Very powerful and damning testimony. The fact that Trump has heaped anything upwards of a modicum of diplomatically required praise on Putin is unforgivable. The idea that Trump envies Putin's system of corruption chills me to the bone. Are the Americans who receive money to lobby these causes (such as anti-Magnitsky) too lazy/unmotivated to research them, or are they completely devoid of conscience? Not necessarily an either-or type of question, I would guess that there's an entire spectrum there.
I expect there's a spectrum, yes. But I also think there's a broader cultural issue ... we just don't care about white collar crime very much, except for the occasional Madoff we have to throw to the lions.Are the Americans who receive money to lobby these causes (such as anti-Magnitsky) too lazy/unmotivated to research them, or are they completely devoid of conscience? Not necessarily an either-or type of question, I would guess that there's an entire spectrum there.
I believe it's for real existing. This is a prepared statement from which the Senate will then derive questions to ask Browder, which he will answer under oath, i.e. under penalty of perjury if he is found to be knowingly misleading in his testimony. jonnyfive, am I correct in assuming that the content of a prepared statement is legally equivalent to any testimony under oath? Unless I'm wrong (and please correct me), Trump (Sr.) has gone under oath exactly once since announcing his presidential campaign: during the POTUS inaugural ceremony. Not a very exhaustive line of questioning, there.
I'm not sure how the rules work for that kind of thing, but I'd imagine perjury would apply. Don't quote me on that, though.