Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search


(284 posts)
Sat Mar 25, 2017, 01:26 AM Mar 2017

Explain to me in dummy terms the implications of these people agreeing to testify?

How is everyone interpreting the fact that Stone, Manafort, and Page have agreed to testify before the House? It seems a good number of people are giddy about it, but why is their eagerness to talk a good thing?

18 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

radical noodle

(8,047 posts)
1. It can sometimes mean they've made a deal
Sat Mar 25, 2017, 01:29 AM
Mar 2017

to talk and rat on the big fish (Trump in this case). They will be under oath and if they lie they're risking a perjury charge.


(7,156 posts)
3. I don't think Stone cut a deal. I think he is an entrenched idealogue.
Sat Mar 25, 2017, 01:38 AM
Mar 2017

His testimony will be thinly veiled contempt, The Fifth, and "I don't recall"s.


(12,894 posts)
11. Very Interesting
Sat Mar 25, 2017, 03:00 AM
Mar 2017

and why would he be thinking the Russians are trying to kill him if he didn't do anything, as he says. That statement contradicts itself. I think Roger Stone is scared, but still not quite willing to tell the truth. He's known for his dirty tricks. But, each day brings new details with this crooked bunch.


(284 posts)
4. Stone's tweets make me think it's not that, though
Sat Mar 25, 2017, 01:41 AM
Mar 2017

Why would he be blowing up Twitter talking about how innocent everyone is and how Russia had nothing to do with anything if he were planning on singing?


(46,166 posts)
5. My immediate thought about this earlier today was this...
Sat Mar 25, 2017, 01:42 AM
Mar 2017

They all have such inflated egos that they believe they can steamroll members of Congress. And that by taking the initiative they give the appearance of having the upper hand.

These guys have been associating with such worldy high rollers and dangerous, powerful types that our Congress members are like peons to them.

It's galling.


(284 posts)
7. That's a good point.
Sat Mar 25, 2017, 01:45 AM
Mar 2017

I didn't think about how someone willing to participate in such disgusting corruption wouldn't necessarily be intimidated by testifying under oath.


(46,166 posts)
8. I don't think they feel intimidated at all
Sat Mar 25, 2017, 01:58 AM
Mar 2017

I wouldn't be surprised if they answered questions in a way that would try to make the Dems look foolish and inexperienced. These guys are going to throw their mental weight around. Think about it. They've worked for world class leaders and oligarchs. A member of our House of Reps is a small fry to them.

And they'll have the Republicans on the committee helping them during the hearings with softball questions. I hope they don't. But I don't have faith that Republicans are patriotic enough these days to want to expose them for who they are. I can only hope that the Dems will get the job done.


(3,894 posts)
12. Oath, smoath. As if THAT would compel them to tell the truth. Their Leader has already proven
Sat Mar 25, 2017, 03:00 AM
Mar 2017

that the truth is for losers.


(1,078 posts)
9. Better to make it look voluntary than wait for the subpoena
Sat Mar 25, 2017, 02:05 AM
Mar 2017

For them I mean. Maybe they don't have deald...yet, and they're hoping for them. Or maybe they're thinking "If I make it look like I'm voluntarily* testifying maybe they'll take it easier on me come sentencing time."

*it's as "voluntary" as a heart bypass though. It's only a matter of time before they're subpoenaed.

Tactical Peek

(1,228 posts)
13. I suspect a trick.
Sat Mar 25, 2017, 03:21 AM
Mar 2017

Back in ancient Iran/Contra times, Admiral Poindexter and Colonel North got their convictions overturned on appeal based on the notion that their testimony before Congress had poisoned the jurors and witnesses who were influenced by their Congressional testimony, iirc.

So they could be trying to set themselves up for the criminal trials their lawyers know are coming.



(51,311 posts)
14. I think, from my quick reading, that much will depend on whether the witnesses are immunized:
Sat Mar 25, 2017, 03:32 AM
Mar 2017

North appealed his convictions, and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit sided with him. The court ruled that although the Independent Counsel’s staff shielded themselves from testimony, and the grand jurors were instructed appropriately, the presiding judge did not adequately ensure that prosecution witnesses has not used the immunized accounts “to refresh their memories, or otherwise to focus their thoughts, organize their testimony, or alter their prior or contemporaneous statements….”

When Walsh sought additional hearings in the trial court on this matter, (Robert) McFarlane stated that he had been affected by North’s congressional testimony. The convictions were dismissed.


Tactical Peek

(1,228 posts)
15. Funny you mention Colonel McFarlane . . .
Sat Mar 25, 2017, 03:39 AM
Mar 2017

He's back.



(111,788 posts)
16. Either they wanted to be the first to collect immunity
Sat Mar 25, 2017, 03:56 AM
Mar 2017

or if complete immunity wasn't offered, they want to go on record as having poor memories unless their noses are rubbed in actual evidence, in which case, they'll just sit there and plead the Fifth, over and over again.

Manafort especially won't be easy to budge on this, he's been a really bad guy for a really long time. Ditto Stone, who tutored under Lee Atwater. Not sure about Page or Flynn. I do know that some relatively minor player will eventually make a deal and sing like a little birdie at which point the big players will suddenly decide to retire to dachas near the Black Sea.



(21,506 posts)
17. Under the condition it is behind closed doors
Sat Mar 25, 2017, 04:11 AM
Mar 2017

Is it not?

That is the deal. And a big deal at that.

From the Washington post

People familiar with the offer said Manafort has agreed to an informal, closed-door discussion with committee staff. While he would not be administered the oath that accompanies formal testimony, federal law requires that he tell the truth in any communication with Congress.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Explain to me in dummy te...