amendment gives them the right to say whatever they want wherever they want. However, as the above statement by the Supreme Court clearly shows, the people expressing that view are wrong. That's an unfortunate reflection of how poorly our education system teaches students about their basic legal rights. IMO kids coming out of high school should at least know their basic Constitutional and statutory rights (e.g. their rights under the major civil rights laws) and the limits to those rights.