What will Defendant Trump's defense be if he ever goes to trial?

[Seymour Flops]

First of all, this is fantasy land. The DNC/DOJ/FBI pipe dream is to indict him, and there is the remotest possibility they will. But it won't see a courtroom. If it did, here is how Trump would be defended:

In a purely circumstantial case, the defense wants to do two things: Prove one fact and put someone on trial besides the defendant. At the trial of OJ Simpson, Johnny Cochran et al, did that brilliantly. Just hiring Cochran was proof of the strategy, because Cochran specialized in suing the LAPD, exactly who the defense put on trial.

The one fact that needs to be proven is that something the prosecution claimed or implied is false. Cochran proved two fact like that just to be sure. He proved that Mark Fuhrman had recently used the N-word, having denied it under oath, and that the glove "did not fit." Four hours for a not guilty verdict and most of that time spent selecting the foreman.

The Trump defense will have an embarrassment of riches as far as who to put on Trial. The Dems imagine Trump squirming under cross examination or having to take the fifth. Before either happens, the defense can call many, many witnesses who would embarrass the Democrats if they live long enough to testify.

That is one reason the trial won't happen in the first place. When Trump's lawyers show their witness list, most of them will file motions to be excluded as witness. Those motions will take years to hash out, and if any of them are granted, that's more evidence of a railroad.

 

[Rambunctious]

If Trump's defense ends up being equal treatment under the law Hillary and Comey will have to come to DC.... and Garland and Wray will have to testify....

 

[occupied]

"I'm in Russia where you can't get me."

 

[rightwinger]

Trumps Defense

I declassified those Documents
The FBI must have planted them
Someone else packed them
Hillary!

 

[Harry Dresden]

he will make everything worse for him by opening his big mouth....

 

[JGalt]

If Trump's defense ends up being equal treatment under the law Hillary and Comey will have to come to DC.... and Garland and Wray will have to testify....

Trump should use the Hillary defense and say "I didn't intend to do whatever it was I supposedly did."

 

[Rambunctious]

Trump should use the Hillary defense and say "I didn't intend to do whatever it was I did."

Equal treatment defense.....

 

[JGalt]

Equal treatment defense.....

It's sexist if he doesn't get equal treatment. Men should have the same rights as whatever the hell Hillary is.

 

[themirrorthief]

First of all, this is fantasy land. The DNC/DOJ/FBI pipe dream is to indict him, and there is the remotest possibility they will. But it won't see a courtroom. If it did, here is how Trump would be defended:

In a purely circumstantial case, the defense wants to do two things: Prove one fact and put someone on trial besides the defendant. At the trial of OJ Simpson, Johnny Cochran et al, did that brilliantly. Just hiring Cochran was proof of the strategy, because Cochran specialized in suing the LAPD, exactly who the defense put on trial.

The one fact that needs to be proven is that something the prosecution claimed or implied is false. Cochran proved two fact like that just to be sure. He proved that Mark Fuhrman had recently used the N-word, having denied it under oath, and that the glove "did not fit." Four hours for a not guilty verdict and most of that time spent selecting the foreman.

The Trump defense will have an embarrassment of riches as far as who to put on Trial. The Dems imagine Trump squirming under cross examination or having to take the fifth. Before either happens, the defense can call many, many witnesses who would embarrass the Democrats if they live long enough to testify.

That is one reason the trial won't happen in the first place. When Trump's lawyers show their witness list, most of them will file motions to be excluded as witness. Those motions will take years to hash out, and if any of them are granted, that's more evidence of a railroad.

dont you have to commit a crime of some sort before you are charged with something

 

[Seymour Flops]

dont you have to commit a crime of some sort before you are charged with something

Nope.

 

[Coyote]

First of all, this is fantasy land. The DNC/DOJ/FBI pipe dream is to indict him, and there is the remotest possibility they will. But it won't see a courtroom. If it did, here is how Trump would be defended:

In a purely circumstantial case, the defense wants to do two things: Prove one fact and put someone on trial besides the defendant. At the trial of OJ Simpson, Johnny Cochran et al, did that brilliantly. Just hiring Cochran was proof of the strategy, because Cochran specialized in suing the LAPD, exactly who the defense put on trial.

The one fact that needs to be proven is that something the prosecution claimed or implied is false. Cochran proved two fact like that just to be sure. He proved that Mark Fuhrman had recently used the N-word, having denied it under oath, and that the glove "did not fit." Four hours for a not guilty verdict and most of that time spent selecting the foreman.

The Trump defense will have an embarrassment of riches as far as who to put on Trial. The Dems imagine Trump squirming under cross examination or having to take the fifth. Before either happens, the defense can call many, many witnesses who would embarrass the Democrats if they live long enough to testify.

That is one reason the trial won't happen in the first place. When Trump's lawyers show their witness list, most of them will file motions to be excluded as witness. Those motions will take years to hash out, and if any of them are granted, that's more evidence of a railroad.

They might be reluctant to because this is uncharted territory both in terms of Trump’s behavior, indicting an ex President, and national security. I have no doubt they have been exceedingly careful to cross their t’s and dot their eyes. I think the overwhelming concern is to secure the documents.

What witnesses would you expect?

 

[Coyote]

It's sexist if he doesn't get equal treatment. Men should have the same rights as whatever the hell Hillary is.

True, assuming the crimes are identical. However, Trump himself changed the crime to a felony in 2018.

 

[BackAgain]

Trumps Defense

I declassified those Documents

That would work if the dopey Brandon DOJ is stupid enough to charge any crime under the Espionage Act. That seems unlikely. Possible, of course, because Brandon and his handlers are retarded. But still not likely.

The FBI must have planted them

Trump never made that claim. Not ever. It’s just your libtarded reliance on biased reporting.

Someone else packed them

In fact. Someone else DID pack them. This isn’t exactly an unknown.

Hillary!

Not a defense. Just some evidence of prosecutorial and Brandon Administration bias. Nothing more

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

First of all, this is fantasy land. The DNC/DOJ/FBI pipe dream is to indict him, and there is the remotest possibility they will. But it won't see a courtroom. If it did, here is how Trump would be defended:

In a purely circumstantial case, the defense wants to do two things: Prove one fact and put someone on trial besides the defendant. At the trial of OJ Simpson, Johnny Cochran et al, did that brilliantly. Just hiring Cochran was proof of the strategy, because Cochran specialized in suing the LAPD, exactly who the defense put on trial.

The one fact that needs to be proven is that something the prosecution claimed or implied is false. Cochran proved two fact like that just to be sure. He proved that Mark Fuhrman had recently used the N-word, having denied it under oath, and that the glove "did not fit." Four hours for a not guilty verdict and most of that time spent selecting the foreman.

The Trump defense will have an embarrassment of riches as far as who to put on Trial. The Dems imagine Trump squirming under cross examination or having to take the fifth. Before either happens, the defense can call many, many witnesses who would embarrass the Democrats if they live long enough to testify.

That is one reason the trial won't happen in the first place. When Trump's lawyers show their witness list, most of them will file motions to be excluded as witness. Those motions will take years to hash out, and if any of them are granted, that's more evidence of a railroad.

Can we decide on what crime he would be accused of?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Nope.

Yes, you do. You cannot be tried "just because".

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

They might be reluctant to because this is uncharted territory both in terms of Trump’s behavior, indicting an ex President, and national security. I have no doubt they have been exceedingly careful to cross their t’s and dot their eyes. I think the overwhelming concern is to secure the documents.

What witnesses would you expect?

Dot their eyes? How stupid are you?

BTW, t's possess something? What do they have?

Can you communicate in English?

 

[Esdraelon]

I believe the DOJ has every intention of indicting and trying him - in DC - and he WILL be convicted. It sounds like they'll make the case for "obstruction" but actually putting him in a cell, I think they'd shy away from that Rubicon. Either way, it cannot disqualify him from running. The Clinton lawyer Elias has been stating that conviction on the federal statute

18 U.S. Code § 2071​

Would disqualify him from another run for president but SCOTUS would have to back them on that and it's doubtful that the case could be made since that law has never been applied to a president or former president even though these kinds of conflicts over papers has occurred regularly. What it WILL ACCOMPLISH is to stir the rage of the Trump haters and split the country even more. This seems to be the ultimate goal.

​

 

[Winco]

I believe the DOJ has every intention of indicting and trying him - in DC - and he WILL be convicted.

They may try to indict trump, but delay tactics, lawsuits, avoidance, etc will forever keep trump out of the courtroom.

Now, Colonel Jessup made it to the courtroom, and he couldn't keep his mouth shut.

So, IMO, the ONLY way they can prove trump committed a crime is for trump having his own "Colonel Jessup Moment"

 

[protectionist]

If there ever was anything at all to this whole charade, there would be nothing to it, because all criminal cases are based on one basic ingredient > Criminal Intent. There is no way any prosecution could show/prove that Trump intended to steal documents. Just certain document being in Mar-a-Lago, doesn't prove a thing. Trump could have not known the documents ever left the White House, and knew nothing of their presence in Mar-a Lago (an extremely large array of buildings)

There probably are a number of things that the movers brought over (having nothing to do with documents) that Trump is unaware of).

The bottom line I think is that this whole episode is designed only to distract voters from the awful job that Biden has done, his many failures, and especially the terrible recession economy with astronomical inflation (rental housing, food, gas, etc)

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I believe the DOJ has every intention of indicting and trying him - in DC - and he WILL be convicted. It sounds like they'll make the case for "obstruction" but actually putting him in a cell, I think they'd shy away from that Rubicon. Either way, it cannot disqualify him from running. The Clinton lawyer Elias has been stating that conviction on the federal statute

18 U.S. Code § 2071​

Would disqualify him from another run for president but SCOTUS would have to back them on that and it's doubtful that the case could be made since that law has never been applied to a president or former president even though these kinds of conflicts over papers has occurred regularly. What it WILL ACCOMPLISH is to stir the rage of the Trump haters and split the country even more. This seems to be the ultimate goal.

​

They cannot indict him in DC as the alleged crime took place in Florida.

The law you quoted is not applicable. He did none of those acts mentioned in the law.