Trump Indictment ( includes NY AG and Fed documents case ) (2 Viewers)

[SteveSBrickNJ]

Former President D. Trump has been indicted by a New York Grand Jury. There will be much to talk about on this topic because this is just the first step in a lengthy process.
Possibly it is worthy of its own thread here rather than posting about Trump's indictment in already existing threads?
*
This 3/31/23 story might get the ball rolling....
*

Manhattan’s DA wanted a Friday Trump arrest. Trump’s team said no.

Secret Service needed more time to prepare, according to the ex-president’s legal team.

www.yahoo.com

 

[Snarky Sack]

If you read the rule closely, it says that depositions in criminal trials are exceptional (not usual) and allowed where there’s a demonstrated need to preserve testimony for trial (because the witness won’t be available for live testimony and cross examination). A classic example is where a material witness has a chronic illness and may die before trial. But there can be other reasons (perhaps a service member is about to deploy).

Grand jury testimony is indeed sworn and subject to perjury. The defendant is provided transcripts of the grand jury testimony. Yes, if a material witness changes their testimony at trial, yes it will be pointed out by the party that is harmed by the change in testimony and it will (a) discredit the testimony and (b) could potentially (but not necessarily) support perjury charges - just depends on the circumstances.

Keep in mind also that federal investigation interviews with witnesses are also subject to perjury (e.g. “one count of lying to federal investigators”).

Thank you for clearing that up. It was clear from what I posted but if another poster needs something other than the rules themselves, I'm glad you gave it to them.

Now, the only mystery is whether @LA - L.A. will acknowledge his error. Well.. that's not really a mystery to me.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Thank you for clearing that up. It was clear from what I posted but if another poster needs something other than the rules themselves, I'm glad you gave it to them.

Now, the only mystery is whether @LA - L.A. will acknowledge his error. Well.. that's not really a mystery to me.

I decided to defer to SuperChuck for 3 reasons:

1. He knows more about the interpreting laws than I do and you seem to respect his legal knowledge.
2. I thought what you posted said that depositions are the exception and not the norm, which means we were both correct about aspects of it, but we were also both a bit off the mark on other aspects.
3. I didn't want to say that to you, because I didn't think you'd react well to me saying that.

 

[Snarky Sack]

I decided to defer to SuperChuck for 3 reasons:

1. He knows more about the interpreting laws than I do and you seem to respect his legal knowledge.
2. I thought what you posted said that depositions are the exception and not the norm, which means we were both correct about aspects of it, but we were also both a bit off the mark on other aspects.
3. I didn't want to say that to you, because I didn't think you'd react well to me saying that.

You said " . . . in a criminal trial, there are no depositions," which is not correct on any level.

How could I have been off the mark by quoting the rules exactly?

I pointed out a similar slight error about depositions to MT15 and they just said "ok sworn statements." No big deal.

 

[MT15]

I guess we can lump this in here. This countersuit seems to be widely viewed as a bad idea.

 

[LA - L.A.]

You said " . . . in a criminal trial, there are no depositions," which is not correct on any level.

How could I have been off the mark by quoting the rules exactly?

I pointed out a similar slight error about depositions to MT15 and they just said "ok sworn statements." No big deal.

I was correct to think you wouldn't react well if I told you my interpretation of what the law said about depositions, because here you go, yet again, quoting things out of context.

What I actually said in full context about depositions was:

It's my understanding that in a criminal trial there aren't any depositions, which may be what you're getting at.

As I understand it, instead of depositions, the prosecution uses a grand jury to ask people questions while they are under oath.

What SuperChuck said was:

If you read the rule closely, it says that depositions in criminal trials are exceptional (not usual) and allowed where there’s a demonstrated need to preserve testimony for trial (because the witness won’t be available for live testimony and cross examination).

Though depositions are sometimes done they are not a normal part of the process. In criminal trials they rely on interrogation testimony and grand jury testimony as the normal procedure. Like I said, we were both partially correct and partially incorrect.

 

[superchuck500]

You said " . . . in a criminal trial, there are no depositions," which is not correct on any level.

How could I have been off the mark by quoting the rules exactly?

I pointed out a similar slight error about depositions to MT15 and they just said "ok sworn statements." No big deal.

I think it’s clear that he meant absent extraordinary circumstances, there are no depositions and in context here, the Trump case, there almost certainly aren’t going to be any depositions.

I can say “we don’t have tornadoes here” and I’m both right as a matter of general parlance and wrong because it’s not impossible, there have been one or two in recorded history.

I think much of what you both said was right. Having a semantic fight about that is dumb.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I think it’s clear that he meant absent extraordinary circumstances, there are no depositions and in context here, the Trump case, there almost certainly aren’t going to be any depositions.

I can say “we don’t have tornadoes here” and I’m both right as a matter of general parlance and wrong because it’s not impossible, there have been one or two in recorded history.

I think much of what you both said was right. Having a semantic fight about that is dumb.

Fair point. I unfortunately do dumb things at times.

 

[Snarky Sack]

I was correct to think you wouldn't react well if I told you my interpretation of what the law said about depositions, because here you go, yet again, quoting things out of context.

What I actually said in full context about depositions was:


What SuperChuck said was:

Though depositions are sometimes done they are not a normal part of the process. In criminal trials they rely on interrogation testimony and grand jury testimony as the normal procedure. Like I said, we were both partially correct and partially incorrect.

Your statement was incorrect. You'd do better accept that you made a mistake and move on.

 

[Snarky Sack]

I think it’s clear that he meant absent extraordinary circumstances, there are no depositions and in context here, the Trump case, there almost certainly aren’t going to be any depositions.

I can say “we don’t have tornadoes here” and I’m both right as a matter of general parlance and wrong because it’s not impossible, there have been one or two in recorded history.

I think much of what you both said was right. Having a semantic fight about that is dumb.

I'm going to let LA - L.A. have the last word in my exchange with him. This seems like a whole lot of effort just so he or she can avoid saying "oh yeah, there are depositions in federal criminal trials. So, anyway . . ."

I appreciate your attempt to find a middle pisition, but neither of us had mentioned how frequently depositions happen.

It reminds me of an episode of Happy Days in which "the Fonz" needed to admit he was wrong. He had to rehearse it first, since he had rarely done it. His first attempts came out "I was . . . I was wr. . . I was ruh ruh run."

I have no memory of what he was wrong about. But I rember how silly he seemed avoiding saying it even after all these years.

 

[DaveXA]

Your statement was incorrect. You'd do better accept that you made a mistake and move on.

This is the sort of post I was talking about in the other thread. Instead of letting it go, you gotta poke the bear. You're not gonna win any points with anyone here talking to people like this.

 

[superchuck500]

I'm going to let LA - L.A. have the last word in my exchange with him. This seems like a whole lot of effort just so he or she can avoid saying "oh yeah, there are depositions in federal criminal trials. So, anyway . . ."

I appreciate your attempt to find a middle pisition, but neither of us had mentioned how frequently depositions happen.

It reminds me of an episode of Happy Days in which "the Fonz" needed to admit he was wrong. He had to rehearse it first, since he had rarely done it. His first attempts came out "I was . . . I was wr. . . I was ruh ruh run."

I have no memory of what he was wrong about. But I rember how silly he seemed avoiding saying it even after all these years.

There aren’t depositions in criminal cases.

Unless an extraordinary circumstance requires the witness’s testimony be preserved for trial (because the witness is going to be dead, or in a war, or on the moon).

 

[efil4]

If you read the rule closely,

Yeah like THAT is gonna happen.

he cant read closely, because it would bind him to a much narrower definition, thereby upsetting his apple cart. So instead, he plays "dumb" and seeks advice knowing full well that his ambiguity is a ploy. Play both sides.

Works when others cant see it.

Terribly obvious when others can.

 

[Snarky Sack]

This is the sort of post I was talking about in the other thread. Instead of letting it go, you gotta poke the bear. You're not gonna win any points with anyone here talking to people like this.

But it's the coolest when other posters, including yourself, do it to me.

That gander sauce never goes down easy, does it?

 

[superchuck500]

Yeah like THAT is gonna happen.

he cant read closely, because it would bind him to a much narrower definition, thereby upsetting his apple cart. So instead, he plays "dumb" and seeks advice knowing full well that his ambiguity is a ploy. Play both sides.

Works when others cant see it.

Terribly obvious when others can.

We already went over this like ten pages ago when we talked about the scope of discovery in federal criminal procedure . I even said there aren’t depositions so I can hardly fault LA for saying that.

It’s totally correct in this case most importantly - and almost every other case.

 

[efil4]

I guess we can lump this in here. This countersuit seems to be widely viewed as a bad idea.

par for the course for a guy who took home classified docs, refused to give them back, stated he had the right to them, flaunted them, and now wants everyone to think he had the right.

oh and this guy wants to be POTUS. Again.

 

[superchuck500]

I guess we can lump this in here. This countersuit seems to be widely viewed as a bad idea.

Don’t we have a thread for the Carroll case?

Alina Habba is a total goofball.

 

[efil4]

We already went over this like ten pages ago when we talked about the scope of discovery in federal criminal procedure . I even said there aren’t depositions so I can hardly fault LA for saying that.

It’s totally correct in this case most importantly - and almost every other case.

yep and as i read this last night and AVOIDED posting- a quick GOOGLE search will return that depositions in criminal cases are exactly what you said - preservation of witness testimony - AND in many states, decreed by judge to do so.

I had the reply w/ link ready to go - and i said "ahhhh screw it im going to bed "

LOLOL

 

[DaveXA]

But it's the coolest when other posters, including yourself, do it to me.

That gander sauce never goes down easy, does it?

Yeah, excuses, excuses. Boo hoo.