“Real lawyers take notes.”
FBI Search and Seizure at Trump's Mar-A-Lago Residence, August 8, 2022, Case Dismissed July 15, 2024
I think the texts alone are enough, without her testimony. So far, there’s no indication that she knew there were classified documents in the boxes. Even if the boxes only contained unclassified documents, I could see her being annoyed at Trump lugging all that stuff around like some kind of hoarder.
The important thing is that the prosecution can show that the boxes were often moved, and every such move increases the chance that someone nefarious might have gained access to them. There are rules on transporting and securing classified documents, which were clearly not followed, and just showing that, via the texts, is more than sufficient.
Oh, I definitely agree with that. I was just trying to predict the type of issues that might be raised before trial.
Generally, the defense attorney’s job is to prevent as much incriminating evidence as possible from being introduced at trial. The way to do that is to object to the evidence on as many legitimate grounds as you can raise.
Agreed. The convictions and relatively long prison sentences should have sent a message.
“Hey Vern, let’s go protest down at the courthouse! Sound like fun?”
“Umm, not really, I don’t want to spend the next 10 years in prison, thanks”
And of course, this shows they don’t get it. They weren’t arrested for “protesting”, even if their protests were mind-numbingly stupid. They were arrested for rioting, and illegally forcing entry to the Capitol.
Stand around a wave signs, honk some horns, yell yourself hoarse, fine. We’ll think you’re an idiot, but we’ll let you go home again afterwards.
Exactly right!
Arraigns on Trump’s parade, day. (Oh yes I said it!)
Woooooo!
To be fair, we already think you’re an idiot, and after this, we’ll know for certain.
LOL. “The documents were stored in the bathroom…as Trump would say, “like a dog””
I have never stored a dog in a bathroom. That’s what the spare bedroom is for.
“It will be wild!” is the preferred phrasing.
The New Yorker speaks with a legal expert about Aileen Cannon. I found the following bit to be informative:
There’s a statute dealing with federal judge recusal—it’s 28 U.S.C. § 455, and you should look at paragraph A. It’s the very first sentence, and that’s the most frequently cited sentence in motions to recuse. It says that a judge should recuse if the judge’s impartiality “might reasonably be questioned.”
Now, the fact that a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned doesn’t mean that the judge is partial. The public may simply not trust the impartiality of the judge. Because public trust in the work of the court is a value as important as the work itself, the rule says that the judge should not sit when we can’t fairly ask the public to trust what the judge does. That rule is especially important in this case. One thing the prosecution can do is move to recuse Judge Cannon on the ground that, in light of her experience in the search-warrant case last year, her impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
Wait, really? So if the spouse of a criminal is really not OK with what they’re doing, and they go to the police, they’re still not allowed to testify at trial unless the criminal allows them to (which, of course, they won’t)? That seems like a screwed up way to do things… Surely, there’s at least an exception for crimes committed against the spouse?
Yes. There is.
My understanding was that a spouse could not be compelled to testify, not that they couldn’t choose to testify agaisnt a spouse. I’ll have to ask for a cite on this one.
Yes there is. You can’t invoke the marital privilege in a domestic violence case.
(And I should be careful in my words. It appears from Google that some jurisdictions do give the waiver power to the testifying spouse, and some allow either spouse to invoke it- that appears to be the case for the Feds).
In any event, in the case at hand, I don’t think there’s any evidence that Donald nor Melania either one want her to testify, and given that, there’s not really anything the prosecution can do about that, right? If neither spouse wants to waive the privilege, then no judge or other court official can waive it over their objections?
I believe that’s correct. There are actually two related privileges. One about communications between spouses during a marriage (protected, even after divorce) and one that says a spouse can prevent the other spouse from testifying at all (you couldn’t even ask “was your husband was in Florida that day,” for example).
Over in MAGA-land the favorite defense of the moment is that Trump didn’t have to comply with the subpoena because he legally owned the documents, and a subpoena can’t be used to take your legally owned property. Seriously.
I mean, they have to know that’s not true, right?