The Trump Card...

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
The cherry on top would be if he - against his lawyers good advice - actually chose to take the stand and testify.

Literally makes my mouth water just thinking about it ...
I don't spend much time thinking about it one way or another. It could happen that Trump -- convinced of his ability to sway a jury, or wanting to gain the TV ratings of a lifetime -- tells his attorneys to stand back and stand by while he takes the stand. Or, he'll defer to his attorneys and stay off the stand. Clever prosecutors may bait Trump such that he cannot resist the impulse to take the stand. We won't know until we know.

It's not a game-changer either way. The evidence is strong and the prosecutors are skilled. They don't need Trump to testify to convince a jury to convict him.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter

So he admitted that it is was him, his own instincts ...

Probably as close as one will ever get to an admission of responsibility from that mook. Probably had no idea he was even doing it.

:tearsofjoy:

But you watch - he'll probably backtrack and try to blame it on the lawyers when it's time to pay the piper.

:tearsofjoy:

Again, it’s already known that 1. He said publicly on election night that he won.

Yes.

2. He didn’t agree with the conclusions of WH lawyers that he didn’t win. (lawyers that said that for perhaps political reasons)

... or perhaps they said because they knew it to be true ?

Willing to concede that as a possibility ?

:tearsofjoy:

And 3. He listened to other lawyers who believed he won and that there was enough irregularities (data, sworn affidavits from witnesses, etc,) to challenge the election.

Yeah ... he listened to:

Rudy of The Dripping Hair Dye, who has been very naughty while very busy laundering Russian agit-prop ... when he isn't busy holding press conferences at the Four Seasons Total Landscaping. His license to practice law is currently suspended in NY State, and he's had the D.C. Bar Disciplinary Counsel recommend he be disbarred for violating rules of professional conduct by making false election fraud claims and trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election results in Pennsylvania. That matter is still pending before the D.C. Court of Appeals.

Sidney the Texas Goofball Lawyer that promised to release "The Kraken" ... who she seems to have lost track of.

Jenna Ellis ... whose legal experience consisted of, among other things, working as Deputy DA (fired within 6 months) in Colorado State court (no Federal or Constitutional legal experience which she claimed), who appears to have lied about being "attorney for the U.S. Department of State" ... and who was recently censured by the the chief disciplinary judge of the Colorado State Supreme Court for having "repeatedly made misrepresentations on national television and on Twitter, undermining the American public's confidence in the 2020 presidential election, violating her duty of candor to the public ... and was recently forced to acknowledge that she violated the rule that prohibited "reckless, knowing or intentional misrepresentations by attorneys".

Jeffery "Gee, It Sure Is Chilly Out Here" Clark ... a former DOJ environmental official ... who got told by his superiors to go sit down and shut up ... they would call him if there's an oil spill or some other environmental disaster.

John Eastman ... a (supposed) "Constitutional Lawyer" ... who admitted the crackpot theories he was promulgating were illegal and wouldn't pass muster.

Only. The. Best. People.


:clapping-happy:

:tearsofjoy:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ragman

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
I don't spend much time thinking about it one way or another.

It's a fleeting thought which passes by ... one that I find somewhat amusing.

It could happen that Trump -- convinced of his ability to sway a jury, or wanting to gain the TV ratings of a lifetime -- tells his attorneys to stand back and stand by while he takes the stand.

Entirely possible.

Or, he'll defer to his attorneys and stay off the stand.

I certainly wouldn't bet the farm on it.

Could go either way.

Clever prosecutors may bait Trump such that he cannot resist the impulse to take the stand.

Look how easy it was for Kristen Welker to draw it out of him.

He's a seething mass of the Seven Deadlies ... and that's only going to get worse as we go forward.

We won't know until we know.

Yup.

It's not a game-changer either way. The evidence is strong and the prosecutors are skilled. They don't need Trump to testify to convince a jury to convict him.

But all it takes is one, single deranged Trumper hold-out to make it on to the jury.
 

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Why challenge it if you can’t overturn it? Why wouldn’t they be able to overturn it if there was probable evidence of illegal votes, fraud, etc.?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Ragman

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Too funny, The same ones that claim that Trump can get a fair trial in an area that has 95 percent gaslit anti Trumpers, frets that some lone Trump supporter, by some miracle, gets on the jury.
This is some straight-up clown hypocrisy right there.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Why challenge it if you can’t overturn it? Why wouldn’t they be able to overturn it if there was probable evidence of illegal votes, fraud, etc.?

I see you are having difficulty with this ... let me help ... just in case you aren't being intentionally obtuse on purpose:

My use of "overturn" was in the context of using extra-legal, extra-judicial, extra-Constitutional means ... to obtain an invalid, illegal result.

El Donaldo had legal ways within the law to challenge the result.

He tried and failed.

Anything beyond that was illegal.

This isn't all that hard.

:tearsofjoy:
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ragman

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Too funny, The same ones that claim that Trump can get a fair trial in an area that has 95 percent gaslit anti Trumpers, frets that some lone Trump supporter, by some miracle, gets on the jury.

A fair trial is defined by a jury deciding the charges before them on the facts and evidence presented to them in court ... and not by any other considerations.

A "fair trial" doesn't necessary mean Donnie escapes justice and goes free.

He could get a fair trial and be convicted.

Not that the MAGA Loon Hordes would accept it as being fair.

:tearsofjoy:

This is some straight-up clown hypocrisy right there.

Trust me, you don't want to go there ...

:tearsofjoy:
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: muttly and Ragman

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Trump's attorney's have filed a response to the Government's motion in reply, to their recusal motion for Judge Chutkin.

Normally, the judge would take those motions under consideration and then issue her ruling. (Which she may still do)

But - of course - Trump's attorney's have requested an additional step:

That the court be able to hear from both parties orally in a hearing (... presumably because Donnie is so "special" ...)

I think someone is looking to pound the table ...

:tearsofjoy:

Of course, if she denies that request, all the MAGAt's will be whining:

UNFAIR !!! BIAS !!!

:tearsofjoy:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ragman

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
But all it takes is one, single deranged Trumper hold-out to make it on to the jury.
Prosecutors know this. They will carefully screen. Notice the many Jan 6. jury trials already completed. Many convictions. No secret MAGA operatives on the jury. Notice other trials where known Trump supporters were on the jury but they voted to convict because they took their oath seriously and they came to believe the witnesses and evidence presented against the defendants.
 
Top