CrunchyFrog
Member
If this dude was actually listening to any kind of competent attorney those emails never would've gone public and this testimony wouldn't even be happening in the first place.
Donald Trump, Jr. Asked to Testify before Senate Committee
- Thread starter Pai Pai Master
- Start date
If this dude was actually listening to any kind of competent attorney those emails never would've gone public and this testimony wouldn't even be happening in the first place.
Randolph Freelander
Member
Half of it will be.
It's not incompetence, it's willful indifference.
This guy has done so much absurd shit and he is still somehow President. He's been caught several times for unethical behavior and actions, yet he is still President.
Don't really have hope here. They will train the moron son to say things that won't lead to anything.
The FBI can't just walk into the White House today and slap cuffs on Trump. These things take time, and really they are moving very quickly.
Mr.Shrugglesã
Banned
That's what exactly what I'm expecting.
"Did your father ever say anything to you abo......"
"I don't recall him ever talking to me = *( "
Ah but Kushner can claim executive privilege.
America deserves to know if there was any unmasking.
G-Bus
Banned
I'm still amazed at the amount of controversy surrounding Trump and yet nothing solid has happened to him yet.
Listen to CBC radio a lot. Pretty much the only station I have on in my car and it seems like a couple times a week there's another controversy or something to talk about regarding Trump. Always negative.
Not sure why being under oath is such a big deal? It's still pretty easy to lie and play dumb.
Listen to CBC radio a lot. Pretty much the only station I have on in my car and it seems like a couple times a week there's another controversy or something to talk about regarding Trump. Always negative.
Not sure why being under oath is such a big deal? It's still pretty easy to lie and play dumb.
iRAWRasaurus
Banned
Who?
SpaceCadetKeon
Banned
Exactly.
It is a crime to lie under oath.
It would not be a crime for him to say he did not remember or play dumb, but that is not going to play well at all.
Confused101
Member
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Judging by the timestamps on Trump's Twitter account I'd say immediately.
I'd also say it's a pretty safe assumption that the focus of the meeting was offering hacked e-mails.
Even more amazing is that the more it's verified the more conservative media dismisses it.
Systemwarrior
Member
Hopefully something big will come out of this.
But on the other hand, I know nothing will come of this.
But on the other hand, I know nothing will come of this.
Shadow Puppetry
Member
I should call in sick.
BobTheFork
Member
"Could your father make something so great and even HE HIMSELF could not make it greater?!"
CaviarMeths
Member
Can't wait to hear some strong line of questioning from Ds broken up into a few bathroom breaks while Rs ask him how his day was and if he has any info on Hillary's emails.
esp after Holder did it huh
If its what you say I love it especially later in the summer.
WordAssassin
Member
It's a big deal because sure he can lie under oat, but if he gets caught? That's the big deal. That's super illegal. And like, look at how this already played out just naturally:
- Did you have this meeting?
DTJ: No I did not
-Ok but here's proof of the meeting
DTJ: Ok I had the meeting but it wasn't about anything bad
-Ok but here's proof that the meeting was about something bad
DTJ: Oh well I uh *releases all the emails himself*
So imagine that happening but he's under oath. If he had been under oath and said there was no meeting, and then they countered with "well here's proof there was" and he changed his story and they countered AGAIN and he lied AGAIN he'd conceivably leave in handcuffs (or however it works in reality when everyone does their job properly and puts away people who lie under oath)
Fancyarcher
Member
This could be good, but I'm not getting my hopes. I do hope he slips a question or two, and reveals some juicy information, that would be nice.
Yeah, I expect a lot of "I don't recall", like the Sessions trial.
Yeah, I expect a lot of "I don't recall", like the Sessions trial.
WordAssassin
Member
This shit is infuriating ughhhhh
Mr. E. Yis
Banned
Let's say that Trump Jr. commits perjury at this hearing. Trump Sr. then pardons him. Now what? And if Mueller later finds more crimes by Trump Jr., can the lying/perjury still be in the final investigation, or is that cancelled out because of the pardon? Can a president pardon the same person more than once to absolve separate charges?
My understanding is that you can't be pardoned until you are actually charged with something. And typically being pardoned is also an admittance that you have done something illegal.
It would be devastating politically for Trump to pardon his kid, because he will effectively have to admit to either the cover up or the collusion to do so. Further it will actively set up a checks and balances dispute between the President and a Republican Senate. I doubt that the Senste will take that usurpation of their power lying down. Even many Republican Senators will admit that that is improper.
At any rate, it's unlikely that the FBI will bring charges of JUST perjury unless that's truly all there is. By all accounts Mueller is smart, and will set up a series of charges against all involved that effectively makes them admit to a criminal conspiracy with a foreign government in order to be pardoned.
When it comes time for prosecution you should rest assured that all the "I don't recalls" in the world can't save these guys.
I recently got to see some of the inner workings of a DOJ prosecution that a relative of mine is working on and at some point it really is about providing compelling circumstances for guilt rather than actual hard evidence. The evidence exists to prove circumstances - where people were when, where money went, who talked to who, etc.
A good prosecutor will establish circumstances that make it virtually impossible for the judge and jury to believe that you "can't recall"' something. If you emailed someone X amount of times about a meeting and then had a follow up meeting later, there's no one in the world who will believe you can't fucking remember what happened there.
I recently got to see some of the inner workings of a DOJ prosecution that a relative of mine is working on and at some point it really is about providing compelling circumstances for guilt rather than actual hard evidence. The evidence exists to prove circumstances - where people were when, where money went, who talked to who, etc.
A good prosecutor will establish circumstances that make it virtually impossible for the judge and jury to believe that you "can't recall"' something. If you emailed someone X amount of times about a meeting and then had a follow up meeting later, there's no one in the world who will believe you can't fucking remember what happened there.