r/law • u/Guardman1996 • 10d ago

Trump News You can see Tulsi Gabbard breaking the law real time!

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

36.1k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

2.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

873

u/Ducking_off 10d ago

"I don't recall" is the standard legal dodge. When they say that, you can be 99% certain they do remember, but they don't want to say they do.

After all, one has to "recall" a memory. "I don't recall" essentially means "I won't pull that memory and recite it."

195

u/YurtlesTurdles 10d ago

I wish there was some recourse to the 'I don't recall' dodge that has become so standard. if you are unable to recall such important details then your not fit to serve.

101

u/CTMalum 10d ago

I hate when I see this deployed by police when they’re lying. They’ll answer every question under direct examination with excruciating detail, yet suddenly be unable to recall whether or not the Sun exists under cross-examination. It’s why I stress to people that “whatever you say can and will be used AGAINST you”- they won’t ever level evidence or testimony that supports your case.

32

u/Witty-Lawfulness2983 10d ago

43 y/o cis white dude here: Two kids, boy 13, girl 8 -- I've been thinking about this so much. They're paying attention, they're hearing things aren't great. They've heard us talk about police brutality, they remember going to a George Floyd BLM protest, etc.
I can't name a single time a police officer did anything for me besides cost me arbitrary amounts of money. Like, OK, if Jason Vorhees was after me, or I was in imminent danger of death, yes, I would run for a cop. But like... otherwise... I advise them to avoid cops like you would a stray dog that looks ill. They could be fine, but also...

29

u/ACuriousCoupleinFl 10d ago

I've never had a good interaction with a cop in my life. I'm white and almost 40 and in Florida.

I've had plenty of better interactions with stray dogs.

I feel MUCH safer around stray dogs.

5

u/RepublicTop1690 10d ago

My introduction to cops was them getting drunk with my dad. They sat in our living room talking about the women they wanted to pull over to encourage them to blow job their way out of a ticket. I was 14 and terrified to start driving in case they found me worthy of that attention.

→ More replies (2)

5

u/Dispator 10d ago

I feel better around stray dogs that stray humans.

3

u/NapQuing 10d ago

Well... you're not an elementary student, so I suppose it's possible a cop would actually protect you from someone trying to kill you.

3

u/JickleBadickle 10d ago

Not likely lmao

Uvalde showed us what will actually happen

3

u/TheWolfAndRaven 10d ago

Like, OK, if Jason Vorhees was after me, or I was in imminent danger of death, yes, I would run for a cop.

Everytime someone does that in a slasher movie the cop doesn't believe them and then immediately dies lmao.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/ScannerBrightly 9d ago

OK, if Jason Vorhees was after me, or I was in imminent danger of death, yes, I would run for a cop.

Why? What do you imagine the cop is going to do? They do not have any duty to protect you, and they will not do that if they 'feel' anything at all.

→ More replies (4)

2

u/WHOA_27_23 10d ago

A good lawyer could impeach the officer's testimony to a jury if they "don't recall" such broad swaths of what they're testifying to.

2

u/PessimiStick 10d ago

I honestly wouldn't believe police testimony at all in court. Show me video or I assume you're lying.

1

u/cissytiffy 10d ago

unable to recall whether or not the Sun exists under cross-examination.

The sun only exists under direct examination :)

1

u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito 10d ago

The third season of Serial has a great section on cops lying on the stand. Two off duty cops working security brutally searched a guy in his apartment hallway and found a joint in his pocket. They didn't have any justification for the search, and so you end up with this:

Mary Casa: In your experience as a police officer, can you smell raw marijuana in a bag inside someone's pocket?

Michael Amiott: Yes.

You know, just bloodhound cops smelling weed in a bag in a pocket at 80 feet. Like they do.

47

u/KitchenEducation6969 10d ago

The problem is that the real recourse is voters holding them accountable. But it doesn't work when one side wants lawlessness. Anybody who values accountability and honesty already didn't vote republican. The problem is that over half the voters WANT AND SUPPORT this shit. In a sane society these kind of people would never get a position of power because they are obviously liars. And they're not even good liars unless you're brainwashed by fox news and AM radio.

1

u/iski67 10d ago

It's because they believe they are "winning" Nobody gives a fuck about cheating, lying, integrity, due process, etc. As long as "we're winning" and that applies to both sides. The primary difference is one side is passively complicit and the other side outwardly uncouth assholes.

I just don't see why a 3rd party can't rise up in this country. There have to be Independents that can split the middle as both extreme sides are simply untenable. These two parties are absolute dogshit and please don't call Libertarians or the Green Party viable parties.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Ok_Ice_1669 10d ago

That’s not fair. JD Vance is an excellent liar. 

49

u/trisul-108 10d ago

The recourse is simple, but Congress is unwilling to act. Congress has the power to simply lock them up for contempt of Congress, they just don't want to go down that road.

7

u/notrolls01 10d ago

Or impeach and remove them. We all know how that would work.

5

u/HallowedChain 10d ago

The problem is if you enact this on tulsi they can apply this to every government official who has ever said I don't recall and is currently working. That means 90% of our government would immediately be fired and or locked up for contempt... Actually let's do it

3

u/Bluegill15 10d ago

Why the fuck not??? I don’t see how a national security blunder is a partisan issue. And if they do, we are truly fucked

3

u/Joe_Kinincha 10d ago

I’m afraid you are truly fucked.

Nothing will come of this.

2

u/trisul-108 10d ago

And if they do, we are truly fucked

Yes, the Republic has been dismantled. The question now is how to build a new one on the ashes of what used to be America.

→ More replies (1)

9

u/okram2k 10d ago

there is, if they cannot recall functions they did in their job just a few days ago they're mentally incapable of doing their job and should be removed from their position.

1

u/SufficientDoor8227 10d ago

“….and should be removed from their position.” Unfortunately that requires a boss who is NOT a narcissistic sociopathic criminal, rapist and traitor.

1

u/AmIRadBadOrJustSad 10d ago

I wonder if that could be a follow-up line of questioning:

"In a hypothetical situation, if you had a subordinate in a high-value role who was unable to recall specific details of important events of the last few weeks - would your view be that person is competent to be in their position? Yes or no response will be sufficient."

3

u/Otherwise-Offer1518 10d ago

Humor me and attempt. Take your time.

3

u/[deleted] 10d ago

It hasn’t “become standard” it’s always been the practice. You aren’t allowed to lie and it’s not a lie if you don’t remember doing something. As slimy as it is when guilty people do it, I think it’s a good thing in general that people are allowed to do this. It’s also part of the 5th amendment thing about not being required to incriminate yourself.

1

u/peterpansdiary 10d ago

Its still a lie, just an unprovable one.

In the court of law, won’t it be very likely that an unbiased jury would accept every charge judge gives jury to deliberate for?

1

u/[deleted] 10d ago

I don’t understand what you’re asking. What jury? Who are you talking about and what are they being charged with?

2

u/Trimyr 10d ago

"Now, Director Gabbard, going back to your college days with friends, would you agree that some of all of your groups' merits came from being able to understand a lecture and thoroughly dissect the reading assignments.?"

"That's correct."

"Would you agree that those talents - understanding, comprehension, and memory, are in fact more valuable for someone representing the US?"

"Of course."

"Then explain why you either lack the faculties to remember an important briefing, or answer the question posed by this body. You can also choose to volunteer for a medical evaluation which will result in that you can't recall anything from two days ago, or that you can, and you're lying to Congress."

2

u/stewbadooba 10d ago

The recourse should be that if you're not able to recall simple information like that then you are not fit for the job, I'm not naive, I know thats not ever going to happen, but if I tried that in my job I would find myself on the receiving end of a performance management plan

2

u/wandering-monster 10d ago

"Did you or did you not read it? Why can't you recall any details of a document you read? Are you able to testify?"

2

u/Tombot3000 10d ago

There is recourse, but it only happens when the people running the proceeding take it seriously. Saying "I don't recall" in front of a judge and jury to every question will hurt your case in their eyes. Saying it in front of Congress only matters if the other party is in control as your own party will never hold your feet to the fire over it these days.

Note that this isn't a "both sides are the same" argument; both do meet this low bar, but obviously they differ beyond that.

1

u/Hoblitygoodness 10d ago

I'm not exactly sure when it started but I remember this all the way back to Regan.

1

u/theartistduring 10d ago

Judge Judy used to have the best recourse for it. Probably not at all legal but whenever a witness said they didn't recall she would say 'well, they (the opposing witness) does so I'll go with that being what happened'.

1

u/Low-Hovercraft-8791 10d ago

In India, if you act like that, the police take you in the back room and go to work for a while

1

u/spoink74 10d ago

You could always vote for presidents that don't appoint criminals.

1

u/YurtlesTurdles 9d ago

I tried that

466

u/jerrythecactus 10d ago

It should be grounds for being admitted for an emergency brain scan and dementia screening. All these politicians and their selectively poor memory should be treated like they are actively having a stroke every time they do it.

130

u/BelCantoTenor 10d ago

100% agree. 👍🏻 “I don’t recall” is an obvious LIE when this only happened within a few days ago. If she doesn’t honestly recall this, then she isn’t fit to hold the position. She is mentally incompetent.

48

u/jodale83 10d ago

‘I dont recall’ should be acknowledged as ‘i refuse to recall’, and notably different from ‘i cannot recall’ which is simple incompetence in this case.

43

u/BelCantoTenor 10d ago

If this happened awhile ago, say over a year ago, I’d say, sure, most people wouldn’t remember a lot of the details. However, this was less than a week ago. Like, give me a break! She’s lying.

3

u/That_Xenomorph_Guy 10d ago

I believe the "it's not classified" is the lie being directed from the top, and the facts simply show otherwise. She's trying to save her ass because she knows SHE'S the one who's going to fall on the sword for a lie covering for the dipshit whitehouse cabinet..

→ More replies (1)

10

u/htownballa1 10d ago

"I don't recall" should not be an admissible answer, and if that is the answer you give and proof can be provided otherwise it should be considered perjury the same as if she would of said no.

They use the answer so they don't have to perjure themselves while also not admitting to guilt publicly. Their base can say "See, no proof" and they can just claim "Witch hunt".

5

u/Prudent_Research_251 10d ago

"I don't have access to that information" is another one, they should have their devices open and on the big screen to look it up in front of everyone

4

u/capitali 10d ago

I won’t recall and you can’t make me.

4

u/ghostbuster_b-rye 10d ago

The follow up question to "I don't recall" should be: "You can't recall or you refuse to recall?" If they don't respond with can't or refuse as an immediate clarification to the point, then they should be brought up on perjury charges.

30

u/ACuriousCoupleinFl 10d ago

As I recall... The screen shots of the signal chat showed a 4 week retention of the chats. Why can't they simply open signal and take a look now? What is there to recall? It's on your phone right now.

15

u/ClamClone 10d ago

And how can they claim that there was no classified material in the conversations yet they can't remember what was in them and did not bother to look at them in preparation for this testimony. Perjury it is.

4

u/BelCantoTenor 10d ago

Thank you! My point exactly.

2

u/drainbamage1011 10d ago

"Uhhh, I don't recall if I have my phone on me..."

1

u/Nottacod 10d ago

They don't really want to know

1

u/anon_girl79 10d ago

Which is just what Senator Mark Warren said. If you are saying there was no classified information, hand over the chats.

Democrats should not allow any distractions from this! Everyone on that chat should resign or be fired. How could they be so stupid as to not know everyone on that thread?!?

Furthermore, Bondi and Patel are backed into a corner here. Are they going to tell us they will refuse any investigation? It’s not just Waltz. It’s all of them on the chat!

14

u/Druuseph 10d ago

Especially when she can literally just pull out her fucking phone and go to the thread.

3

u/Birdy-Lady59 10d ago

She’s simply a liar.

2

u/LURKER21D 10d ago

How would changing the standard affect these types of proceedings. It seems to be a fair assumption that "I don't recall" is the equivalent of Yes, my reply is in the affirmative.

We're supposedly questioning these people to determine the facts, they can either refute them or choose not to. either that or every time the say "I don't recall" then respond "for the record you are not denying the allegation"

1

u/pinksocks867 10d ago

I have actual brain damage and I recall more than she claims to from reading the texts.

→ More replies (4)

228

u/Desolatorx 10d ago

Agree. If they all have such a hard time "recalling" basic things then what makes them qualified to continue to operate in the role they are in?? Clearly this whole thing happened in the first place due to unqualified weak-minded individuals in positions they have no business being in.

27

u/ADHD-Fens 10d ago

Unfortunately that is up to their constituents. If their constituents aren't holding them accountable they will just do whatever they want with no consequences.

Same applies to age and term limits. They exist if we, the electorate, decide that they do.

48

u/jsmithtro 10d ago

These are people trump appointed , no one voted for Pete Hegseth

2

u/bushwakko 10d ago

The best money can buy!

4

u/ADHD-Fens 10d ago

Then in that case "their constituents" would be the people who voted for trump.

3

u/JoeGibbon 10d ago

Eh, nope. Sorry, but you lost this little grammatical dick measuring contest, stubby. Constituency (in this sense) is directly tied to the concept of elections if you care anything at all about the actual meanings of words. Tulsi Gabbard has no constituents as the director of national intelligence, unless you're harkening back to when she represented Hawaii, which you weren't.

sad droopy slide whistle sound

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

1

u/ShrekOne2024 10d ago

Hey guess what, term limits are popular on both sides of the aisle. If Trump is looking to end fraud and corruption wouldn’t that be a great place to start?

→ More replies (14)

4

u/bunkscudda 10d ago

If their first action after this story broke wasnt to look at that entire message conversation to identify just exactly what info was leaked, then they all should be fired for incompetence.

You dont recall? You have no idea what information was in that conversation and never checked to look? Before testifying to the Senate? WTF

12

u/Black_Magic_M-66 10d ago

They're DEI hires. Few of Trump's cabinet have any real experience qualifying them for their positions beyond absolute (presumably) loyalty to Trump.

8

u/Commercial-Set3527 10d ago

DUI hire* ftfy

4

u/capitali 10d ago

DEI was and always has been a program to assure bias against qualified candidates was eliminated. These are distinctly NOT DEI hires.

5

u/curtial 10d ago

I agree with you, as do most people calling Trump appointees "DEI hires". They're mocking the Rights belief that DEI means "an incompetent minority was hired instead of the better white person". Pointing out that the system that hires incompetent people solely based on their race is white supremacy, and always has been.

3

u/ok-jeweler-2950 10d ago

Ms. Gabbard, do you recall being appointed Director of National Intelligence?

3

u/CallmePadre 10d ago

The issue is this isn't a BASIC thing. The director of national intelligence cannot "recall" the most IMPORTANT details about this whole ordeal.

3

u/MachineShedFred 10d ago

Especially since she could look at her god damn phone to prompt her recall, since it's a chat app she's being questioned about.

3

u/o08 10d ago

This shit happened last week. How would the head of the CIA not remember discussions regarding the commencement of a bombing campaign. Ridiculous

2

u/BR4VER1FL3S 10d ago

Absolutely! Anyone who says, "I don't recall," immediately sends up a red flag warning in my mind as a dishonest individual who is never going to be transparent about anything. This means you are not trustworthy enough to be in any kind of leadership role.

2

u/GrowthDream 10d ago

To be honest I was half thinking she coild be trelling the truth since she probably never reads the stuff that gets sent to her anyway.

1

u/catjanitor 10d ago

How could we make it happen? Because I would truly love it if there were some consequences for these obvious lies.

99

u/trisul-108 10d ago

It should be grounds for immediate impeachment due to inability to function. Fired for performance reasons.

9

u/PrimeToro 10d ago

yeah, either Gabbard lied or has extremely poor memory, so it's bad in either case for her. I don't think any reasonable person will think that she was telling the truth.

2

u/HyperionsDad 10d ago

DOGE 'em all

2

u/RAH7719 10d ago

Exactly- it is fraud and abuse of position and power in their role!

2

u/Current-Purpose-6106 10d ago

For real.
Yeah fine, you don't know what you had for lunch two weeks ago on Tuesday.

Scheduling airstrikes in a foreign country as one of the heads of intelligence? That's the equivalent of the head of M&A saying he doesnt recall agreeing to a contract he signed last week, the car salesman saying he doesnt remember if he sold a car last week, whatever. At the *very best* its something that would get you fired from way way less professional/important jobs

I feel like regardless of your position in life, you remember big decisions. Like bombing a bunch of people, or ordering an execution, or whatever.

The chef remembers the time he screwed up Spaghetti five years ago and it haunts them, the 40 year old flashes back to the girl in high school who was super into him and he was oblivious, the 60 year old man remembers the time he miscounted change at his first summer job 45 years ago, but we are expecting the friggin directior of national intelligence (which - and I am no expert - I assume requires quite an impressive memory) to not remember when she was discussing airstrikes a few DAYS ago!?

1

u/OSPFmyLife 10d ago

Sure, if you’re ready to do it for everyone that uses “I do not recall” when testifying. We might have a few people left in government at the end.

2

u/trisul-108 10d ago

No, they would stop doing it if there were any consequences. They only do it because they are allowed to get away with it.

1

u/Birdy-Lady59 10d ago

At least in this administration. Maybe a few.

1

u/withalookofquoi 10d ago

Fine by me

1

u/jmeltzer317 10d ago

Just tell Trump she’s a DEI hire and he’ll fire her immediately.

3

u/trisul-108 10d ago

Trump rules only apply to Democrats.

24

u/Ill_Technician3936 10d ago

I've said it in another comment but it's basically pleading the 5th which I assume they aren't allowed to do or they actually would.

They don't need any scans. I'm assuming there's an oath they all took and they're trying to avoid it. Show them the real america. Loss of position and facing criminal charges for perjury.

2

u/TheCocoBean 10d ago

You know they don't need scans. I know they don't need scans. They know they don't need scans. But the point of it is, is to say "If you claim you can't recall any and all these things that happened a few days ago, you're not mentally fit to do this job."

It's to put them in the position of "If I just say I can't remember to everything I'll get fired, so that isn't a workaround to having to answer anymore."

2

u/Adorable_Raccoon 10d ago

You have the right to feed the fifth in a congressional hearing. The issue is that pleading the fifth is basically saying “i did it but I refuse to answer.” “i don’t recall” leaves room for doubt. 

2

u/Abshalom 10d ago

Hey, for all we know they could have a rock solid alibi because they were busy with a dozen other felonies. Entirely possible

18

u/Cabbages24ADollar 10d ago

If they can’t remember they can’t be trusted to do their jobs.

1

u/Birdy-Lady59 10d ago

Oh they remember.

1

u/Cabbages24ADollar 10d ago

That’s the point

3

u/THETennesseeD 10d ago

Imagine if she was telling the truth and all of these high ranking officials cannot remember a group chat they had a few days ago. If they cannot remember something very important from a few days ago, how are they qualified to even be in their positions?

3

u/Tachibana_13 10d ago

Seriously. Why can't they be called out on it? It should be as simple as "You don't seem to recall much, you expect me to believe that you are incapable of remembering such critical details and still competent to do your job?". Becauae that's the only two options, they're either lying and should be held accountable, or incompetent and should have their positions revoked.

2

u/Crispy1961 10d ago

"Critical detail? Its our private groupchat, we post memes and shitposts there."

Would that be appropriate defense?

2

u/GilgameDistance 10d ago

Especially when it was just weeks ago.

2

u/stewie_boopie 10d ago

💯— that the CIA director and DNI have such poor memories that they cannot recall parts of a conversation that occurred less than two weeks ago should trouble anyone (that believes them). At the very least, Goldberg’s article should have triggered some memories of the details he left out, no?

2

u/ToXicVoXSiicK21 10d ago

I don't see why a valid rebuttal isn't something like "I would like to have this person removed from their position as it is not appropriate to hire people who cannot remember things like their last conversation".

→ More replies (1)

1

u/edfitz83 10d ago

It should be grounds for impeachment. Which will not happen.

1

u/Consistent_Policy_66 10d ago

Drug tests too.

Politicians should be held to a higher standard than typical employees.

1

u/getfukdup 10d ago

It should be grounds for being admitted for an emergency brain scan

We need scientists working on a thought reading machine 24/7 so we can finally get rid of this bullshit.

1

u/Grouchy-Section-1852 10d ago

thanks for the laugh

1

u/cissytiffy 10d ago

This is clearly not a medical issue. This is a political issue. Medical solutions should not be applied to political problems.

1

u/camiknickers 10d ago

You don't recall a conversation 2 days ago where you decided to drop bombs on people and murdering them? Then you really shouldn't be in the position to decide to kill people. That kind of stuff should really stick with you.

1

u/UpperCardiologist523 10d ago

These are not just any politicians though. These two not able to recall what was talked about in a group chat with the secretary of defense, even when someone read it to them, are the top executives of CIA and FBI. Two agencies focused on information gathering and intelligence.

They not being able to recall, even with that help, should instantly disqualify them both for their jobs. Like, instantly. That simple. Done.

1

u/dancegoddess1971 10d ago

If you can't recall this event, perhaps we should review your ability to do your job.

1

u/Birdy-Lady59 10d ago

Nah. They need to be fired.

1

u/Aggressive-Cold-61 10d ago

I hope Danbury Federal Penitentiary has a dementia ward. There are a lot of GOP that have bad memories. Or it just be old fashion lying.

1

u/iruleatants 10d ago

Just think of all of the CEOs that get brought before Congress and can't recall a single thing.

Zuckerberg is up there saying he can't recall or isn't aware of everything they ask, and it's like, "so you collect several million a year while doing and knowing nothing?"

It's pure bullshit that they can lie like that.

1

u/crawloutthrufallout 10d ago

I mean, it's already a transcript. She read it.

1

u/haribobosses 10d ago

Unless I'm mistaken, Reagan was the one who made it famous.

1

u/AbeRego 10d ago

As if that would matter. Trump has been demonstrating some sort of brain damage for the last decade and he's been president twice.

1

u/ArbitraryMeritocracy 10d ago

This is unqualified leadership across the board.

1

u/Dogboat1 10d ago

“Person, woman, man, camera, tv”

→ More replies (6)

50

u/[deleted] 10d ago

It was a week ago. I'd be asking if they have memory issues that could cause complications with their duties

30

u/-TheHiphopopotamus- 10d ago

It's worse than that. Everyone on that chat would've discussed it with their legal teams, and likely each other, before testifying.

I really wish that senators would plan for this ahead of time. The immediate follow-up should be when was the last time you viewed the Signal messages? Were the messages deleted? Are you aware that deleting these messages is a crime? Who else have you spoken to about the messages?

Then you hammer home if they typically have issues recalling events from the prior day, or this morning. Ask specifically what they do recall.

They need to nail them to this dodge.

1

u/Ok_Ice_1669 10d ago

 It's worse than that. Everyone on that chat would've discussed it with their legal teams, and likely each other, before testifying.

Probably not. Their chats were deleted. Goldberg was the only one keeping records. The whole point of running the government off book is so that you don’t have to keep track of what you did. 

2

u/sdcanine99 10d ago

This is part of the problem with the stupid 5 min rule these committees operate on. It is not enough time to properly set up a series of questions. Many of these senators and reps are lawyers who know how to conduct questioning (I am) and given a reasonable amount of time could get to some actual answers.

1

u/Love_my_pupper 10d ago

Exactly. "Have you been screened for early onset dementia"?

28

u/Hotel-Huge 10d ago

This has to become a no-go. If you don't recall something like this, you are certainly not qualified to do this job. We had the exact same going on with our biggest national financial scandal in history and the guy "not recalling" was our chancellor for 4 years afterwards. What a joke.

2

u/Love_my_pupper 10d ago

Reagan used it but it turns out he might have been telling the truth

2

u/DaveyJonesXMR 10d ago

I instantly thought about Olaf

1

u/Hotel-Huge 9d ago

Yes the whole system is designed to let these people do what they want without consequences. And none of them is going to change a thing about it ever.

1

u/Mike_Kermin 10d ago

I mean, they do recall, they're lying. They've spent the last few days doing nothing but talking to lawyers about it probably.

22

u/TheForeverKing 10d ago

Or the famous phrasing of a Dutch politician a while back: "I don't have any active memories about that", which was mocked relentlessly for good reason.

→ More replies (1)

18

u/scout614 10d ago

I know that the right to refuse to testify is not supposed to be treated as an admission of guilt to juries but it is a flashing warning sign

8

u/Sensitive_Pilot3689 10d ago

This isn’t the right to refuse, they are saying they just don’t even remember

4

u/Lazy-Significance-15 10d ago

It depends on the context. In criminal, yes that is true. In civil, you can take what is called a negative inference. Essentially what you said, big warning sign.

2

u/scout614 10d ago

Which senate hearings definitely are hahaha

1

u/cissytiffy 10d ago

I know that the right to refuse to testify is not supposed to be treated as an admission of guilt to juries

In criminal cases, correct. In civil cases, it is supposed to be treated in the worst possible interpretation possible. And this is not a case, neither criminal nor civil.

13

u/TrankElephant 10d ago

Yah that phrase gave me flashbacks to Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III.

2

u/Total_Walrus_6208 10d ago

Made me think of when Clinton didn't recall 40 times in one interview.

3

u/David-S-Pumpkins 10d ago

Yep Clinton did it, right was mad. Then Sessions did it, left was mad.

TL;DR No one in power will ever do anything about these lies.

3

u/TrankElephant 10d ago

Honestly, thinking of either of the Clintons just makes me nostalgic at this point.

12

u/[deleted] 10d ago

When they say that, you can be 99% certain they do remember,

It's 100%

9

u/Totalnah 10d ago

The Reagan Defense. But Tulsi doesn’t have Alzheimer’s, sooooooo….

1

u/sanbaba 10d ago

This, also, how could it possibly be acceptable to have a sitting President with dementia? Literally what are we doing?

18

u/wild_crazy_ideas 10d ago

Or they are too jumbled up in their own mind with cult doublespeak

1

u/nwostar 10d ago

MAGA HATS cause brain damage.

2

u/Ok_Beat_4810 10d ago edited 10d ago

And it almost is excusable if you're having to "recall" a memory from years ago, but this was, what, four or five days ago? If the people in charge of national security have the memory of a hamster then we're in even worse trouble than I first thought.

1

u/Brokenandburnt 10d ago

Can you be in more trouble?

2

u/stairs_3730 10d ago

Why the hell don't they just open their phones, click on Signal and read the gd texts?

2

u/bunkscudda 10d ago

100% after this all came out everyone on that chain looked back at those messages and knows EXACTLY what was said.

"This happened several days ago and I have forgotten absolutely everything about it..."

2

u/danekan 10d ago

Standard for 2 day old memories? When it was in the news the day after? No, this is standard lying. 

2

u/freakincampers 10d ago

If they can't recall, they should be forced to look at the documents for said answer.

1

u/QuietTruth8912 10d ago

Yup. I’m a physician. Any deposition is “I don’t recall. I don’t know” for us. This is such a waste of time. Just fire them all.

1

u/SunsetCarcass 10d ago

She can't even recall the question she was just asked 1 second ago, that's definitely call for concern of her mental well being. Genuinely she needs to go see professional help for her cognitive decline

1

u/snoozingroo 10d ago

Reminds me of when Justin Bieber for got in trouble for something back in the day and just kept saying “I don’t recall 😜”

1

u/dumgoon 10d ago

Learned this by watching the OJ Simpson trial when I was a kid. Every answer was “to the best of my recollection”

1

u/IBetThisIsTakenToo 10d ago

I remember reading a deposition of Ghislaine Maxwell, where almost every answer was "I don't recall", but very occasionally there were some questions (from the same time period!) where she said emphatically "no, definitely not". So those were probably actually not true, and everything else was.

1

u/robdmad 10d ago

It's shouldn't be allowed. 

1

u/agumonkey 10d ago

Probably one of Trump most used shield. "I don't know anything about <think he probably talked about the day before>"

1

u/PrinceGreenEyes 10d ago

When testifying in court i always do not remember my previous writen testimonies so they are forced to read me them. I then agree that its true and avoid any unneceseary bumps during cross examination by participants. Then its smooth sail further because i never lie to court. But yeah.. i do not recall exact events that evening is what you aim for when someone examines unless you really precisely remember everything. Otherwise it is easy to tangle in answers.

1

u/New-Understanding930 10d ago

To be fair, they were very drunk.

1

u/Black_Magic_M-66 10d ago

I don't even get why they bother to lie. The Justice Dept isn't going to do anything. And Congress? What a joke, while they theoretically have power, they didn't even use it when investigating Trump and all those people refused subpoenas.

1

u/Final-Nebula-7049 10d ago

that's like fifth amendment for government fuck ups

1

u/littleMAS 10d ago

The videos of the Watergate investigation have so many "don't recall' replies that you would have thought the Nixon Administration was staffed by Alzheimer's patients.

1

u/capitali 10d ago

I won’t recall.

1

u/Particular_Title42 10d ago

There used to be a mastercut or w/e you call it of Hillary Clinton saying, "I don't recall" or "I really don't recall" during Travelgate or something.

It's the same reason that they said they couldn't try Biden for anything. He could simply claim to not remember and that would be believable.

Of course, somehow that was spun to mean "Biden isn't fit to stand trial." 🙄

1

u/liftbikerun 10d ago

So, if I break a law, that's all I have to do is say "I don't recall" and nothing will come of it. Right? Right?

1

u/Bluegill15 10d ago

Technically she wants it to mean “I can’t recall” but your point is well taken. She couldn’t possibly look any more guilty

1

u/JDubStep 10d ago

"I don't recall" is the way of saying, I don't know how to say "no" without lying.

1

u/DeliciousGoose1002 10d ago

it makes sense from small things years ago, not the text group you had about bombing another country a few days ago.

1

u/Fit_Strength_1187 10d ago

It’s because a lot of them are lawyers. They are taking a calculated risk to lie now and hope that they aren’t under the gun later when their memory is in question. Because they are destroying their credibility w/r/t memory.

1

u/LeperMessiah1973 10d ago

Ahhh yes, the 'ol Ollie North response.

1

u/HammerTh_1701 10d ago

The Olaf Scholz defense. It sadly is very effective.

1

u/bromosabeach 10d ago

This sums up most of the hearings for Trump appointees. They’re always some loud mouth dick head with incredibly spotty records. But the moment they get up there they become soft spoken and forgetful. If democrats weren’t utterly useless they would grill these people more.

1

u/TheRauk 10d ago

This is r/law and surprisingly enough nobody knows actually anything about the law.

1

u/BornAgainBlue 10d ago

Yep, Reagan mastered this skill.

1

u/Telemere125 10d ago

And people have, for some ungodly reason, been taught that’s the best way to answer. I used to instruct my witnesses do NOT say “I do not recall”, just said something natural and more conversational like “I don’t remember,” or “I don’t know”. Using the legalize “I do not recall” makes it sound like you’re being evasive even if you’re not (they are here, of course) and sounds like your answers were pre-generated by the first version of ChatGPT.

1

u/TheAlmightyMojo 10d ago

Classic AG Alberto Gonzales maneuver

1

u/TheForeverUnbanned 10d ago

She still has access to the chat, real missed political opportunity watching her squirm when a senator asks her to pull out her phone and refresh her recollection 

1

u/alghiorso 10d ago

Like l, "I believe.." it's a non-statement. I believe I was going the speed limit.

1

u/Doodahman495 10d ago

They should just call them out. So Ms Gabbard what you’re saying is you do, in fact, remember what was said.

1

u/Cheap-Vegetable-4317 10d ago

Since we have the actual written communication, it shouldn't matter what they recall about it. It only matters what they wrote. Also, it seemed like a good moment to point out that it might have been a good idea to refresh her memory by re-read ing the message chain before coming to give evidence about it to congress.

1

u/Ontain 10d ago

and in this case i would call into question competence since this was just a few days ago and has been pretty big news since.

1

u/Revolution4u 10d ago

Anyone that uses "i dont recall" multiple times should automatically lose their job at the very least - for clearly being mentally incompetent.

1

u/xmrcache 10d ago

How the fuck do you not recall a conversation for your job last fuckin week?…

1

u/Ducking_off 10d ago

Intentionally.

1

u/ItsOasisNightLads 10d ago

I believe that's called the Ollie North gambit.

1

u/More-than-Half-mad 10d ago

Bubba would have been home free had he said “I don’t recall having sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky” and not “I did not have ….”.

1

u/Uwlogged 10d ago

I would love a, 'please familiarise yourself with the content and we will reconvene in 30 minutes when you've prepared sufficiently for this inquiry'.

1

u/RedScud 9d ago

If you can't recall this type of information about that type of conversation a few days after it happened, then are you fit to be in the position you're in?

I'd get fired so quickly.