405
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2023
405 points (98.1% liked)
politics
19072 readers
3801 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
That's a lot of words to be wrong, friend-o.
Saying "Are you sure you don't want to revise your testimony, because we have factual evidence that it's false and that may lead to an indictment for perjury." isn't extortion, it's allowing this guy to not loyalty his way into a felony.
Imagine, the police/prosecution use their discretion and don't throw the book at someone and idiots still take exception to it
If the prosecution believes that perjury should be prosecuted, this mans second testimony should have put him in prison, because he either committed perjury previously, or is committing it now.
That's where I step off the bus and say "hey, this is fucked". That's the line for me. You can't base an indictment off testimony that someone made under the auspices of that.
I wildly disagree with it at the bottom too... the "let the little fish testify" isn't better, and I don't support that shit either. This is a little worse though... this fish is either lying or has lied, under oath. He's factually proven that he's committed perjury... If the prosecution is threatening him with perjury, they basically own him, because he's factually demonstrably committed perjury based simply on the existence of two opposing testimonies...
So "say this, or go to prison". That's fucking extortion.
But if they DON'T say anything he WILL go to prison for perjury anyway as they can already prove he's lying, the only thing this does is give him a chance to avoid prison. That's like literally the opposite of extortion, because the threat isn't too hurt him, the "threat", if anything, is to do nothing and let him go to jail. "If you tell the truth we will help you" isn't extortion.
It's not "if you tell the truth"... It's "if you say what we say is the truth"...
If there's proof that what he's going to testify to now is the truth, what the fuck do they need his testimony for? They have proof of this ostensible "truth" you're claiming they want him to say, so why is it necessary to have a known liar testify?
This is bullshit. I'm not fucking buying this. You can't testify to something directly in opposition to a prior testimony and have any value whatsoever, period.
Sure you can. Especially if he can bring receipts related to why he was lying. Threats, promises of compensation, etc. Is it ideal that he lied under oath? Of course not. And it opens a giant door for the defense to challenge all of his testimony but it's not irrecoverable.
Much as you seem to wish it was.
"And it opens a giant door for the defense to challenge all of his testimony but it's not irrecoverable."
I just simply don't agree on the irrecoverable part :) or more accurately, I don't believe it's worth the effort to "recover" evidence from a shitbag. Dudes a testimony for sale, nothing he has to say has any value as truth.
"Much as you seem to wish it was."
I don't wish that (I don't really care much outside of wishing the word trump would gain some fucking obscurity... it's like a really bad penny), I just don't like that this entire process is pretty clearly a matter of politics rather than justice. It's a political headhunt, and it's very reminiscent of pre-collapse Soviet government. We're trying to fill the gulags up in this motherfucker. I'm not really speaking in support of the defense, Im speaking against the witch hunt.
You have really jumped the shark, friend. This is anything but a politically-motivated protection. And your allusion to Soviet Russia is comical, in a world where Putin blew up a rival last month.
Trump brought us as close to the collapse of American democracy as we have been since the Civil War, and arguably closer. It's hard to deny there were two plots to replace Mike Pence before the election was certified: a subgroup of the protesters wanted to hang him, and part of the Secret Service detail was ready to escort/detain him away from the capital. They didn't even try to hide it - Grassley said he planned on presiding over the Senate. They walked it back, but it happened.
If this were truly a political witch-hunt, Trump would be either incarcerated for life already, or dead and buried.
Why all the fucking lawyers (indictment of them)? Why a massive laundry list of false statements, false testimony, et al? Why not charges of sedition, insurrection, electoral fraud... the shit you're talking about.
Nobody is being charged with what you're describing. If that's what they're trying to prosecute trump for, then fucking charge him with it. The Twitter bullshit was sedition. The pence shenanigans was electoral fraud (maybe not pence personally, but the conversation was absolutely fraud on Trump's part).
I'm not quite willing to go as far as calling that stupid a coup or any shit like that, I don't think it qualifies, it lacks the organization, planning, and intelligence... but we have words that describe it perfectly accurately... Like sedition. If trump called for the jan 6 crap, that's sedition. If he tried to affect the conduct of an election within the electoral college, that's electoral fraud. These are felonies man. Big time shit.
What that mugshot for again? Mishandling documents? False testimony? That sounds exactly like what you're describing... Not...
The charges reflect a fishing expedition. We don't like this guy, lets dig some shit up... trump up some charges to use an old phrase that's hilariously apropos. Let's go for all his lawyers, all his buddies, anyone allied too close, and that is the comparison to old school Russia, political officers fishing for shit to gulag someone over...
The genesis of my concern however, isn't actually trump or his cronies, I don't give a fuck if he gets prosecuted at all (id love it if he'd acquire some fucking obscurity though, the fact that he's still so relevant is garbage). The genesis of my concern is the normalization and acceptance of all this. They're going to go after Biden on a fishing trip, because we the people aren't calling out the current fishing trip. Ya know? Aside from the normalization of it, I kinda don't care. My pony was definitely not in defense of trump, and frankly, I know full well that i cause shit assumptions with stuff like this, and don't fucking care about that either. Just trying to be a moderate voice of reason in a very tribal political environment (which is to say that I don't really disagree with you)
Because lawyers have a sworn obligation to enter evidence and testimony they understand to be truthful and argue in pleadings in a manner that they understand to be legally sound and in compliance with the rules of the court in the state of the filing. Trump used a number of lawyers - dating at least back to Cohen - who were willing and comfortable breaking both of those ethical obligations.
Put simply, lawyers do not have a free speech right to say anything they wish in court.
They've got to be able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, and realistically he's getting more deference on that front than any other American in history. The number of people who believe nothing he does is wrong, is astounding. I fully expect the Georgia indictment to add charges through discovery and witness cooperation deals. The RICO indictment gives them a lot of wiggle room to tie Trump to the crimes of others.
Hard disagree. The charges reflect the stark reality that the normal institutions that should have handled this situation are broken. In any normal reality, Trump should have been successfully impeached during one of his two impeachments or impeached a third time for January 6th. Mitch McConnell's argument that a trial was moot, was not founded in the law. As impeachment includes barring the convict from future Federal office they could have and should have tried him in the Senate.
I have zero doubt that the currently sitting Republicans will weaponize government against anyone who didn't bend the knee including Biden. They're not even waiting, if you're following along they're trying their best to remove or pressure Fani Willis in the middle of a perfectly valid criminal trial. That is the weaponization of government.