politics @lemmy.world CantaloupeLifestyle @lemmy.world 1y ago

Legal experts: NY AG “set up” Don Jr. on witness stand — and now he could be criminally prosecuted

www.salon.com Legal experts: NY AG “set up” Don Jr. on witness stand — and now he could be criminally prosecuted

NY AG chose not to charge the case criminally but "that could change based on" Don Jr.'s testimony, analyst says.

50 comments

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.
- The “set up” was to ask incriminating questions to someone too dumb to plead the 5th.
  
  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.
- 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.
  
  "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.
  
  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.
- 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.
- He can’t plead the fifth without risking civil damages and can’t testify truthfully without risking incrimination
- 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
  
  More like when you set up decorations for a party.
- 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.
  
  This is just called being a good litigator.
  
  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.
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.
- Isn't like the first rule, never ask a question you don't already know the answer to?
  
  I assume you already know the answer
  
  If it's not, it should be haha
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.
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.
- 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?!
"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...
- I love it, especially later into election season.
"I wasn't paying attention to the fraud I was legally responsible for"

Bold strategy Cotton, let's watch it blow up on him.
Someone who phrases it like that isn't an expert, they're a shill.
- As much as I want to believe it, they're quoting Norm Eisen and George Conway from cable news appearances. This is just clickbait.
Get em
- Highway to the DonJr zone
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.
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?
“Set up” like racking up the pins on the bowling alley or “set up” like to catch a predator?
So what did DJr actually confess to?
- 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
"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.)
- 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
  
  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?
Trump Jr.: Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit cocaine.
Surprised they didn't try "Hey, hey, GAAP is only 'GENERALLY' accepted... not 'UNIVERSALLY' accepted..."

50 comments