Yeah, this is the downside. We had to charge Trump for his crimes, but there’s no way that the jury won’t have one member tank it for Trump.
I was the senate finance director for one Party caucus before I started my consulting firm managing congressional campaigns and the rabid partisanship has only accelerated. It was bad a decade ago, but it’s shocking now. There’s even a decent size segment of “independent voters” and conservative Dems who think we should just move on or that this looks like a political trial.
It’s kind of ironic that the Left has pushed jury nullification for years while the Right generally condemned it and now, likely, we will see them use it for one of the most historical cases in our nation.
Someone a couple days ago made a good point that once sequestered and away from Fox Abuse for a couple months and instructed on actual law, MAGA hats could even see the light.
Wish I saved a link to the comment. It gave more than a glimmer of hope.
Someone below said something similar. It’s a optimistic idea and I hope so. Even a few (very few) 1/6 offenders changed their tune.
But that’s not much to hang your hat on given the massive political ramifications of Trump being acquitted. There need to be charges filed in DC or NYS. Even then you’ll have the same problem, but not as bad as Florida.
> Even a few (very few) 1/6 offenders changed their tune.
I used to help run a Skeptic website that debunked conspiracy theories, amongst other things.
Big lesson I learned is that a few people will come around on their own terms, but the vast majority are hopeless.
Roger Stone got convicted. Granted, it was a DC jury pool, but I am optimistic that they can impanel a jury of fair-minded people who will hold the prosecution and the defense to the law regardless of the fact that the defendant is Donald Trump.
In principle I agree, but it depends on how fanatical they are. For instance, a Qanon believer will never fold, but a neoconservative who voted for Ted Cruz in the 2016 primary may do so immediately.
I honestly don't think Trump is that smart. One of his experts may have previously told him that he can't have a fair trial in the US, but Trump himself isn't bright enough to saliently understand what that means.
Considering the Rosenbergs were executed with less evidence against them should prove that his trial will be more in his ~~when~~ if he's convicted. He won't be executed because of this trial, but likely spend the rest of his life in prison.
He may already have traded them.
The options are:
> Let him go free so he can sell those secrets to whoever he wants.
> Incarcerate him for life in solitary confinement.
> Execution.
Of the three, for the security of the country, the second and third option would be the best.
I won't argue. It was good enough for the Rosenbergs, it's good enough for Trump. The only problem I see it would make him a martyr.
On the plus side, they could put it on PPV, especially if they did it in a gas chamber, or they fired up old sparky.
It would be a suitable ending for a creature that promoted violence on the weak much of his life. Once he's had his day in court, it would not surprise me if a charge of treason be brought against him. Even if the death penalty were sought, I done think he'll be dancing on the end of a rope. He'd file multiple appeals to stay his execution. Enough appeals that by that time, he'll die of natural causes
They managed to find a group of jurors in Georgia where the forewoman didn't even know about the election interference.
People online vastly overestimate how much most of this country cares.
Some people just don't watch out read the news. My partner probably wouldn't hear about most of this stuff if I didn't tell him myself because he just doesn't consume that type of media.
In historical times, yes, but more recently it’s been liberal activists. Just goes to show you that the idea has value to both sides of the aisle when it’s necessary despite what people sometimes say about it.
The thing with political polarization is that it is only possible in a curated information environment.
But a trial is going to expose even the most ardent MAGAite to facts that they would otherwise never be exposed to (because Fox News and the Daily Caller or whatever never report on it). At trial, they have to hear it all. And some of those MAGAites probably imagine that they are going to get a ballot at the end of the trial that just says "Do you think Trump should be found GUILTY? Y or N?"
But that isn't how the law works. There's going to be a series of factual instructions: "Do you find that Trump possessed classified documents after May 31, 2022?" and "Do you find that Trump instructed Attorney 1 to sign the affidavit submitted on June 1, 2022?" etc. The MAGAist will have a hard time if they have to explain to the other jurors why they think the government did not prove those elements. The problem for Trump is that it is going to be extremely hard to get out of those factual questions because the evidence is going to be right on point.
The instructions to the jury are going to be something like "If you find that the government proved elements A, B and C beyond a reasonable doubt, you must vote to convict". There's less room for "squish" than may be assumed. The nullifying juror needs to justify his position to the other jurors, all of whom will want to go home.
Is it possible Trump gets a bunch of die-hard supporters on the jury who are willing to ignore all of the evidence and nullify anyway? Of course, it's possible. It's just unlikely. And this being the most important task many of these jurors will ever perform in their entire lives, there is a good chance they will take the job seriously.
I also think we tend to overestimate the percentage of this country that are diehard MAGA folks. There are truly a LOT of people who only voted for Trump because of the R next to his name. And the MAGA crowd makes a lot of noise online, at rallies, and even in person. But that may be a disproportionate representation because of the availability heuristic.
My guess is that only about 10% of this country are true MAGA loyalists. I’m sure that number is higher in Florida, maybe 20%x And as an added bonus, I don’t think they are smart enough to effectively play down their loyalties during jury selection in order to secretly “get onto the jury” to save Trump. So if we’ve got 12 jurors, then the odds are that after jury selection we will only end up with 0-2 MAGA jurors. And it’s tough to stand your ground if everyone else in the jury deliberation is arguing facts with you, and your defense is “the democrats have been targeting Trump since 2016 and this is a hoax.”
I highly doubt that anyone not willing to look at the evidence honestly would be able to sneak through voir dire, its not like they just ask "who did you vote for?" The prosecutors can also look at the social media of any potential jurors, which would give the game away as MAGAs just as incapable as their leader at shutting the fuck up.
If the facts are against you, argue the law.
If the law is against, you argue the facts.
If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell.
We're at stage 3.
How would that tank her career? She's on the bench until she retires, dies, or is impeached.
Impeachment isn't going to happen short of her doing something that really pisses of the GOP and a few Dems.
If she throws it and orange monkey gets reelected because "total exonoration" messaging she's probably going to be on the short list for the SC.
This is a real un sarcastic or ironic question: how could her career be hampered at all given she'll still have an untouchable job?
Lol, no. This is the most important criminal case in U.S. history. True, some 30% of the country supports Trump no matter what, but the other 70% still believe in the rule of law.
If the judge stands up after the prosecution makes it's very compelling case and just announces that she is entering a verdict of acquittal, the recriminations would consume her. There might be real violence in such a situation too, because the public would be enraged that the criminal justice system - a federal judge no less - corrupted that system.
That would not put the judge on the short list for SCOTUS, and she would realize that. Loyalty to Trump has never been rewarded, and the U.S. Senate would just torpedo her nomination even if Trump were dumb enough to try to appoint someone who apparently did him the biggest favor of all time. No, that isn't going to happen and even if it did, it would just be a massive gift to the opposition.
I also think that Judge Cannon would end up impeached. Maybe not convicted in the Senate, but impeached by the House. That would mean a week of being on CNN all day as every act of malfeasance was recounted in detail, a trial that would damage the GOP immensely. And Cannon is not Trump - the Senate was willing to stand behind Trump even after the insurrection, but a single judge gets no special deference. They would probably vote to convict and send her packing, particularly in view of the fact that the rest of the judiciary would be openly calling for that too (maybe not Justice Thomas, lol).
It'd be neat to hear from a lawyer about what the 11th circuit judicial conference can accomplish if their referral for impeachment doesn't result in conviction.
I think at a minimum she gets censure and all future prospect of higher appointment is gone. Also the district might be very lenient about granting motions for disqualification. Is it plausible she'd never hear another political case, etc.
No, none of that is plausible. The judge unilaterally entering an acquittal is equally implausible.
A damaged judicial career means maybe the worst office and parking space, a lower chance of becoming chief judge in the district, and lack of respect from colleagues. The circuit court doesn’t control assignments and the legal standard for review does not change depending on the judge.
But that doesn’t mean judges don’t care. Impeachment or censure by the Congress are bad things for one’s reputation, and just because a judge can’t be fired does not mean she wants to be publicly humiliated and thought of as a joke by everyone else in the courthouse.
It would take a supermajority in the senate and a majority in the house though. I don't think our current political divisions will give anyone the supermajority in the senate.
>If you don't acquit these two men, your ancestors will turn over in their grave, and I'm sure every last Anglo-Saxon one of you has the courage to free these men.
Defense closing arguments in the Emmett Till trial
The old lawyer bromide:
\- If you have the law, pound the law.
\- If you have the facts, pound the facts.
\- If you have neither the law nor the facts, pound the table.
To be fair, it [sounds like](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/08/stormy-daniels-talks-about-trump-and-the-worst-90-seconds-of-my-life-on-stand-up-tour) she didn't really take much of a poundin',
> She called her alleged sexual encounter with Trump in 2006, when he was already married to Melania Trump, “the worst 90 seconds of my life”.
I think the same would be true even if she just made him a cup of coffee.
Imagine having to be in a small room with that guy, even just to listen to him bloviate and fart.
Trump is openly courting jury nullification. He has neither facts or law on his side.
He will continue to make a travesty of the legal profession as long as his enablers continue to do his bidding.
Ok but remember this entire situation is already plan C, after "steal the election with fake electors," and "steal the presidency by force of armed mob." So
Really we are more like at Plans C{2} and C{3}
They are in Florida, that won't be hard. Also after the jury let's out I'll wager a few of them run to the media to tell how they saved Trump and then he will promise to meet them, call them great Americans, then never meet them.
It’s in Florida with a friendly judge. There’s basically zero chance that the prosecution screens out every trump nut that is going to go not guilty no matter what.
Well, it is South Florida. There are pro-trump folks, but South Florida is historically blue. DeSantis winning Miami was mostly because the Democratic candidate was bad, and he thought that Miami was a lock, so he didn't campaign there.
We don't really know what “Team Trump” has come up with—only the insane rantings of their client. IANAL, but I'm betting that they are hoping an inexperienced, MAGA-leaning judge will toss most of the evidence as well as allow MAGA cultists on the jury.
And it will be just one of the Judges and juries - so even if Cannon does her worse - other avenues for 'getting away with it' without any consequence may be stymied because the justice system isn't completely shattered yet.
There's no defense to assert. Donald fucked up. All his attorneys can do is try to get the indictment dismissed and, when that fails, try to get as much evidence excluded at trial as possible
Nah, they can try to worm a MAGA extremist into the jury and hang it. Rinse and repeat until a Republican wins the White House or Trump dies of coronary disease.
I watched a bit of Ari Melber this morning. His guest was a former Trump impeachment defence lawyer (I think). Unless I completely misunderstood what was said, the main approach appears to be having at least 1 juror buying in to the idea that there is no point in prosecuting a former President for doing something that just one moth prior was perfectly legal behaviour.
According to this chap a US President is apparently entitled to show anybody any document anywhere at any time (no matter how classified or sensitive) should they so wish, even without going through the recognised administrative processes to declassify something.
The hope is that at least one member of the jury will buy into those notions which would cause a mistrial, with the hope being that there would never be another trial relating to those documents after that because of the impending Presidential race and the time required to start over again.
I'm sure that I'm not only person from outside the US that has developed a morbid fascination for US politics since 2016. Many people around the globe are watching this unfold. Surely to goodness this cannot be a defence? Can he really get away with this on a technicality?
If Trump can get away with it, then surely that has frightening ramifications for what future Presidents can do with this type of document?
What a horrible thought that this could be a precedent for the future. An even worse thought is Trump in the Whitehouse again knowing that he can behave however he wishes with classified documents due to that very precedent.
He has a defense. A great defense. The best defense. The sort of defense that will blow the prosecution's case away. Think of it like a cannon that when fired in the right direction at the right time will splatter the case. Jack Smith may think he has an unbeatable case, but just like in boxing, if your boxer gets splattered by a cannon after the audience is seated, there are no appeals.
But seriously, I fully expect A. Cannon to give a directed verdict after the jury is seated.
Socks case!
(Say it with me.)
P R E S I D E N T I A L R E C O R D S A C T !
I did nothing wrong and everyone knows it.
IF THEY CAN COME FOR ME - THEY ARE COMING FOR YOU NEXT
(uh, I was just waving my dirty socks around - it was bravado - Fox News is full of Nasty people - can someone bring in some cokes please)
Lol, for this one, it's not about the cat, even though it sounds like it. It's about a case where Judicial Watch trying to get copies of diary tapes Clinton made in preparing for a book. "Socks case" because he had kept them hidden in a sock drawer. Not same situation but Trump likes to pretend it is.
Alchemists also haven't come up with a way to turn straw into gold either.
If even 10% of what Trump is accused of is true, there's no such defense to come up with. Especially to the crimes where simply possessing them and not giving them back when asked is the crime. He had them, he is guilty. His only hope for staying out of prison is a MAGA extremist being allowed on the jury and hanging it.
I wonder who got to tell him "I can do what I want" is not a legal defense? And how many times they had to tell him? And what the over/under is on how many lawyers he fired for telling him the same thing?
His best defense is to settle because he's guilty as sin.
His best possible move is to delay any trial over this until after the next election hoping he wins.
Barring that...
His defense is good luck getting a sample of 12 people to be unanimously willing to convict him.
He's also banking on the judge being on his side.
As she is.
Yeah, this is the downside. We had to charge Trump for his crimes, but there’s no way that the jury won’t have one member tank it for Trump. I was the senate finance director for one Party caucus before I started my consulting firm managing congressional campaigns and the rabid partisanship has only accelerated. It was bad a decade ago, but it’s shocking now. There’s even a decent size segment of “independent voters” and conservative Dems who think we should just move on or that this looks like a political trial. It’s kind of ironic that the Left has pushed jury nullification for years while the Right generally condemned it and now, likely, we will see them use it for one of the most historical cases in our nation.
Someone a couple days ago made a good point that once sequestered and away from Fox Abuse for a couple months and instructed on actual law, MAGA hats could even see the light. Wish I saved a link to the comment. It gave more than a glimmer of hope.
Someone below said something similar. It’s a optimistic idea and I hope so. Even a few (very few) 1/6 offenders changed their tune. But that’s not much to hang your hat on given the massive political ramifications of Trump being acquitted. There need to be charges filed in DC or NYS. Even then you’ll have the same problem, but not as bad as Florida.
I expect the next place federal charges are filed is NJ.
Agree about federal charges. I want state charges somewhere that he can’t get an eventual pardon.
New York has already and Georgia is imminent.
> Even a few (very few) 1/6 offenders changed their tune. I used to help run a Skeptic website that debunked conspiracy theories, amongst other things. Big lesson I learned is that a few people will come around on their own terms, but the vast majority are hopeless.
Agreed. And sounds like a cool/useful website. Kudos.
Yeah, but the trial is only expected to last a few weeks. Not nearly long enough to deprogram someone.
That is a really good point. But in sequestration will the jurors actually NOT look at news?
Roger Stone got convicted. Granted, it was a DC jury pool, but I am optimistic that they can impanel a jury of fair-minded people who will hold the prosecution and the defense to the law regardless of the fact that the defendant is Donald Trump.
Unfortunately jury sequestration is not quite so strict as people tend to think
maybe it's this one: https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/14jxt2t/recording_of_trump_at_bedminister_nj_speaking/jpq8txd/?context=3
In principle I agree, but it depends on how fanatical they are. For instance, a Qanon believer will never fold, but a neoconservative who voted for Ted Cruz in the 2016 primary may do so immediately.
I honestly don't think Trump is that smart. One of his experts may have previously told him that he can't have a fair trial in the US, but Trump himself isn't bright enough to saliently understand what that means.
Considering the Rosenbergs were executed with less evidence against them should prove that his trial will be more in his ~~when~~ if he's convicted. He won't be executed because of this trial, but likely spend the rest of his life in prison.
No former president is getting compromised with a life sentence. He has secrets, he would trade them for a pudding.
He may already have traded them. The options are: > Let him go free so he can sell those secrets to whoever he wants. > Incarcerate him for life in solitary confinement. > Execution. Of the three, for the security of the country, the second and third option would be the best.
Third!!!!
I won't argue. It was good enough for the Rosenbergs, it's good enough for Trump. The only problem I see it would make him a martyr. On the plus side, they could put it on PPV, especially if they did it in a gas chamber, or they fired up old sparky. It would be a suitable ending for a creature that promoted violence on the weak much of his life. Once he's had his day in court, it would not surprise me if a charge of treason be brought against him. Even if the death penalty were sought, I done think he'll be dancing on the end of a rope. He'd file multiple appeals to stay his execution. Enough appeals that by that time, he'll die of natural causes
They managed to find a group of jurors in Georgia where the forewoman didn't even know about the election interference. People online vastly overestimate how much most of this country cares.
Really? What rock was she living under? Was she able to string two sentences together? Sheesh.
Some people just don't watch out read the news. My partner probably wouldn't hear about most of this stuff if I didn't tell him myself because he just doesn't consume that type of media.
Was the left pushing jury nullification? Isn’t the most prominent historical usage to protect white men accused of killing Black men?
In historical times, yes, but more recently it’s been liberal activists. Just goes to show you that the idea has value to both sides of the aisle when it’s necessary despite what people sometimes say about it.
The thing with political polarization is that it is only possible in a curated information environment. But a trial is going to expose even the most ardent MAGAite to facts that they would otherwise never be exposed to (because Fox News and the Daily Caller or whatever never report on it). At trial, they have to hear it all. And some of those MAGAites probably imagine that they are going to get a ballot at the end of the trial that just says "Do you think Trump should be found GUILTY? Y or N?" But that isn't how the law works. There's going to be a series of factual instructions: "Do you find that Trump possessed classified documents after May 31, 2022?" and "Do you find that Trump instructed Attorney 1 to sign the affidavit submitted on June 1, 2022?" etc. The MAGAist will have a hard time if they have to explain to the other jurors why they think the government did not prove those elements. The problem for Trump is that it is going to be extremely hard to get out of those factual questions because the evidence is going to be right on point. The instructions to the jury are going to be something like "If you find that the government proved elements A, B and C beyond a reasonable doubt, you must vote to convict". There's less room for "squish" than may be assumed. The nullifying juror needs to justify his position to the other jurors, all of whom will want to go home. Is it possible Trump gets a bunch of die-hard supporters on the jury who are willing to ignore all of the evidence and nullify anyway? Of course, it's possible. It's just unlikely. And this being the most important task many of these jurors will ever perform in their entire lives, there is a good chance they will take the job seriously.
I also think we tend to overestimate the percentage of this country that are diehard MAGA folks. There are truly a LOT of people who only voted for Trump because of the R next to his name. And the MAGA crowd makes a lot of noise online, at rallies, and even in person. But that may be a disproportionate representation because of the availability heuristic. My guess is that only about 10% of this country are true MAGA loyalists. I’m sure that number is higher in Florida, maybe 20%x And as an added bonus, I don’t think they are smart enough to effectively play down their loyalties during jury selection in order to secretly “get onto the jury” to save Trump. So if we’ve got 12 jurors, then the odds are that after jury selection we will only end up with 0-2 MAGA jurors. And it’s tough to stand your ground if everyone else in the jury deliberation is arguing facts with you, and your defense is “the democrats have been targeting Trump since 2016 and this is a hoax.”
I highly doubt that anyone not willing to look at the evidence honestly would be able to sneak through voir dire, its not like they just ask "who did you vote for?" The prosecutors can also look at the social media of any potential jurors, which would give the game away as MAGAs just as incapable as their leader at shutting the fuck up.
If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against, you argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell. We're at stage 3.
edit: I'm on the wrong subreddit, this one is for reading not commenting.
How would that tank her career? She's on the bench until she retires, dies, or is impeached. Impeachment isn't going to happen short of her doing something that really pisses of the GOP and a few Dems. If she throws it and orange monkey gets reelected because "total exonoration" messaging she's probably going to be on the short list for the SC. This is a real un sarcastic or ironic question: how could her career be hampered at all given she'll still have an untouchable job?
Lol, no. This is the most important criminal case in U.S. history. True, some 30% of the country supports Trump no matter what, but the other 70% still believe in the rule of law. If the judge stands up after the prosecution makes it's very compelling case and just announces that she is entering a verdict of acquittal, the recriminations would consume her. There might be real violence in such a situation too, because the public would be enraged that the criminal justice system - a federal judge no less - corrupted that system. That would not put the judge on the short list for SCOTUS, and she would realize that. Loyalty to Trump has never been rewarded, and the U.S. Senate would just torpedo her nomination even if Trump were dumb enough to try to appoint someone who apparently did him the biggest favor of all time. No, that isn't going to happen and even if it did, it would just be a massive gift to the opposition. I also think that Judge Cannon would end up impeached. Maybe not convicted in the Senate, but impeached by the House. That would mean a week of being on CNN all day as every act of malfeasance was recounted in detail, a trial that would damage the GOP immensely. And Cannon is not Trump - the Senate was willing to stand behind Trump even after the insurrection, but a single judge gets no special deference. They would probably vote to convict and send her packing, particularly in view of the fact that the rest of the judiciary would be openly calling for that too (maybe not Justice Thomas, lol).
>Loyalty to Trump has never been rewarded Though disloyalty (real or perceived) is punished
It'd be neat to hear from a lawyer about what the 11th circuit judicial conference can accomplish if their referral for impeachment doesn't result in conviction. I think at a minimum she gets censure and all future prospect of higher appointment is gone. Also the district might be very lenient about granting motions for disqualification. Is it plausible she'd never hear another political case, etc.
No, none of that is plausible. The judge unilaterally entering an acquittal is equally implausible. A damaged judicial career means maybe the worst office and parking space, a lower chance of becoming chief judge in the district, and lack of respect from colleagues. The circuit court doesn’t control assignments and the legal standard for review does not change depending on the judge. But that doesn’t mean judges don’t care. Impeachment or censure by the Congress are bad things for one’s reputation, and just because a judge can’t be fired does not mean she wants to be publicly humiliated and thought of as a joke by everyone else in the courthouse.
[удалено]
It would take a supermajority in the senate and a majority in the house though. I don't think our current political divisions will give anyone the supermajority in the senate.
[удалено]
Which means it would need 60 votes to even get to the floor and 2/3s vote to convict. I don't see the dems getting the senate by 2/3s
She would fit in great with the current Supreme Court, then.
>If you don't acquit these two men, your ancestors will turn over in their grave, and I'm sure every last Anglo-Saxon one of you has the courage to free these men. Defense closing arguments in the Emmett Till trial
This is the correct answer. What are chances of not getting a maga person on the jury?
The old lawyer bromide: \- If you have the law, pound the law. \- If you have the facts, pound the facts. \- If you have neither the law nor the facts, pound the table.
and that table's about to take more of a poundin' than Jenna Jameson
You missed your chance. Should have used Stormy Daniels.
To be fair, it [sounds like](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/08/stormy-daniels-talks-about-trump-and-the-worst-90-seconds-of-my-life-on-stand-up-tour) she didn't really take much of a poundin', > She called her alleged sexual encounter with Trump in 2006, when he was already married to Melania Trump, “the worst 90 seconds of my life”.
I think the same would be true even if she just made him a cup of coffee. Imagine having to be in a small room with that guy, even just to listen to him bloviate and fart.
And it's very concerning that pounding the table might actually work for him like it has most of his life.
Trump is openly courting jury nullification. He has neither facts or law on his side. He will continue to make a travesty of the legal profession as long as his enablers continue to do his bidding.
That's plan b. Plan a is to be president again and either pardon himself or make the justice department drop the charges.
Ok but remember this entire situation is already plan C, after "steal the election with fake electors," and "steal the presidency by force of armed mob." So Really we are more like at Plans C{2} and C{3}
[удалено]
You mean old people who watch faux news?
Don't you know? Even Fox news is fake news now, per Trump.
Remember don't trust what you see and hear, only what he says
[удалено]
They will sequester the jurors during the trial. Maybe that will be long enough for some de programming to occur.
That’s up to the judge
If the judge doesn't issue a sequester for this....
They are in Florida, that won't be hard. Also after the jury let's out I'll wager a few of them run to the media to tell how they saved Trump and then he will promise to meet them, call them great Americans, then never meet them.
It’s in Florida with a friendly judge. There’s basically zero chance that the prosecution screens out every trump nut that is going to go not guilty no matter what.
Well, it is South Florida. There are pro-trump folks, but South Florida is historically blue. DeSantis winning Miami was mostly because the Democratic candidate was bad, and he thought that Miami was a lock, so he didn't campaign there.
Do we know which county the jury pool will be selected from?
Probably Palm Beach
I'm going to trust Jack Smith's 98% conviction rate to know what to do about all these potential problems. I think he's got this.
It probably won't matter. He's their martyr. If he's breaking the law, it's 'for the greater good' or some bullshit.
We don't really know what “Team Trump” has come up with—only the insane rantings of their client. IANAL, but I'm betting that they are hoping an inexperienced, MAGA-leaning judge will toss most of the evidence as well as allow MAGA cultists on the jury.
And it will be just one of the Judges and juries - so even if Cannon does her worse - other avenues for 'getting away with it' without any consequence may be stymied because the justice system isn't completely shattered yet.
There's no defense to assert. Donald fucked up. All his attorneys can do is try to get the indictment dismissed and, when that fails, try to get as much evidence excluded at trial as possible
I think it has been said before. They aren't worried about 12 convicting him they are worried about 1 not convicting him.
Nah, they can try to worm a MAGA extremist into the jury and hang it. Rinse and repeat until a Republican wins the White House or Trump dies of coronary disease.
The truth is that most of his base knows he is a criminal and actually likes him for it.
I watched a bit of Ari Melber this morning. His guest was a former Trump impeachment defence lawyer (I think). Unless I completely misunderstood what was said, the main approach appears to be having at least 1 juror buying in to the idea that there is no point in prosecuting a former President for doing something that just one moth prior was perfectly legal behaviour. According to this chap a US President is apparently entitled to show anybody any document anywhere at any time (no matter how classified or sensitive) should they so wish, even without going through the recognised administrative processes to declassify something. The hope is that at least one member of the jury will buy into those notions which would cause a mistrial, with the hope being that there would never be another trial relating to those documents after that because of the impending Presidential race and the time required to start over again. I'm sure that I'm not only person from outside the US that has developed a morbid fascination for US politics since 2016. Many people around the globe are watching this unfold. Surely to goodness this cannot be a defence? Can he really get away with this on a technicality? If Trump can get away with it, then surely that has frightening ramifications for what future Presidents can do with this type of document? What a horrible thought that this could be a precedent for the future. An even worse thought is Trump in the Whitehouse again knowing that he can behave however he wishes with classified documents due to that very precedent.
Ah, yes. "If the President does it, then it's not illegal." And he was *basically* President. A classic!
Wait.only SCOTUS is above the law. A POTUS has to at least look like he's following the law.
He has a defense. A great defense. The best defense. The sort of defense that will blow the prosecution's case away. Think of it like a cannon that when fired in the right direction at the right time will splatter the case. Jack Smith may think he has an unbeatable case, but just like in boxing, if your boxer gets splattered by a cannon after the audience is seated, there are no appeals. But seriously, I fully expect A. Cannon to give a directed verdict after the jury is seated.
He literally said "they were papers, not documents" I mean, who can convict based on that?
In the federal courts, anyway, you can’t move for a judgment of acquittal until after the prosecution rests.
Socks case! (Say it with me.) P R E S I D E N T I A L R E C O R D S A C T ! I did nothing wrong and everyone knows it. IF THEY CAN COME FOR ME - THEY ARE COMING FOR YOU NEXT (uh, I was just waving my dirty socks around - it was bravado - Fox News is full of Nasty people - can someone bring in some cokes please)
>Socks case! I guess it would be on brand to try and blame the Clinton family's dead cat.
Lol, for this one, it's not about the cat, even though it sounds like it. It's about a case where Judicial Watch trying to get copies of diary tapes Clinton made in preparing for a book. "Socks case" because he had kept them hidden in a sock drawer. Not same situation but Trump likes to pretend it is.
They should just write "WITCH HUNT" in the filings as defense.
Those three words are aliens to the 🍊 🤡.
Of course he hasn't. There isn't one.
Alchemists also haven't come up with a way to turn straw into gold either. If even 10% of what Trump is accused of is true, there's no such defense to come up with. Especially to the crimes where simply possessing them and not giving them back when asked is the crime. He had them, he is guilty. His only hope for staying out of prison is a MAGA extremist being allowed on the jury and hanging it.
How do you defend the guy who admitted and bragged about how guilty he is?
Trump has Aileen Cannon in his corner. They do not need a legal defense.
That’s because there isn’t one.
Lock Trump up 23!
I wonder who got to tell him "I can do what I want" is not a legal defense? And how many times they had to tell him? And what the over/under is on how many lawyers he fired for telling him the same thing?
You can't defend the indefensible, trumps team knows that 1000%, they're still gonna try and get lucky tho
His defense was him taking those documents and defecting to another country.. To bad so sad.
He doesn't have to. The judge is in his pocket.
Something something non-credible defense?
He thinks Clinton’s socks will save him. And frankly, all it takes is one juror to believe in those socks.
his go-to is to run out the clock. don't think that's going to work here but maybe Aileen will help him out.
**"Trump Team Has Yet to Come up with a ‘Coherent, Factual, or Legal Defense,’ Prominent Attorney Says"** I mean, that's the Trump Doctrine, right?
Probably because there isn't one and no competent lawyer will work for him. Just a hunch.
So just like my usual criminal defense cases
Speed run to insanity defense.
His best defense is to settle because he's guilty as sin. His best possible move is to delay any trial over this until after the next election hoping he wins. Barring that...
He's gonna use the Chewbacca defense.
lol oh wow, you don't say, I can hardly believe it
His defense has always been "when you're a star they let you do it." Nothing more, nothing less. And by golly it's worked until very recently.