Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty

[SydneyCarton 48134]

Just now, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

And it might work.

Except it's possible that Smith, out of his 84 witnesses, has a few that were there and witnessed the event.  That's what Trump doesn't know (or care about, actually).

 

 

He’s contradicted himself multiple times in the last few weeks alone. But a witness would have to say “yes I saw without a doubt those were plans to invade Iraq.” 

But it doesn’t matter. Even if thats his defense, it still paints a horribad picture of his moving around documents for years and obstructing, as well has his acknowledgement that he knew he couldn’t declassify things. 

[GhostOfTomJoad 9341]

"Bravado" in 2023 = "grab 'em by the pussy" in 2016.

Dotard can say whatever, whenever & the GQP just collectively says "he's such a scamp" while they cast their vote.

[Beau Vine 54312]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

The guy figured the Trump outfit is paying the fees, and that is going to put me in an ethical jackpot at some point.

[The Dog 44071]

 

[Irwin F Fletcher 3550]

This is what I expected his defense to be. 
No video evidence means no evidence. 
The recording becomes nothing but public discourse. 

Except for all that first hand witness testimony.

[The Dog 44071]

[Longhorn_Fan68 33881]

58 minutes ago, Fastbreak said:

“Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury. My client has committed so many crimes that it it impossible to convict him in just this one. The defense rests.”

[Celery Man 20981]

3 hours ago, Rimbo said:

trump is turbofucked

nauta is... what's more than turbofucked? rocketboosterfucked?

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13585]

1 hour ago, Gil Bang said:

 

If you want to know the truth, I was lying. Then. Then I was lying. I'm telling truth now. Unless I'm lying.

[Pancho 44878]

[hornmpa96 2619]

How does he make this defense in Court without taking the stand? 
 

The prosecution is going to have the witnesses, the recording and the documents which were actually recovered.

He can make this argument with no consequences in the court of public opinion; however, it will subject him to cross examination in this case. That opens him up to a ton of questions his counsel won’t want him to answer.

[SaucyJack 3498]

8 minutes ago, Pancho said:

[Gil Bang 25983]

 

[DDD Dad 14346]

2 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

 

[Lurch 5931]

I actually buy the story that he didn’t really have the doc in hand.  It was too convenient for him to just happen to have on hand for that discussion.  You know it absolutely killed him to have to admit he was bullshitting to his cult, though

[DDD Dad 14346]

2 hours ago, TheStoicPaisano said:

Libbitty Bibbitty taking the Michael Scott bankruptcy route.

 

[jimmyjazz 46000]

2 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

Holy shit, I was going to quote a few bits from Waltine's wiki page, but it's worth a read as a whole (seriously, it's like a 2-minute read but there is nugget after nugget in there).

Lulz:

Quote

He was responsible for responding to the presidential call button, including when the president requested Diet Cokes, which Nauta would bring to Trump on a silver platter.

 

[atomheartbevo 89756]

1 hour ago, Gil Bang said:

 

 

How many had dads detained at a KKK rally?

[jimmyjazz 46000]

Trump's paternal grandfather immigrated to the United States from Germany in 1885.  It would be surprising if he had been a slaveholder.

Trump's mother immigrated from Scotland in 1930.  I'm quite certain she never owned slaves.

Well, technically.

[Sawbonz 27580]

1 hour ago, hornmpa96 said:

How does he make this defense in Court without taking the stand? 
 

The prosecution is going to have the witnesses, the recording and the documents which were actually recovered.

He can make this argument with no consequences in the court of public opinion; however, it will subject him to cross examination in this case. That opens him up to a ton of questions his counsel won’t want him to answer.

Can you plead the fifth during your trial?

[Sawbonz 27580]

1 hour ago, Pancho said:

*sewn

[TwiceHorn 31512]

1 hour ago, hornmpa96 said:

How does he make this defense in Court without taking the stand? 
 

The prosecution is going to have the witnesses, the recording and the documents which were actually recovered.

He can make this argument with no consequences in the court of public opinion; however, it will subject him to cross examination in this case. That opens him up to a ton of questions his counsel won’t want him to answer.

All they can really hope for is to attack witnesses' credibility through cross-examination and whatever "impeachment" evidence there might be (prior inconsistent statements, documents that contradict them).  And somehow weave a story from that the the government didn't meet its burden of proof.

It is going to be a very tough slog for them at trial.

[TwiceHorn 31512]

26 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Can you plead the fifth during your trial?

Once you take the stand in your own case, no.  There is some "scope" to that waiver that is determined by the direct examination.  Meaning, you can't be compelled to answer every incriminating question, just ones related to your testimony on direct.

[Gatorubet 30271]

3 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

And it might work.

[Hermanator 7123]

Wasn't the indictment about possessing the material and obstructing when the government attempted to retrieve it? I thought Smith didn't bring charges for dissemination of classified material and it could be brought at a later date in the proper venue since it happened in Massachusetts I believe. 

[Gatorubet 30271]

2 minutes ago, Hermanator said:

Wasn't the indictment about possessing the material and obstructing when the government attempted to retrieve it? I thought Smith didn't bring charges for dissemination of classified material and it could be brought at a later date in the proper venue since it happened in Massachusetts I believe. 

???? The recording goes to the element of his knowledge that the documents were classified, to set up the fact that when he was instructed to return the classified documents, he hid them instead.   The recording shows that he knew they were classified, he knew they had not been unclassified, and he knew he should not be showing them to anyone.  Again, this goes to his intent to unlawfully keep classified documents that he knows are in his possession. So that his hiding them in boxes and moving them around is the obstruction. Or at least part of it.  They are not trying him for possessing documents. They are trying him for obstruction of justice in lying to the FBI about the documents he had, and intentionally hiding them when he knew the government wanted them back.

[atomheartbevo 89756]

4 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

 

I’m actually curious what he hopes to accomplish with this. I get that he’s flipping out about his little legal issues and is trying to deflect from the audio of him fucking around

Congrats to him for reading the Reuters article, but lest everybody forget:

1. Dad was detained at KKK rally/parade
2. Demanded the birth certificate of the first Black President.
3. Remember the Central Park 5?
    

 

[Rimbo 26018]

21 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

They are not trying him for possessing documents.

I mean, they ARE trying him for possession. Thirty counts in the indictment are "you had things you weren't supposed to have" charges.

And there's another handful for obstruction.

In similar, related, but different breeds, Legal Eagle had a great video on the sentencing possibilities:

 

[jimmyjazz 46000]

It doesn't matter if the documents were classified or not, he still shouldn't have had them, and he obstructed by not returning them when given the chance.  

[GhostOfTomJoad 9341]

7 hours ago, Lurch said:

I actually buy the story that he didn’t really have the doc in hand.  It was too convenient for him to just happen to have on hand for that discussion.  You know it absolutely killed him to have to admit he was bullshitting to his cult, though

I can't think of anything MORE Trump-like than for him to leave the top secret documents within easy reach. I have no doubt he has piles of papers and docs strategically strewn about so that when he casually brings guests through they think "wow, Trump is totally super busy working on VERY IMPORTANT things. Just look at those mounds of paper! And that folder clearly says Top Secret!!!"

Without the money shot document instantly reachable and in plain view, the image changes from Trump being super-duper busy working on top secret stuff to Trump just being a slob. Which he is.

[SydneyCarton 48134]

7 hours ago, Lurch said:

I actually buy the story that he didn’t really have the doc in hand.  It was too convenient for him to just happen to have on hand for that discussion.  You know it absolutely killed him to have to admit he was bullshitting to his cult, though

It shouldn’t. They’ll never hear about it from their silo news sources. 

Edited June 28, 2023 by SydneyCarton

[dcbc 14496]

9 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

Can you plead the fifth during your trial?

Not like in a civil trial where it's a Fifth Amendment buffet.  In a criminal trial, you either decide not to testify or you take the stand.

 

Edited June 28, 2023 by dcbc

[dcbc 14496]

9 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Once you take the stand in your own case, no.  There is some "scope" to that waiver that is determined by the direct examination.  Meaning, you can't be compelled to answer every incriminating question, just ones related to your testimony on direct.

That's a very good point.  But to clarify for others, it's not related to the Fifth Amendment but rather the Federal rules regarding the scope of cross examination, which must bear relation to the testimony elicited on direct.  So his counsel can object to the scope of cross, but Trump can't plead the Fizzifth on the stand like we've seen him do in civil depositions.  Having only practiced in Federal court on limited occasions a long time ago though, I can't recall how much wiggle room there is on the scope of cross.  But given this trial judge's exhibited propensities, I'd guess not much one way and plenty the other depending which side is doing the cross examining.

Edited June 28, 2023 by dcbc

[Pato del Muerto 52534]

Based on my extensive viewing of trials in movies and tv, the judge will allow it and overrule the objection but only if the counsel promises the question is relevant and it will become clear shortly, and the judge will tell them that this had better be going somewhere. 

[South Austin 52523]

2 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Based on my extensive viewing of trials in movies and tv, the judge will allow it and overrule the objection but only if the counsel promises the question is relevant and it will become clear shortly, and the judge will tell them that this had better be going somewhere. 

And when Trump is questioned about whether there was a transfer order, and whether Santiago was in fact going anywhere, the judge will overrule the objection but state that the objection is noted.

[Hermanator 7123]

7 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

???? The recording goes to the element of his knowledge that the documents were classified, to set up the fact that when he was instructed to return the classified documents, he hid them instead.   The recording shows that he knew they were classified, he knew they had not been unclassified, and he knew he should not be showing them to anyone.  Again, this goes to his intent to unlawfully keep classified documents that he knows are in his possession. So that his hiding them in boxes and moving them around is the obstruction. Or at least part of it.  They are not trying him for possessing documents. They are trying him for obstruction of justice in lying to the FBI about the documents he had, and intentionally hiding them when he knew the government wanted them back.

That's exactly what I said. People before me were saying his defense is he was just bullshiting and bragging and he wasn't actually showing the people in the recording classified documents. In this case that wouldn't matter because he isn't being charged for dissemination of classified material he's charged for the obstruction of possessing them and hiding them when he was requested to give them back. Whether or not he actually showed them to anyone wouldn't matter for what he's charged with here. At least that's how it's been described by the "experts"

[Pato del Muerto 52534]

Ladies and gentlemen, I'll be brief. The issue here is not whether we broke a few rules, or took a few liberties with our controlled government documents - we did.

[Native Horn 3504]

3 hours ago, GhostOfTomJoad said:

I can't think of anything MORE Trump-like than for him to leave the top secret documents within easy reach. I have no doubt he has piles of papers and docs strategically strewn about so that when he casually brings guests through they think "wow, Trump is totally super busy working on VERY IMPORTANT things. Just look at those mounds of paper! And that folder clearly says Top Secret!!!"

Without the money shot document instantly reachable and in plain view, the image changes from Trump being super-duper busy working on top secret stuff to Trump just being a slob. Which he is.

This is 100% on point.

[AnTiM 1669]

7 minutes ago, Native Horn said:

This is 100% on point.

And a good example of what it takes to be an expert con artist.

[tx ind 7013]

24 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Based on my extensive viewing of trials in movies and tv, the judge will allow it and overrule the objection but only if the counsel promises the question is relevant and it will become clear shortly, and the judge will tell them that this had better be going somewhere. 

what if they strenuously object?

[dcbc 14496]

26 minutes ago, South Austin said:

And when Trump is questioned about whether there was a transfer order, and whether Santiago was in fact going anywhere, the judge will overrule the objection but state that the objection is noted.

At which point, counsel will strenuously object.

5 minutes ago, tx ind said:

what if they strenuously object?

Damn it, Demi!  You beat me to it.

Edited June 28, 2023 by dcbc

[Pig Bellmont 8719]

12 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

And it might work.

Except it's possible that Smith, out of his 84 witnesses, has a few that were there and witnessed the event.  That's what Trump doesn't know (or care about, actually).

 

 

Circumstantial evidence is used to convict people of felonies every day. 

[South Austin 52523]

7 minutes ago, dcbc said:

At which point, counsel will strenuously object.

It's the difference between paper law, and trial law!

[Francisco 2.0 32395]

Gotta hand it to Trump---the "I'm being indicted for you" line is pretty powerful.   Whatever members of the cult might have been wavering; the constant delivery of that line from him is effective at reminding them that he's on their side.  Never mind how fucking deplorable that side actually is.

 

 

 

[speed817 19399]

41 minutes ago, South Austin said:

And when Trump is questioned about whether there was a transfer order, and whether Santiago was in fact going anywhere, the judge will overrule the objection but state that the objection is noted.

Nm...@dcbc best me to it

Edited June 28, 2023 by speed817

[Js1 85449]

How does one “win polls by record numbers?”

[YGIFS 19452]

Well I think you have to wait for the UPI or BCS or.....to weigh in before you win the poll.  Dammit, I had something for this! 

[ohchaucer 1443]

Nm...@dcbc best me to it

Watch yourself, counselors.

[cactusflinthead 27601]

15 hours ago, Rimbo said:

nauta gonna be a free man any longer

Had to hit you for the cycle 

[The Dog 44071]

he keeps changing his story: