How will the defense offer an explanation?

quote:

Originally posted by Schrodinger:
How will the defense offer an explanation?

Reeeeeaaaally dont appreciate your negative waves.
Trump should testify, Trump needs to testify. Trump wants to testify!!!!

Censor yourself Shro, Trump need to be on that witness stand letting fly!
This is a, "hold my beer and watch this!" moment that generations miss.

"Just lay back Baby,....let it happen."

No competent lawyer would allow Trump to testify in a criminal trial. If he insists, the competent lawyer should attempt to resign.

quote:

Originally posted by Schrodinger:
How will the defense offer an explanation?

Funny you say that, since we have two courts. (to play on the Rightists' double std game)

One court is per the rule of law. The other is court of public opinion. Trump testifies every time he opens his mouth or tweets. There is crossover. Anything he says or tweets can and will be used against him in court, and maybe for him in the opinions of Trumpsters.

Whatabouting is a good one too.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...60fd683e437d90&ei=20

Ex-Trump Adviser Has 2 Blunt Questions For Whatabouting Republicans
Story by Lee Moran • 52m ago

Bolton then said he’d ask those GOPers still defending Trump:

“Is the answer to the double standard to let Donald Trump escape scot-free?

Is the answer to the double standard to revert to no standard at all?”

“I think that’s wrong,” continued Bolton, who became a vocal critic of Trump after leaving his administration in September 2019.

Bolton urged those Republicans — such as Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) — to “worry about the others later.”

“This is the decision before you,” he added. “I want Republicans who think Trump should be given a pass to say so explicitly. Don’t whatabout it.”

===============================================

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...c026717ed14813&ei=25

'Scared' Trump is being held accountable 'for the first time in his life': former White House official
Story by Brad Reed • 2h ago

"For the first time in his life, it looks like he’s being held accountable," Kelly said. "Up until this point in his life, it’s like, I’m not going to pay you, take me to court. He’s never been held accountable before."

quote:

Originally posted by Schrodinger:
How will the defense offer an explanation?

In any criminal trial please tell me why a defendant, properly presumed innocent of the charges against him, must explain his reason not to testify in his own trial should he choose not to? I think I missed this in Crim Pro.

quote:

Originally posted by bluefish:

quote:

Originally posted by Schrodinger:
How will the defense offer an explanation?

In any criminal trial please tell me why a defendant, properly presumed innocent of the charges against him, must explain his reason not to testify in his own trial should he choose not to? I think I missed this in Crim Pro.

I'll let your boy explain it to you:

Trump has suggested on many occasions that people who invoke their right against self-incrimination are guilty. “You see the mob takes the Fifth,” Trump said during a 2016 rally in Iowa. “If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?”

https://nymag.com/intelligence...takes-the-fifth.html

I'm not sure about trump choosing not to testify. I think he very well might depending on how well the prosecution's case-in-chief goes. What's he got to lose? He's looking at significant prison time already with these charges and he's such an arrogant ass that I'm sure he feels he'll be able to sway the jury to his side. And, he may be right. All it will take is one trumptard to hang that jury and get him a mistrial.

I think what he's going to have to do is bring experts to trial to testify that somehow he did declassify the documents. I don't know how he defends the obstruction charges. I don't see how you explain to a jury your refusal to return documents that don't belong to you and forcing the FBI to execute a search warrant to get the documents back to the National Archives.

I do agree that him not testifying is not a good look. Bluefish is absolutely correct about the presumption of innocence but, no matter what the jury pool says about it during voir dire, every member of that panel will wonder why a man accused of these kinds of felonies wouldn't get on the stand and deny it and explain it.

This case is going to be all about voir dire and what kind of jury gets seated.

quote:

voir dire

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voir_dire#United_States

In the United States, voir dire is the process by which prospective jurors are questioned about their backgrounds and potential biases before being chosen to sit on a jury. "Voir Dire is the process by which attorneys select, or perhaps more appropriately reject, certain jurors to hear a case."

Trump can’t testify. He would never stand up to cross examination. Plus, it would be impossible to deny the elements of the crimes. At the most basic level were these docs classified and were they taken and did he try to hide.

The defense’s hope will be to aggressively cross some of the prosecution’s more questionable witnesses and hope that it gives an excuse to a couple jurors that are secretly Trump admirers.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
I'm not sure about trump choosing not to testify. I think he very well might depending on how well the prosecution's case-in-chief goes. What's he got to lose? He's looking at significant prison time already with these charges and he's such an arrogant ass that I'm sure he feels he'll be able to sway the jury to his side. And, he may be right. All it will take is one trumptard to hang that jury and get him a mistrial.

I think what he's going to have to do is bring experts to trial to testify that somehow he did declassify the documents. I don't know how he defends the obstruction charges. I don't see how you explain to a jury your refusal to return documents that don't belong to you and forcing the FBI to execute a search warrant to get the documents back to the National Archives.

I do agree that him not testifying is not a good look. Bluefish is absolutely correct about the presumption of innocence but, no matter what the jury pool says about it during voir dire, every member of that panel will wonder why a man accused of these kinds of felonies wouldn't get on the stand and deny it and explain it.

This case is going to be all about voir dire and what kind of jury gets seated.

Even if they were declassified he still had no right to take them or keep them.

I'm with Schrodinger. The cross examination would rip him to pieces. It would be the end of his 2024 campaign and fund raising scams.

Right or wrong, regardless of instructions, jury nullification is always a threat to prosecutions if politics are involved.

Anybody remember O.J.

And presuming that cross would rip Trump apart, Obama said, with a giggle, that Trump would never be elected. Past history would tend to show that Trump’s mouth is often seemingly bigger than his brain, but counting him out prematurely as incapable of expressing himself in a manner that influences voters, and aren’t jurors voters, was the mistake that got him elected in 2016.

And I remember well (maybe 1980 in Seneca,SC) a case where a drunken defendant (civil trial) hit a van carrying $80,000.00 of bull semen. Clear liability. 100% loss of vehicle and product. Jury came back with a verdict of $300. They KNEW the plaintiff was lying because, and I quote, “Regardless of the brand (Bull) we’ve never heard of CEMENT that cost more than $3.00 a bag”

It’s always a crap shoot.

And quitting if a defendant wants to testify…. It’s their right and other than doing my best to educate a defendant of the risks and prepping him/her by trying to practice all scenarios of possible cross, after explaining that taking the stand might be the best way to get in jail, and after their signing a lengthy acknowledgment of my advice and our prep… it’s still not my decision. In my state, if the defendant decides not to testify, before the judge, and after a judge’s lengthy questioning, the defend must decline on the record.

I thought that was my duty… with a caveat… if I knew the defendant would lie under oath, and knowing is a pretty absolute word, I’d not participate.

OJ is a damn good example of the way shit can go sideways in a trial.

yeah, trump has been cross-examined a lot. And, I'm sure that Jack Smith will give him all he wants if he does take the stand. That doesn't mean there won't be one trumptard on that jury who buys trump's bullshit and causes a mistrial.

Shit, I heard this morning that over 80% of republicans think the charges are politically motivated. That ought to tell you what you're dealing with when trying to seat an unbiased jury in this case.

Screw you whores and your string holders. After Russia, Russia, Russia, you could kiss my ass also.

Good Lord, you clowns supported the government spying, lying and crying for 3 years over shit that they KNEW was false and now you're crying over Trump not testifying?!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Kensco:
I'm with Schrodinger. The cross examination would rip him to pieces. It would be the end of his 2024 campaign and fund raising scams.

You guys are a bunch of jerks!

I think Trump would do great on the stand. Trumps testimony would be full of, "I'm the best ever!.... the most fantastic!........ You're the most corrupt!...... This is the most despicable in the history of!..... etc."
Brilliant stuff. Like being able to see in color and real time Lincoln delivering the Gettysburg address but on Fox News.

Good Americans would be encouraging Trump to testify at length and in great detail.

Thanks for the insight, Igor. Now go finish your borscht and vodka, comrade…

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:
Thanks for the insight, Igor. Now go finish your borscht and vodka, comrade…

Russia, Russia, Russia..........REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

I would not testify either.

He has the right to remain silence and not self incriminate. He already has self incriminated