Liberal Forum

First, we know that there will be a lot of witnesses.

A review of the indictment suggests that Smith will have to call 30 to 40 witnesses to substantiate everything in the wide-ranging indictment.

The indictment’s description of the “conspiracy to defraud the United States” includes tense confrontations in the Oval Office, phone calls to legislators in seven states, more than 60 lawsuits, attempts to corrupt the Department of Justice, lies to electors, and a final push by Trump on Jan. 6, 2021, to pressure his vice president not to certify Joe Biden’s victory.


Smith’s list of witnesses should read like a veritable who’s who of the Republican Party, and will likely include Mike Pence, U.S. congressmen, U.S. Department of Justice officials, White House lawyers and advisers, officials from several states, and at least some of the “fake” electors who signed election certifications even though their candidate lost the race. 

Second, everything described in the indictment — everything, without exception — must be established by admissible evidence in the Washington, D.C., courtroom. Even the background information included in one of the indictment’s opening paragraphs, which describes how electoral votes are counted under federal law, will likely have to be explained to the jury by an expert witness.

The cross-examination of that witness, which could be relevant to Trump’s defense, may be lengthy. (On Thursday, Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges.) Indicted: MAGA violence becomes criminal evidence against Trump in coup case Smith and his team will endeavor to tell the story laid out in the indictment.


But, after the government’s opening statement, that story has to be told through live witness testimony or reliable documents (think emails and text messages).

In contrast, the House Jan. 6 committee, which had first crack at many of the witnesses, was not conducting a criminal trial and did not have to comply with the rules of evidence and criminal procedure. For purposes of those blockbuster public hearings, the committee was able to select and play relevant portions of videotaped depositions to illustrate key points.

Notably, the near-total boycott of the committee by House Republicans meant that witness testimony went unchallenged.

The Constitution affords criminal prosecutors no such luxuries. Government witnesses in Trump’s criminal trials will have to testify live. They will be subject to cross-examination; this is Trump’s right under the Sixth Amendment to confront the witnesses against him.

And, for reasons of efficiency, trial judges expect witnesses to testify in a single session about everything relevant to the trial.


That means Smith’s witnesses may be asked to testify about a number of events that may not flow chronologically in Smith’s presentation of the case.


The jury will have to sort all that out later, with the help of the government’s closing argument.


https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opi ... -rcna98069

 
 

Kangaroo sessions. Deflections galore.

btw
Trump-mania (as popular as ever) is NOT what's ruining our country right now.

DeezerShoove » 05 Aug 2023, 6:07 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Aug 2023, 6:07 pm

Kangaroo sessions. Deflections galore.

btw
Trump-mania (as popular as ever) is NOT what's ruining our country right now.

who you trying to convince ?     
 
No one showed up at his day in court .....no one.

razoo » 05 Aug 2023, 6:15 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Aug 2023, 6:15 pm

who you trying to convince ?     
 
No one showed up at his day in court .....no one.

So what? You just don't get it.

None of this affects me in any way. You tell me how it actually affects you.

I won't try to convince anyone of anything.
You seem desperate in trying to make me react to something here.
I see a lot of desperation coming from libs and MSM and entrenched assholes.
Sweat, ****, sweat.   

It's going to be fun to watch.
Trump's best defense is to say he was stupid and gullible for listening to his terrible advisors.
If he doesn't he admits to knowing there was no election fraud to begin with and that he was in on everything.
He's stuck between saying he's a ******* or admitting defeat.
Trump has been played like a fiddle by Jack Smith.

Lock him up because he talks too much which impacts Our economy, our job market, Wall Street, our national security, our retail market and the list goes on .......

ALEC led him to the cliff .................. ALEC played him like a fiddle............

HELL. in usa you do not need evidence. crooked judge wins.

razoo » 06 Aug 2023, 12:21 am » wrote: ↑

06 Aug 2023, 12:21 am

Lock him up because he talks too much which impacts Our economy, our job market, Wall Street, our national security, our retail market and the list goes on .......

ALEC led him to the cliff .................. ALEC played him like a fiddle............

When they rounded up all the Nazi brass hats only Goring, was even the slightest bit worthy of a trace of sympathy. There were all these unspeakably evil Nazis just being the most horrible goons in recorded history and there Goring was, collecting art, getting married, building a shrine to his dead wife, staying a million miles away from Jew killing, and establishing humane POW camps for every downed Allied flier dropping bombs on the Fatherland.  He was truly surprised when he was sentenced to hang.

When they make the Trump movie, there Donald will be surrounded  by the most rabid right wingers since the Third Reich, and he’s holding rallies and playing golf and wearing out Air Force One, and he’s saying everything millions of beer bellied bigots want to hear, tossing towels to hurricane victims, eyeing pretty girls, fending off lawsuits by bimbos, he’s really sort of an amiable bon vivant.

He’s an American Goring.

They can’t hang him.

But will they have the fortitude to lock him up, so there’s not ever going to be another Goring as President ?





 

Squatchman » 05 Aug 2023, 10:24 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Aug 2023, 10:24 pm

It's going to be fun to watch.
Trump's best defense is to say he was stupid and gullible for listening to his terrible advisors.
If he doesn't he admits to knowing there was no election fraud to begin with and that he was in on everything.
He's stuck between saying he's a ******* or admitting defeat.
Trump has been played like a fiddle by Jack Smith.

It seems to me, the best outcome you could hope for, is this gets dismissed. I don't think there is any possible way at that point in time, Trump could've known the election wasn't stolen. How could he possibly have established that amongst the sheer quantities of information that exist in the chaos after an election? - the truth is, no one could and no one did. There's no way of instantaneously demonstrating the truth one way or the other. There were highly concerning anomalies surrounding the election, which Trump quite rightly reacted to and wanted properly investigating. For those of us who don't worship at the alter of Dumb Lemon, we still don't know it wasn't stolen - it's far from being the established, settled fact MSNBCNN would like you to think it is

Which leads to point 1 in the trial. You're going to have to demonstrate it actually wasn't stolen - if you can't, then the question of proving anyone knew it wasn't stolen becomes a logical impossibility. Pro-tip, anyone involved, whether in a primary, secondary or tertiary fashion will be dead of boredom or old-age, long before this question is resolved to a satisfactory, evidentiary standard

Point 2) Assuming you get through point 1, you're then going to have to demonstrate that Trump actually knew it wasn't stolen in that period right after the election. Well that's a total bloody nonsense since you're probably going to spend decades in this court case, establishing it wasn't stolen (the onus is on your side), and will, in all likelihood, fail to do so. But either way, the sheer colossal complexity of demonstrating point 1, innately demonstrates that point 2 (Trump knew it wasn't stolen), couldn't possibly have been the case at any point in time

Point 3) This is an excellent opportunity to actually bring to light and properly litigate all of those concerns and anomalies that got pushed aside - which combined, will pretty much destroy the possibility of point 1 and point 2 ever being established. Without point 1 and 2, there simply is no case against Trump. Even having established those, you then have to get past presidential immunity and Trump's own constitutional rights. Jack ****, has fabricated his very own quagmire.

Squatchman » 05 Aug 2023, 10:24 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Aug 2023, 10:24 pm

It's going to be fun to watch.
Trump's best defense is to say he was stupid and gullible for listening to his terrible advisors.
If he doesn't he admits to knowing there was no election fraud to begin with and that he was in on everything.
He's stuck between saying he's a ******* or admitting defeat.
Trump has been played like a fiddle by Jack Smith.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

n law, ignorantia juris non excusat (Latin for "ignorance of the law excuses not"), or ignorantia legis neminem excusat ("ignorance of law excuses no one"), is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely by being unaware of its content

JustinSane » 06 Aug 2023, 3:20 am » wrote: ↑

06 Aug 2023, 3:20 am

It seems to me, the best outcome you could hope for, is this gets dismissed. I don't think there is any possible way at that point in time, Trump could've known the election wasn't stolen. How could he possibly have established that amongst the sheer quantities of information that exist in the chaos after an election? - the truth is, no one could and no one did. There's no way of instantaneously demonstrating the truth one way or the other. There were highly concerning anomalies surrounding the election, which Trump quite rightly reacted to and wanted properly investigating. For those of us who don't worship at the alter of Dumb Lemon, we still don't know it wasn't stolen - it's far from being the established, settled fact MSNBCNN would like you to think it is

Which leads to point 1 in the trial. You're going to have to demonstrate it actually wasn't stolen - if you can't, then the question of proving anyone knew it wasn't stolen becomes a logical impossibility. Pro-tip, anyone involved, whether in a primary, secondary or tertiary fashion will be dead of boredom or old-age, long before this question is resolved to a satisfactory, evidentiary standard

Point 2) Assuming you get through point 1, you're then going to have to demonstrate that Trump actually knew it wasn't stolen in that period right after the election. Well that's a total bloody nonsense since you're probably going to spend decades in this court case, establishing it wasn't stolen (the onus is on your side), and will, in all likelihood, fail to do so. But either way, the sheer colossal complexity of demonstrating point 1, innately demonstrates that point 2 (Trump knew it wasn't stolen), couldn't possibly have been the case at any point in time

Point 3) This is an excellent opportunity to actually bring to light and properly litigate all of those concerns and anomalies that got pushed aside - which combined, will pretty much destroy the possibility of point 1 and point 2 ever being established. Without point 1 and 2, there simply is no case against Trump. Even having established those, you then have to get past presidential immunity and Trump's own constitutional rights. Jack ****, has fabricated his very own quagmire.

having fake electors is illegal.
 

Squatchman » 05 Aug 2023, 10:24 pm » wrote: ↑

05 Aug 2023, 10:24 pm

It's going to be fun to watch.
Trump's best defense is to say he was stupid and gullible for listening to his terrible advisors.
If he doesn't he admits to knowing there was no election fraud to begin with and that he was in on everything.
He's stuck between saying he's a ******* or admitting defeat.
Trump has been played like a fiddle by Jack Smith.

and he will eventually blame his present lawyers for giving bad advice that he did not know what is not legal.

bacause.........
----------------------------------------

in law, ignorantia juris non excusat (Latin for "ignorance of the law excuses not"), or ignorantia legis neminem excusat ("ignorance of law excuses no one"), is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely by being unaware of its content
 
 
 

-------------------------------------------

Why is ignorance of the law no excuse?------------------

Ignorance of the Law - Is It a Defense? | Los Angeles ...
It is a fundamental legal principle in the U.S. that ignorance of the law is no defense. If ignorance were accepted as an excuse, any person charged with a criminal offense could claim ignorance to avoid the consequences. Laws apply to every person within the jurisdiction, whether they are known and understood.Mar 16, 2022

ignorance of the law is no defense,

any lawyer knows that.
 

jerrab » 06 Aug 2023, 4:45 am » wrote: ↑

06 Aug 2023, 4:45 am

ignorance of the law is no defense,

any lawyer knows that.

Intention is 70% of the law. Prosecution has to prove Trump knew or should reasonably have known the election was free from fraud. We can't conclusively say that today, much less the days and weeks right after the election. Hurt feelings and anger are not criminal. 
 

Neo » 06 Aug 2023, 4:49 am » wrote: ↑

06 Aug 2023, 4:49 am

Intention is 70% of the law. Prosecution has to prove Trump knew or should reasonably have known the election was free from fraud. We can't conclusively say that today, much less the days and weeks right after the election. Hurt feelings and anger are not criminal.

  Trump's only defense is to say he was ignorant,gullible and stupid to believe the advisors that told him the election was stolen. Even after it had been shown it hadn't and he was told by others that weren't **** in the head.
  Will he admit to being stupid?
. It'll be some fun to watch t.v. for sure.
. 
 

Neo » 06 Aug 2023, 4:49 am » wrote: ↑

06 Aug 2023, 4:49 am

Intention is 70% of the law. Prosecution has to prove Trump knew or should reasonably have known the election was free from fraud. We can't conclusively say that today, much less the days and weeks right after the election. Hurt feelings and anger are not criminal.

For the big one, which is Count II, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, the criminal intent is to conspire for the obstruction of the proceeding.

I can’t see how any judge allows Trump to even introduce irrelevant evidence he sincerely thought the elections were rigged.

Lorri Vallow sincerely believed her two children were vampires, too.

Besides, trying to steal New Mexico wasn’t exactly a very bright play to establish a defense Trump thought New Mexico voted for him and not Biden, by 100,000 votes.


 

Bruce » 06 Aug 2023, 5:31 am » wrote: ↑

06 Aug 2023, 5:31 am

For the big one, which is Count II, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, the criminal intent is to conspire for the obstruction of the proceeding.

I can’t see how any judge allows Trump to even introduce irrelevant evidence he sincerely thought the elections were rigged.

Lorri Vallow sincerely believed her two children were vampires, too.

Besides, trying to steal New Mexico wasn’t exactly a very bright play to establish a defense Trump thought New Mexico voted for him and not Biden, by 100,000 votes.

Having republican electors selected isn't a crime. The election irregularities needed investigation. 
 

Neo » 06 Aug 2023, 5:59 am » wrote: ↑

06 Aug 2023, 5:59 am

Having republican electors selected isn't a crime. The election irregularities needed investigation.

totally illegal
------------------------------------WASHINGTON (AP) — The role that fake slates of electors played in Donald Trump’s desperate effort to cling to power after his defeat in the 2020 election is at the center of a four-count indictment released against the former president Tuesday.The third criminal case into Trump details, among other charges, what prosecutors say was a massive and monthslong effort to “impair, obstruct, and defeat” the federal process for certifying the results of a presidential election, culminating in the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.The 45-page indictment states that when Trump could not persuade state officials to illegally swing the election in his favor, he and his Republican allies began recruiting a slate of fake electors in seven battleground states — Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, New Mexico, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — to sign certificates falsely stating that he, not Democrat Joe Biden, had won their states.

https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump ... 3fdcd8fcce


 

Squatchman » 06 Aug 2023, 5:12 am » wrote: ↑

06 Aug 2023, 5:12 am

  Trump's only defense is to say he was ignorant,gullible and stupid to believe the advisors that told him the election was stolen. Even after it had been shown it hadn't and he was told by others that weren't **** in the head.
  Will he admit to being stupid?
. It'll be some fun to watch t.v. for sure.
.

saying he did know fake electors were illegal  is no defense

-------------------------------------

The 45-page indictment states that when Trump could not persuade state officials to illegally swing the election in his favor, he and his Republican allies began recruiting a slate of fake electors in seven battleground states — Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, New Mexico, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — to sign certificates falsely stating that he, not Democrat Joe Biden, had won their states.