politics
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.
- 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.
- 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
view the rest of the comments
Seems like the opposite to me. Like he was coerced to lie for his old boss due to the circumstances, especially from being dependant from the legal fund. The prosecutor gave him an out and a chance to break fealty from trump. He probably lied because he thought it was the only way out, and his testimony could be valuable after realizing it is not.
You have to realize that this is how criminal organizations work. The members end up being dependant on the leader and they're scared to tell the truth. It is doubly so when you're very own lawyer is being hired by the mob boss. What a messed up system.
Yes... this guy was most likely compelled by trump to lie. Maybe it was his salary, maybe a nice fat check, maybe threats, maybe he has the weird zealot fascination with trump that some people have for whatever reason.
Then, the prosecution decided that since they are successfully prosecuting false statements as felonies, to the degree of that constituting "high crimes and treason" (because all of this is just an extension of an impeachment attempt), they could throw this guy under the same bus as trump, and threaten him with a major felony charge of lying. They used this to compel him to change his testimony, ostensibly to the truth, but it's still under duress...
He's still being compelled, and is either lying under duress of the former compulsion, or lying under duress of the current compulsion.
He's got two choices of compulsion. One is that he doesn't get money, the other is that he sits in a prison cell for possibly decades. Which one would you pick? The current compulsion for me is definitely far worse, so if faced with a choice, I'd likely go with the one that reduces the chance of decades of imprisonment, especially considering that when he gets out of prison, he'll be broke as fuck anyway... I would lie to avoid prison before I'd lie for money. Would you not?
Not to say that's what happening, but there's no way to know. What I can say with certainty is that hes testified to two opposing stories and one has to be a lie. He has, factually, based only on the evidence, falsified a testimony. Which one though? No way to know for sure, which means he's not a valid witness and nothing he has said is believable. For either side. Fuck anything this guy says, throw it out, there's other evidence, other witnesses, fuck this guy and anything he has to say.
This IS how criminal organizations work, so why is the prosecution doing it? Why is the legal system relying on testimony they've extorted from someone? THAT is actually my only real point tbh. I don't approve of a testimony being made unders duress of the threat of a felony false statement charge... that's fucking extortion and I personally don't think the ends justified the means on that. Throw this testimony out...