this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2023
293 points (93.7% liked)

politics

19185 readers
5066 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Brunbrun6766 239 points 1 year ago (6 children)

That's not how that works lol. You are called to testify, you are legally required to do it or face jail. You answer questions truthfully. It's not a set up, it's what happens to ANYONE who committed, helped commit, witnessed, or otherwise, a crime.

[–] [email protected] 176 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The “set up” was to ask incriminating questions to someone too dumb to plead the 5th.

[–] [email protected] 61 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

My understanding is they can't plead the 5th. Well they can but the judge can assume the worst if they do use it.

Apparently because it's civil not criminal it works different.

[–] [email protected] 64 points 1 year ago (3 children)

He might have still been better off pleading the 5th and losing the civil trial than he will be testifying, probably losing the civil trial anyway, and also opening himself to potential criminal liability.

[–] Windex007 38 points 1 year ago

Better to be thought a criminal than to open your mouth and remove all doubt

[–] [email protected] 31 points 1 year ago (1 children)

True, but lucky for us, he's a dumbshit.

[–] TheBat 5 points 1 year ago

"I'm Eric."

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 year ago

They lost the civil trial already by willful disregard of the courts requests and blatant misdirection. This whole show is just to determine how much they owe. While it might be pedantic, it is fairly critical to getting the story right as to what is happening.

It’s why the questioning is going the way it is going. They could go deeper on certain questions, but the facts are already mostly clear. It doesn’t stop them from focusing on who of this gang might have lied.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, guilt can be inferred when pleading the 5th in a civil trial because you are effectively refusing to refute anything said against you.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Same thing happened with Mueller and all the claims of a "perjury trap." It isn't a trap when the prosecutor asks someone under oath if they committed a crime related to the current trial. It's literally upholding the law.

If the only options a defendant has, are to say they committed a crime under oath, or lie, then they did commit a crime.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

"Perjury trap" was definitely one of the more ridiculous things they came up with. It's easy to not be caught in such a thing by not lying.

[–] meco03211 3 points 1 year ago

They still have the option to remain silent. Though this can lead to an adverse inference being drawn. Another option is like what Bill Cosby did and try to work with the prosecutor to secure some measure of immunity from criminal proceedings that could stem from your testimony in a civil trial. Personally I don't think Cosby should have been granted any of that and just forced to face the fucking music, but rapists gonna rape I guess.

[–] ericisshort 18 points 1 year ago

I think they put it in quotes because it isn’t truly a setup, but I agree that it’s still a horrible choice of words.

[–] Son_of_dad 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think they mean set up like when you set up a golf ball for a tee or when you set up a nice free kick

[–] RizzRustbolt 1 points 1 year ago

More like when you set up decorations for a party.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

He can’t plead the fifth without risking civil damages and can’t testify truthfully without risking incrimination

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I don't know anything about the legal details - besides what I've read on the internet, aka RESEARCH - but I unfortunately watched the clip of Junior getting interviewed about his knowledge of GAAP and, in my opinion, the prosecutor laughed and played along with his "jokes" and he of course loved the positive attention and let his guard down. To some degree that seemed like a pretty good "set-up", but just like everything else, in a totally legal and normal to court proceedings way.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago

This is just called being a good litigator.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

It's pretty easy for experienced interrogators to play someone who is overconfident and fairly dumb. It's interesting how Truump Sr. acts in these situations, though... he drops the BS and is very careful. Probably why he was worried about his sons testifying.

[–] inclementimmigrant 83 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

A AG asking questions they know the answer to isn't setting someone up, it's called doing their fucking job correctly.

It's just a bonus of they know the guy on the stand is a prolific liar who can't lie and is the poster child of the dunning-kruger effect.

[–] NegativeInf 38 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Isn't like the first rule, never ask a question you don't already know the answer to?

[–] DontRedditMyLemmy 35 points 1 year ago

I assume you already know the answer

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

If it's not, it should be haha

[–] [email protected] 66 points 1 year ago

If you suspect a witness of being an accessory to a crime, then of course a competent prosecutor would "set up" that witness to jeopardize themselves. Admitting to a crime isn't a defense against prosecution.

[–] [email protected] 49 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You tricked me into confessing a crime by asking about the crime and having me answer truthfully.

Later that night Daddy yells and asks why he didn’t lie on the stand.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago

You tricked me into confessing a crime by asking about the crime and having me answer truthfully.

The infamous perjury trap has sprung! Will it catch any more victims?!

[–] [email protected] 44 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"Donald Trump Jr. would have had the option of taking the Fifth Amendment," he said. "This is a civil case, but he still could say, I refuse to testify because my testimony could be used against me. He's decided not to do that, and so now as a result, everything that he's testifying to is fair game for prosecutors to consider. Prosecutors have looked at this case. They have chosen not to charge it as a criminal case thus far, but that could change based on Donald Trump Jr.'s testimony, so there's an inherent risk in taking the stand here."

Don't tease me so...

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

I love it, especially later into election season.

[–] [email protected] 42 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

"I wasn't paying attention to the fraud I was legally responsible for"

Bold strategy Cotton, let's watch it blow up on him.

[–] morphballganon 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Someone who phrases it like that isn't an expert, they're a shill.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

As much as I want to believe it, they're quoting Norm Eisen and George Conway from cable news appearances. This is just clickbait.

[–] Bonesince1997 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] LEDZeppelin 16 points 1 year ago

Highway to the DonJr zone

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

That's generally how it works. Like when police ask much more minor criminals (or innocent people) leading questions to get them to say incriminating things.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

remember how he committed a crime years ago when he was named in the mueller report but wasn't convicted because he was "too dumb to know he committed a crime" aka he was rich, male, and white?

[–] fox2263 6 points 1 year ago

“Set up” like racking up the pins on the bowling alley or “set up” like to catch a predator?

[–] youngGoku 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So what did DJr actually confess to?

[–] Khanzarate 20 points 1 year ago

According to the article, the stuff he said he let the accountants handle is stuff a competent criminal would've pleaded the fifth to, because he was still VP, and still responsible for what he signed as VP, and now since he's under oath, that testimony is evidence in a criminal case against him.

In other words, he admitted to being responsible and just not looking at anything

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"The judge can take findings and say, 'I don't believe that he didn't remember that. I don't believe that he was relying on the accountants. The story doesn't make any sense.'"

Is it really that implausible that Donald Jr. didn't actually know or care what was going on? He's not exactly know for his diligence. With that said, negligence might still be enough to get him into legal trouble. (I don't know the relevant law well.)

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The article indicates he was in charge for sometime will his father was president. In addition, he signed paperwork that implied he was responsible for ensuring the information provided was accurate

[–] doingthestuff -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That still doesn't mean he wasn't set up, but more likely by family lawyers than by the AG. Or maybe he's genuinely exceptionally guilty, what do I know?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

He admitted on the stand today that his previous sworn testimony was a lie.

There is no setup.

[–] jordanlund 4 points 1 year ago

Surprised they didn't try "Hey, hey, GAAP is only 'GENERALLY' accepted... not 'UNIVERSALLY' accepted..."

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Trump Jr.: Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit cocaine.