Jump to content
A Merry Christmas from Surly Horns to You. ×

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


Cairn Horn88

Recommended Posts

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. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

Fzq-cP9aQAMmvBJ?format=jpg&name=medium

 


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?
     

 

  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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:

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by SydneyCarton
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by dcbc
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by dcbc
  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by dcbc
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

Screenshot2023-06-28084249.png.cedd4a9893820727fb6695604d7029ba.png

 

  • Haha 1
  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by speed817
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...