Or the government could simply refer to him as Mister Trump just like any other defendant.
The beat’s report on mr smith.
His Hague work is very helpful with these cases.
YouTube link to the same video, for those who don’t want to deal with MSNBC’s awful UI
Thank you! I was hoping for you tube but only found msnbc.
Serious baby face in 2011.
Welcome! I just googled the title of the story and poof! YouTube. Works pretty well sometimes, but I prob got lucky.
Yeah, I can’t even tell it’s the same guy 12ish years later.
I wonder how different he looks since he started on this investigation.
Those shots from when he was at the Hague in the weird black/purple uniform are from before this investigation. Looks about the same to me.
Yeah I’m getting to that part of the segment now lol.
I think, Monte Python and the castle of Aughhh. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlIz0q8aWpA
Apologies if I’m wrong Akaj
this week’s episode is defending donald trump. interesting theories on what each defence could be.
mens rea, the one that had me most amused was the “trump is a baby and can’t understand from one minute to the next he that he lost the election”.
the thinking is that trump would have to testify for advice of counsel. not enough popcorn in the world!
arguments have started in dc. the reporting is they are discussing discovery protections.
trump’s schedule so far for january is iowa caucus jan 15th, jan 16th civil trial re carroll, jan 29th civil trial re class action pyramid scheme.
the thinking is that should jan 2 be the start of the trial, the civil trials will defer to the fed trail and hold until the fed trial is done.
i’m wondering if the co conspirators will be indicted on or closely after jan 3.
It’s very good that judge Chutkan recognizes that Trump’s plan is to screw around and try to pollute the jury pool and intimidate witnesses. She’s not having any of that.
From the Guardian:
US judge Tanya Chutkan rejected Trump’s request to designate witness transcripts and videos as non-sensitive (and thereby exclude them from the protective order).
“Disclosure of any of those materials creates too great a risk that witnesses may be intimidated,” she said.
Also this - she’s not stupid, as Trump’s lawyers seem to assume:
Chutkan denied the defense’s other edits, saying Trump’s ask to broaden the definition of authorized people to access the discovery material is too broad and could “include just about anyone” including “unindicted co-conspirators”.
Ohhh, and she just laid down a marker:
US judge Tanya Chutkan appears to warn Trump at the end of the hearing.
The more that a party makes inflammatory statements that could intimidate witnesses, the quicker she will want to go to trial to ensure an untainted jury pool.
Ignorance of the law is what they have. Wouldn’t be a defense for me, or you, or you or you.
That would call, for a psychiatric exam of how developed Trumps brain is. Not his physical body’s age, but has he ever psychologically gotten past toddler/spoiled brat.
That’s in question?
Are there any, demonstrable tools for measuring that? I mean, I have my (well-known) opinion, but I think something that could stand up to DSM-5 scrutiny would be needed in court or it’s just one hired expert’s opinion vs. another’s.
And of course, they’ll never mention that this should probably disqualify him as a candidate for an office whose job involves understanding and carrying out the requirements of the law.
Not to me.
Which makes me say a claimed multi billionaire businessman (ha) should have at least a little bit of knowledge about the law. And of course he had plenty of lawyers he consulted with. It seems he mostly ignored them. Well except for some obvious ones that just agreed with everything he said and helped set up his various schemes.
One on the most interesting things about all of these indictments is who will flip to try to save their skin first. Meadows?
It’s not really worth its own thread and this is, probably, the closest related one so here’s a review of the strength and meaning of Article 3 of the 14th Amendment:
In short, it reminds us that it’s the Constitution and not some mere “law” that can fall out of power through disuse. And, as an amendment, it supercedes all of the Constitution, all of the Bill of Rights, and all other Amendments through #13. It is our national mandate and every government official in any Federal or State body has a sworn duty to uphold and enforce it.
That’s a great one. Another one:
“You are conflating what your client needs to do to defend himself and what he wants to do politically,” she told him. “And what your client does to defend himself has to happen in this courtroom, not on the internet.”