Trump Election Interference / Falsification of Business Records Criminal Trial (Trump guilty on all 34 Counts) (1 Viewer)

Optimus Prime said:

Trump seems to get cold feet about testifying in New York hush money trial

Former president previously insisted he would ‘absolutely’ speak out in his own defence

www.independent.co.uk

Click to expand...

If his lawyer has half a brain he will do everything he can to stop Trump from testifying. Trump is too stupid to keep his mouth shut when he should. Of course, there is the 5th amendment which, iirc, Trump said only guilty people use.

Otoh, Trump is gutless so I would be completely surprised if he does testify. He would likely go bleating to the media that the “crooked judge” wouldn’t’t let him testify.

bird said:

If his lawyer has half a brain he will do everything he can to stop Trump from testifying. Trump is too stupid to keep his mouth shut when he should. Of course, there is the 5th amendment which, iirc, Trump said only guilty people use.

Otoh, Trump is gutless so I would be completely surprised if he does testify. He would likely go bleating to the media that the “crooked judge” wouldn’t’t let him testify.

Click to expand...

I thought that if Trump chooses to testifies, he gives up his 5th amendment rights to self incrimination. Is that not how it works?

bird said:

If his lawyer has half a brain he will do everything he can to stop Trump from testifying. Trump is too stupid to keep his mouth shut when he should. Of course, there is the 5th amendment which, iirc, Trump said only guilty people use.

Otoh, Trump is gutless so I would be completely surprised if he does testify. He would likely go bleating to the media that the “crooked judge” wouldn’t’t let him testify.

Click to expand...

And no doubt also framed as “our case is so strong, our evidence is so airtight, our cross examinations so devastating and our witnesses so compelling there is no need for me to take the stand”

coldseat said:

I thought that if Trump chooses to testifies, he gives up his 5th amendment rights to self incrimination. Is that not how it works?

Click to expand...

I think so, because he's the defendant, not a witness. Defendants can plead the fifth and refuse to testify, but if they choose to testify then they waive that right and can not plead it during their testimony, whereas witnesses can plead the fifth on a question by question basis.

@superchuck500, sound about right?

superchuck500 said:

A criminal defendant voluntarily taking the stand does so in waiver of the 5th Amendment right.

That's part of what the Sandoval process is about - making sure the defendant knows what is within the scope of relevance and he would be expected to answer (and without being able to take the 5th).

Click to expand...

Booker said:

I think so, because he's the defendant, not a witness. Defendants can plea the fifth and refuse to testify, but if they choose to testify then they waive that right and can not plead it during their testimony, whereas witnesses can plea the fifth on a question by question basis.

@superchuck500, sound about right?

Click to expand...

i remember him posting this about the Monday Sandoval process hearing.

coldseat said:

I thought that if Trump chooses to testifies, he gives up his 5th amendment rights to self incrimination. Is that not how it works?

Click to expand...

Booker said:

I think so, because he's the defendant, not a witness. Defendants can plea the fifth and refuse to testify, but if they choose to testify then they waive that right and can not plead it during their testimony, whereas witnesses can plea the fifth on a question by question basis.

@superchuck500, sound about right?

Click to expand...

Yep.

Per feed:

Trump attempts to greet Graff after testimony​

Trump attorney Susan Necheles asks Graff about The Celebrity Apprentice. She testifies that Trump was "fairly hands-on" with the show that elevated him to "rockstar status." She recalls "vaguely" remembering that Trump was considering Stormy Daniels for the show.

After a short testimony, Trump attempts to greet Graff as she leaves the stand. The extent of their exchange is not clear from our vantage point. However, the move appears to shock the courtroom, where murmurs are heard. Jurors were still in the box at this moment.

Court is taking a short break.

superchuck500 said:

Per feed:

Trump attempts to greet Graff after testimony​

Trump attorney Susan Necheles asks Graff about The Celebrity Apprentice. She testifies that Trump was "fairly hands-on" with the show that elevated him to "rockstar status." She recalls "vaguely" remembering that Trump was considering Stormy Daniels for the show.

After a short testimony, Trump attempts to greet Graff as she leaves the stand. The extent of their exchange is not clear from our vantage point. However, the move appears to shock the courtroom, where murmurs are heard. Jurors were still in the box at this moment.

Court is taking a short break.

Click to expand...

where does that fall on the chart of " dont do" when in court? Obviously unorthodox- given that he extolled the "beauty" of the testimony yesterday and Pecker was "amazing"

lol

The first criminal trial of a former US president is underway — and most Americans believe that Donald Trump is not being treated equally to other criminal defendants.

A poll conducted last week shows the country is decisively split over whether Mr Trump is being treated more leniently or more harshly.

Some 34 per cent say they believe the former president is being treated “more leniently” than other criminal defendants in the historic trial, according to the CNN poll on Thursday. The same percentage believe that he is being treated “more harshly”.

Only 13 per cent believe he is being treated “about the same” as other defendants.……

In one America, he cuts a diminished, humbled figure during coverage that runs from morn till night. “He seems considerably older and he seems annoyed, resigned, maybe angry,” said broadcaster Rachel Maddowafter seeing Donald Trump up close in court. “He seems like a man who is miserable to be here.”

But in the other America – that of Fox News, far-right podcasts and the Make America Great Again (Maga) base – the trial of the former president over a case involving a hush-money payment to an adult film performer is playing out very differently.

Here, anger at what is seen as political persecution meets with another emotion: sublime indifference. Barely a handful of Trump supporters bother to protest each day outside the court in New York, a Democratic stronghold. The trial receives less prominence in conservative media, which prefers to devote airtime to other national news including protests on university campuses against the war in Gaza.


The divergence ensures that, with TV cameras not permitted in court, two rival narratives are forming around the first criminal trial of an ex-US president. In one telling, Trump is a philander who falsified business records to illegally influence the 2016 presidential election. In the other, he is the victim of a justice department conspiracy designed to rob the Republican nominee of victory in 2024.

Michael Steele, a former chair of the Republican National Committee, said: “The minds in those orbits are already made up. If you’re listening to [far-right podcaster] Steve Bannon, you’re not going to be convinced by any other outcome except not guilty. If you are hyperventilating over coverage that speaks to Donald Trump’s guilt, then you’re not going to be happy unless he’s found guilty.”

How the Trump trial is playing in Maga world: sublime indifference, collective shrug

The hush-money criminal trial receives less prominence in conservative media, and when Trump-friendly networks do turn to the trial, they give viewers an alternative narrative

www.theguardian.com

superchuck500 said:

First, that’s not a “lower level job” - it’s a quite different job. He was at the NYAG before he took the DOJ job - where he was there in an acting (non-confirmed) role from January 2021 to December 2022, before he took the job back at the NYAG to lead the Trump case. You’re going to have to ask him why but there’s certainly nothing curious about it - he wasn’t at DOJ for very long and the AAG post is policy and management, there’s no case work whatsoever. Many lawyers prefer case work and substantive practice over policy and management. And DOJ isn’t necessarily the end all be all.

But it certainly doesn’t suggest he’s some Biden plant. The investigation began in 2018 (when he was still at NYAG). He certainly appears to believe that Trump has broken the law and should be accountable but that hardly means he’s under Biden’s direction. I think many millions share that view.

Click to expand...

From what I've read, it hasn't happened before that the #3 official at the DOJ has left to be a line prosecutor. Is that accurate? If so can you list an example of it happening?

We know that the Biden White House coordinated with Fani Willis's office.

We also know from recently unredacted documents by Judge Cannon that the Biden White House was coordinating with NARA long before they originally claimed the investigation started

I seriously doubt it was just a coincidence that the #3 at the DOJ just happened to get the job to be the lead prosecutor against Trump.

SaintForLife said:

From what I've read, it hasn't happened before that the #3 official at the DOJ has left to be a line prosecutor. Is that accurate? If so can you list an example of it happening?

We know that the Biden White House coordinated with Fani Willis's office.

We also know from recently unredacted documents by Judge Cannon that the Biden White House was coordinating with NARA long before they originally claimed the investigation started

I seriously doubt it was just a coincidence that the #3 at the DOJ just happened to get the job to be the lead prosecutor against Trump.

Click to expand...

I don't think it's a coincidence at all that Matthew Colangelo went back to the NYAG to be on the Trump trial team - he was at that office before he went to DOJ. He was at that office when the investigation of this very case began in 2018. He led other investigations of Trump while at the NYAG. He may very well have wanted to return to prosecute the case because he thinks Trump is a criminal and he thinks that this case, that he is familiar with from its very origins as an investigation, has merit. And because he has professional relationships in that office where he worked - and when Bragg asked him, he wanted to go prosecute the case with them.

That's all entirely sensible and no, it's not a coincidence. But to you that's obvious that Biden is pulling the strings here? Believe that all you want but it's just not persuasive. The NYAG is a strong, respected office and this investigation was three years old when Biden became president - they were going to press charges with Colangelo or not. Why would Biden have to even weigh in on something that was already going to happen? What control is he exerting over a state AG office that (a) he doesn't have authority over and (b) is already going what he would supposedly want them to do?

And Colangelo wasn't #3 at DOJ, you're also incorrect about that. He was the Acting Associate Attorney General (1/20/21 - 4/21/21), as part of the "transition team" - which is how continuity of federal operations occurs in a new administration as the administration works to get those positions filled with Senate confirmations. The first confirmed Associate Attorney General under Biden was Vanita Gupta, and she was confirmed on April 21, 2021 (see below).

So Colangelo was "Acting" Associate Attorney General for three months. And as acting Associate Attorney General, he was ineligible to serve the AG line of succession (per the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998) . . . so he was never the #3 at DOJ. He did supervise all that the AAG supervises for three months, but it's not all of DOJ and has no supervision over the FBI or any of DOJ's criminal prosecutors.

But after Gupta was confirmed, Colangelo became one of Gupta's Deputy Associate AG's - which is not a confirmed position - where he served for 19 more months. How often have former DOJ officials who were in high level acting roes for three months gone back to their previous job to finish a case they believed strongly in? I don't know - I'm certain it isn't zero.

superchuck500 said:

I don't think it's a coincidence at all that Matthew Colangelo went back to the NYAG to be on the Trump trial team - he was at that office before he went to DOJ. He was at that office when the investigation of this very case began in 2018. He led other investigations of Trump while at the NYAG. He may very well have wanted to return to prosecute the case because he thinks Trump is a criminal and he thinks that this case, that he is familiar with from its very origins as an investigation, has merit. And because he has professional relationships in that office where he worked - and when Bragg asked him, he wanted to go prosecute the case with them.

That's all entirely sensible and no, it's not a coincidence. But to you that's obvious that Biden is pulling the strings here? Believe that all you want but it's just not persuasive. The NYAG is a strong, respected office and this investigation was three years old when Biden became president - they were going to press charges with Colangelo or not. Why would Biden have to even weigh in on something that was already going to happen? What control is he exerting over a state AG office that (a) he doesn't have authority over and (b) is already going what he would supposedly want them to do?

And Colangelo wasn't #3 at DOJ, you're also incorrect about that. He was the Acting Associate Attorney General (1/20/21 - 4/21/21), as part of the "transition team" - which is how continuity of federal operations occurs in a new administration as the administration works to get those positions filled with Senate confirmations. The first confirmed Associate Attorney General under Biden was Vanita Gupta, and she was confirmed on April 21, 2021 (see below).

So Colangelo was "Acting" Associate Attorney General for three months. And as acting Associate Attorney General, he was ineligible to serve the AG line of succession (per the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998) . . . so he was never the #3 at DOJ. He did supervise all that the AAG supervises for three months, but it's not all of DOJ and has no supervision over the FBI or any of DOJ's criminal prosecutors.

But after Gupta was confirmed, Colangelo became one of Gupta's Deputy Associate AG's - which is not a confirmed position - where he served for 19 more months. How often have former DOJ officials who were in high level acting roes for three months gone back to their previous job to finish a case they believed strongly in? I don't know - I'm certain it isn't zero.

Former Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta

This is archived content from the U.S. Department of Justice website. The information here may be outdated and links may no longer function. Please contact webmaster@usdoj.gov if you have any questions about the archive site.

www.justice.gov

Click to expand...

Okay, but I see you refrained from referencing the coordination with the Biden White House and Fani Willis office as well as the Biden White House coordinating with NARA long before they had claimed the investigation started. When you look at those two instances, Colangelo seems coordinated as well.

SaintForLife said:

Click to expand...

Apples to oranges - but these people you quote know that. Another straw man.

GSA worked with Trump's transition team before and after he left office. GSA stored massive amounts of records in boxes then informed transition team the boxes needed to be moved.

6 pallets of boxes were transported to Florida in August 2021--2 pallets went to Mar-a-Lago and 4 went to a storage facility in Palm Beach.

There is no question many of these boxes ended up in the MAL storage room. And keep in mind NARA was harassing Trump throughout 2021 for what they insisted were government records apparently WITHOUT contacting GSA to search dozens of boxes in their possession.