Thank you for saying I’m right, but I fear it’s based on a misunderstanding. I don’t recall saying who Donald would be appealing to if he takes the stand. It could be his people — especially if he supposes that one or two slipped onto the jury. Or he could make more of an appeal to the median voter by taking an irrelevant-to-the-trial swipe at Bidenomics.
P.S. I know you wrote “Oh, I don’t care about the voters”, but obviously I do. If Donald wants a self-pardon option, so does he.
Heheh, from what little I know of that trial, I was just thankful I didn’t know either of them personally.
Whoa! You’re out of line for sure, mister. I think we can all agree that Trump deserves the benefit of the doubt after all he’s done for us. You know, all that stuff…
I really don’t have my arms around the technical aspects, but I would pay a (relatively) large sum of money for somebody to alter the courtroom lighting in a way that renders Trump’s “bronzer” shockingly phosphorescent (ie, glow-in-the dark).
Think about it.
I think the hypothetical GoFundMe could break records. Some industrious inside person could retire in profound opulence on a private island in the Caribbean for the rest of their life.
Ahhh.
“Trump, she recalls, smashed plates in his dining room beside the Oval Office, squirting ketchup on the walls to express his exasperation. She observes Meadows illicitly incinerating bags of telltale documents that should have been passed to the government archives; his wife complains about the cost of dry-cleaning his suits to remove the stench from so many bonfires.”
Can you imagine what it must have been like for long-time White House staff to have gone from the Obamas to the Trumps?
…And he’s already violated it.
Donald Trump’s verbal skills are limited?!??!! Absolute covfefe!
Bill Barr is a LOSER?
I forgot… Who is the LOSER of the last Presidential election?
It occurred to me; I wonder if Pence’s decision to stand down from the primaries is (at least in part) related to deconflicting in preparation for serving as a witness.
(The other part would be, obviously, that he’s not going to win it.)
Pence knows that testifying truthfully agaisnt Trump in court is going to tank whatever support and funding he has been getting, small though it may be. I think in his prayers on the subject he came to the realization that he would stand a better chance in 2028 after a cooling down period from Trumpism and to let history show him in better light for standing up (finally) to Trump. That is, he is hoping that standing up to Trump will negate the four years he spent being an ass kissing toady.
If there’s any word that doesn’t apply to Bill Barr, it’s “gutless.” The man definitely has a gut.
Thanks for the belly laugh.
That’s his bagpiping muscle!
I would hope the judge brings Trump into the courtroom, puts him on the stand and explains to him (as you would to a small child) exactly what the gag order means. Ask him if he understands what she just said. Ask him to explain to her what she just said. Ask him to explain to her why he violated the gag order. Tells him in small words why he did a bad thing, and what the range of punishments are.
(bonus points if at some point she asks him if he’d like a juice box or a kleenex)
“Five hamberders, no onion, extra ketchup.”
“Deconflicting”? Witnesses have no need or concerns to “deconflict” in order to provide their testimony in a case. The term has no applicable meaning in the context of a witness, so I don’t know what you’re trying to get at here.
Whether Pence was still in the race or not, he is still compelled by a lawful subpoena to come testify truthfully about what he knows in a criminal case, no matter who is charged.
Trump will argue that Pence is out to ruin his reputation, in order to win the election. He could point out that Pence was a part of his administration and advised him on certain appointees who might be participating as witnesses against him.
Basically, he’ll argue that Pence is part of a coordinated effort to frame Trump. If Pence isn’t trying to seek higher office, then that argument falls flat since Pence doesn’t have anything to gain by Trump’s loss.
Trump won’t be arguing anything at all. His lawyers will question Pence. They will be constrained by the rules of evidence. That means they have to stay within the bounds of what they can prove, not what they want to speculate about.
When the time of closing arguments arrives, I’m pretty sure Trump’s lawyers will not have built a sufficient (any?) case to argue as you suggest. Trump’s lawyers would have to produce evidence of such a Pence scheme in order to make such an argument. Are you aware of any? I’m not.
Trials are not free-for-alls. Judge Chutkan will run a tight ship. There will not be theatrical antics. Not in the courtroom, anyway.