People, people, people.
To begin with, Trump is a total liar. I am not denying that.
But instead of reading a headline that announced that Trump committed perjury and demanding prosecution, let's look a little closer.
(Although I hate to take away everyone's fun)
1/
To begin with, Trump is a total liar. I am not denying that.
But instead of reading a headline that announced that Trump committed perjury and demanding prosecution, let's look a little closer.
(Although I hate to take away everyone's fun)
1/
https://twitter.com/jennycohn1/status/1487987434608476162
The headline says this⤵️
What happened was this. Mueller wanted to question Trump in person, but Trump refused because he wanted to avoid a "perjury trap" . . .
2/
What happened was this. Mueller wanted to question Trump in person, but Trump refused because he wanted to avoid a "perjury trap" . . .
2/
Instead, Trump submitted written answers through his lawyers. nbcnews.com/politics/donal…
The answer he submitted was basically "I don't recall."
3/
The answer he submitted was basically "I don't recall."
3/
Then, Stone's testimony in 2019 indicated that the things he said he couldn't recall actually did happen.
vox.com/2019/11/12/209…
4/
vox.com/2019/11/12/209…
4/
This is from the Senate Report ⤵️
So what happened is Trump submitted carefully drafted written letters saying that he didn't recall something that actually did happen.
5/
So what happened is Trump submitted carefully drafted written letters saying that he didn't recall something that actually did happen.
5/
The headline everyone is unglued about makes it sound as if the Senate Report concluded that Trump committed perjury. I did a word search through the Senate reports but didn't find the word "perjury" or even "lied."
6/
6/
The writers of the article concluded that Trump committed perjury.
They draw the conclusion from the fact that he said he didn't recall, but in fact, the meeting happened.
7/
They draw the conclusion from the fact that he said he didn't recall, but in fact, the meeting happened.
7/
I have no doubt he was lying.
The leap is from "he was lying" to "he committed perjury and should be prosecuted."
It seems to me that the lie is over whether he recalled.
Right?
8/
https://twitter.com/auricules/status/1488202622188367878
The leap is from "he was lying" to "he committed perjury and should be prosecuted."
It seems to me that the lie is over whether he recalled.
Right?
8/
I also don't doubt that he often committed perjury.
Perjury actually requires an oath. Otherwise, it's "makig false statements."
I assume that he submitted the questions under penalty of perjury, but a quick search didn't turn that up.
9/
Perjury actually requires an oath. Otherwise, it's "makig false statements."
I assume that he submitted the questions under penalty of perjury, but a quick search didn't turn that up.
9/
Did he commit perjury in this particular instance?
Maybe.
Is it a slam dunk in the "roll out the indictment" department?
Seems like it would be a silly trial, right? "Trump claims he has a good memory but he forget here so the jury can conclude he was lying."
10/
Maybe.
Is it a slam dunk in the "roll out the indictment" department?
Seems like it would be a silly trial, right? "Trump claims he has a good memory but he forget here so the jury can conclude he was lying."
10/
I mean, maybe he was lying when he said he had a great memory.
That wouldn't be perjury. Maybe he forgot that he always forgets so he thinks he had a great memory.
(See what happens when a defense lawyer start writing?)
11/
That wouldn't be perjury. Maybe he forgot that he always forgets so he thinks he had a great memory.
(See what happens when a defense lawyer start writing?)
11/
https://twitter.com/dwiebe99/status/1488203139782090754
I want to be clear: Trump is a lying cheating criming scumbag.
What he did when he answered those questions was an offense to rule of law and everything I believe in.
12/
What he did when he answered those questions was an offense to rule of law and everything I believe in.
12/
I am reacting to the barrage of WELL TERI WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY NOW WHY ISN'T HE BEING HAULED OFF TO JAIL FOR THIS.
I'm reacting to the outrage.
Consider this. It takes 10 seconds to read a headling and tweet outrage.
It takes considerably longer to untangle the facts.
13/
I'm reacting to the outrage.
Consider this. It takes 10 seconds to read a headling and tweet outrage.
It takes considerably longer to untangle the facts.
13/
That's why sometimes I dislike my role here on Twitter :)
I'm the killjoy. The spoilsport.
14/
I'm the killjoy. The spoilsport.
14/
I'm sure riling everyone up is more fun, and easier.
Regarding the defense perspective: I recently rewatched Chicago, which offers the most brilliant metaphor for the defense lawyer's job:
And now, ladies and gentlemen, the defense does a tapdance.
15/
Regarding the defense perspective: I recently rewatched Chicago, which offers the most brilliant metaphor for the defense lawyer's job:
And now, ladies and gentlemen, the defense does a tapdance.
https://twitter.com/thalion94598/status/1488205814305148930
15/
There is a difference between being caught redhanded with an illegal substance (assuming it's illegal where he was caught) and prosecuting "I don't recall" as perjury, right?
No more false equivalences. They are always cynical.
No more false equivalences. They are always cynical.
https://twitter.com/JeffPudlo/status/1488206893176733699
But one day I'll tell you about time I got a good result for a client who was caught red-handed AND confessed 🔥
It can be done if there was a 4th A. violation.
Before you get cynical about rich people and their lawyers, she was indigent. I represented her as a federal defender.
It can be done if there was a 4th A. violation.
Before you get cynical about rich people and their lawyers, she was indigent. I represented her as a federal defender.
Precisely why Trump submitted answers through his lawyers. His lawyers knew what he was doing.
https://twitter.com/vwinsloe/status/1488204226773852162
It doesn't take a brilliant defense lawyer to conclude that "I don't recall" would be difficult (if not impossible) to prosecute as perjury.
The writer of the article doesn't seem to know the elements of perjury, which requires a sworn statement. . . .
The writer of the article doesn't seem to know the elements of perjury, which requires a sworn statement. . . .
https://twitter.com/thalion94598/status/1488207399169134592
I wasn't able to determine in a few searches whether the statements were submitted under oath—but that's beside the point.
The point is that the DOJ is smart enough to figure out that prosecuting "I don't recall" as even a false statement would be a terrible idea.
The point is that the DOJ is smart enough to figure out that prosecuting "I don't recall" as even a false statement would be a terrible idea.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
