Indeed. The only things that could bar him from future office (at least, the Presidency, which is the only office he cares about) would be impeachment by Congress, or a charge of sedition. Now, a sedition charge might be in the future for him (connected with either January 6 or the Georgia case), but it’s not going to come out of this case.
FBI Search and Seizure at Trump's Mar-A-Lago Residence, August 8, 2022, Case Dismissed July 15, 2024
You’re right, given his propensity for incriminating himself on national television, Trump might as well take the stand. But he didn’t even show up from his defamation trial let alone take the stand to give his side of the story. I don’t think Trump will take the stand because he’ll have to answer questions without being evasive, bully the interviewer, and his lies will actually have consequences. In short, Trump won’t be in control while on the stand and he can’t tolerate not being in control.
Attorneys usually advise clients against taking the stand. Therefore, nothing negative should be inferred from that decision.
I’m glad they caught that Chinese spy a while back, but I’m concerned about a former underwear model with an eastern European accent who has free rein at Mara Lardo, and whose husband is known to be in love with Putin.
But aren’t you allowed to make that inference in a civil trial (like the defamation trial)? I know that in a civil trial, unlike in a criminal trial, you’re allowed to make a negative inference when the defendant takes the 5th. Do the same rules imply to taking the stand or declining to do so?
Trumps lawyers will try their best to stop him from taking the stand, whether the matter is civil or criminal, because they know he’ll commit perjury. Even if he answers every question “I don’t recall”, he still might be in trouble if he leaves the courtroom and immediately “recalls” when he’s not under oath and on camera.
In a civil trial, the defendant is not required to testify, but the jury can hold that agaisnt him.
I think you’re referring to a different process than I am. You seem to be referring to an insanity defense, which involves a defendant entering a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity.
I’m referring to a competency evaluation, a process that is commonly done when the ability of a defendant is in question whether he can cooperate effectively with his attorneys in his own defense. Regular proceedings are suspended until the defendant is restored to competency.
Here’s a link to the process I’m referring to as it is written for the State of California.
There is an analogous code for federal proceedings, 18 U.S. Code § 4241.
For these proceedings, there is a hearing, but rarely does anyone testify, and not the defendant. Reports are submitted to the court by the psychiatric evaluators, and the judge issues a ruling on the defendant’s competence based on those.
IANAL.
It’s not going to come out in any case. Prosecutors are sufficiently pro-democracy that they will not prefer a charge that would prevent a winning candidate from taking office. The 14th amendment provision stopping traitors from taking office (it doesn’t mention running for office) was an utter failure in its intended purpose of protecting Black citizens from misrule. It would similarly fail today if applied, because the Republicans could put in (through a constitutional process) another candidate with similar policies. Smith and company may not look at it through a historical/reconstruction lens, but would correctly sense that trying to stop Trump from taking office would be a disaster.
Trial date set tentatively for Aug 14. Of 2023!!
Let’s not forget that, back when we were still talking about his testifying for the Mueller inquiry, his lawyers didn’t want him be questioned, because they believed he was simply incapable of answering questions under oath without lying.
Obviously it won’t happen anywhere near that fast, but I wonder if it could be read as an interesting clue as to the pace Cannon intends to set.
They’re not wrong.
Doesn’t that by itself satisfy the criterion of legally incompetent?
God, I hope not.
The Aug trial date is the first indication we have that Cannon will NOT use every means possible to delay the trial, I think. IANAL.
But it’s an interesting question. “Competency” is about his ability to assist in his own defense. If telling the truth would get him convicted, then lying is his only hope of winning, so an inability to tell the truth might actually help him! 
I wasn’t specifically thinking of a trial context. But if a standard civil case jury instruction says to make, or consider making, a negative inference, when the defendant didn’t testify, I disagree. Make the instruction fair to Trump, and all others.
I also don’t think there should be a negative inference for trial non-attendance. Look at real evidence, not inferences. And treat every case as a model for how you or I would want to be treated.
Jaded response:
If the judge means to assist Trump by messing with things like jury selection and jury instructions, then impeding a speedy trial is not necessary. In fact, if she thinks she can help him in those ways and give him either a mistrial or a not guilty verdict, then the sooner the case goes to trial, the better.
Judges have a great deal of discretion in the above mentioned things. They can absolutely shape the outcome of a trial.
Example: In one trial I did, a judge departed from the usual practice of voir dire, grabbed 12 citizens off the street and had them sworn in as jurors for a very quick 1/2 day case. Totally legal. But that would be a nightmare for a case like this one. I don’t know if this could be done over the objections of the prosecution. In the case we did, the parties stipulated to the procedure and the stakes were small. But even on appeal, it might be hard to argue this was not a jury of one’s peers.
Holy moly - I had missed that the trial date had been set and set so soon (14 August). That can’t be good for the defence, can it?
If you think about it, what possible defence issues can they raise anyway?
Trump has already signalled what he thinks his defence should be:
- They were mine, mine, mine
- The DOJ should have asked more nicely
- I didn’t have time to get the documents out of the boxes of my golf trophies and shirts
- Maybe the archivists planted the evidence
There is really not much work for the defence team to do.