General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHow Devin Nunes & Trey Gowdy accidently encouraged Trump's defenders into lying under oath:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/11/michael-cohen-lying-to-congress-plea-deal-devin-nunes.htmlThese potentially dishonest witnesses could be excused for having previously believed they could lie to Congress with a certain amount of impunity.
...
Until very recently, lying before the House Intelligence Committee during its Russia investigation has seemed, even by generally lax congressional standards, likely to be nonconsequential. Far from considering the referral of even the most mendacious of witnesses for potential prosecution, the committees Republican majority has refused even to give Mueller transcripts of its interviews. The GOP majority thereby all but ensured that prosecutions for false statements simply could not be brought, at least in the absence of voluntary admissions like Cohens.
...
This is because, as the House Intelligence Committee majoritys publicly released report indicates, the GOP appears to have all but openly encouraged its witnesses to deny any and all potential wrongdoing, regardless of the plausibility of their denials. Thus, the GOP members and their staffs appear to have been singularly uninterested in testing the veracity of witnesses testimony or even inquiring into elemental questions,
...
As a result, some witnesses affiliated with Trump and his campaign may have been lulled into thinking they could lie with particular impunity. It is therefore possible, if not likely, that a fairly substantial number of witnesses, including possibly the presidents eldest son, will soon find themselves facing the unusual prospect of being criminally charged for lying before a House panel that all but welcomed their dishonesty.
Even if there barely was any collusion, the Trump-campaign has meanwhile added obstruction of justice, witness-tampering and lying under oath to their rap-sheet.
Wouldn't that be ironic?
Going to jail for the cover-up of a nothingburger?
(Not to mention the emolument-taking and sanction-breaking and money-laundering we are discovering along the way. )
Thomas Hurt
(13,903 posts)Vinca
(50,271 posts)He was also involved in the "trip to the White House" failed scheme to cover it all up.
ProfessorPlum
(11,257 posts)how the GOP abused its power, encouraged these morons to lie to Congress under oath but with no immunity, and it is all on the record. Oh, taste the schadenfreude
erronis
(15,257 posts)Their own Ethics Department (hasn't been staffed in 20+ years)?
The lame duck congress?
The new Democratic House and the same villainous repuglicons in the Senate?
The loaded SCOTUS?
Maybe the United Nations. Or a consortium of "concerned" allies (we do still have some, right?)
The voters. As long as the kgop doesn't totally foul the well that we all need to drink from - democracy.
Hermit-The-Prog
(33,345 posts)It takes an informed electorate to punish the bad guys by electing good ones. Too much of tv "news" has fallen into the Fox model -- controversy and extremism for eyeballs. We need to starve the shows that pretend to be news or news analysis and reward the media outlets that do real journalism.
SWBTATTReg
(22,124 posts)in the you know what! Serves them right.
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)And you'd know that what passes for "clever" in their minds wouldn't merit even a gentleman's C. These nitwits thought they'd never be out of power.
erronis
(15,257 posts)A lot less cranial capacity and eyes that get right next to each other.
GeorgeGist
(25,321 posts)and it's not a nothingburger.
duforsure
(11,885 posts)To obstruct justice would anyone think it was unintentional?
Nitram
(22,800 posts)Lulled into a false sense of complacency, Republicans on the Committee asked questions which lured their witnesses into perjuring themselves. If it had been Democrats qustioning them, they would have said they "didn't remember."
erronis
(15,257 posts)BobTheSubgenius
(11,563 posts)"Ignorance of the law is no excuse."
How many times have you heard that in your life? What a perfect time to let the hypothetical rubber hit the actual road.
erronis
(15,257 posts)Crimes of an intentional nature vs. mental incompetence.
Crimes that involve robbing people of their votes/money/worth vs. mistakingly misfiling a voters registration for someone else, or in the trash.
There used to be some idiom about how punishment was more to act as a deterrent against future unwanted acts, than as retribution. I agree. If we send a few repuglicon activists to some max-security prison in AR/AL/MI that might be a very good deterrent.
bronxiteforever
(9,287 posts)Enoki33
(1,587 posts)allegiance thought their power would protect them forever. Rude awakening ahead of them.
watoos
(7,142 posts)I feel the narrative that has started going around that the cover up is worse than the crime is, as Trump would say, 100% false. This narrative is a right wing talking point IMO.
I feel that the Trump crime family and his administration have committed, in the least, the dictionary definition of treason. What Trump and his crime family have done is worse than what Benedict Arnold did.
Impeachment would be letting Trump off too easy.
BigmanPigman
(51,591 posts)He said that the GOP wouldn't question anyone and encouraged them to not answer the Dems questions and follow up questions in his committee. I am sure this occurred in all of the committees to some degree.
MagickMuffin
(15,942 posts)They KNEW what they were doing.
GopherGal
(2,008 posts)They wanted them to say what they wanted to hear. Whether it was true or not was the witnesses' problem, as are any consequences.
These potentially dishonest witnesses could be excused for having previously believed they could lie to Congress with a certain amount of impunity.
I have a lot a trouble with the figure of speech "could be excused" used here. It takes a good deal of individual idiocy to assume that just because no one is going to call you on your lies that day, that it would be okay to do so. I think the figure of speech "criminally stupid" is more apt for any witness who thought the partisan political majority on the committee would protect them from consequences.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)The thought the tax cut would insure them the majority into 2020.
When in fact, after trump, it was a major cause of their defeat.