Scene in the defense war room looking at discovery documents.
DJT, “No notes, none.”
Incredulous stares from defense lawyers.
DJT begins ripping up documents, stuffing them in his pants, chewing on them, throwing them behind a shower curtain.
“I can’t let those woke liberal witch hunters see these”, he exclaimed.
Lawyer, “Those papers were given to us by the prosecution.”
DJT, “Fools, now I’ve got them and, presto changeo, now they are declassified. Mine, all mine.”
Lawyers head en masse for the windows.
FBI Search and Seizure at Trump's Mar-A-Lago Residence, August 8, 2022, Case Dismissed July 15, 2024
And not a one of the lawyers as they bolt out the exit will bother to tell him those are only photocopies, since the DOJ isn’t stupid enough to hand over the originals.
And flushing them down the loo…
[nm].
Tell me there’s a tall flight of stairs in this courthouse.
Or an elevator shaft.
I’d settle for John Shaft.
(Can you dig it?)
He’s a bad mother-
Shut your mouth!
Alina Habba – Trump’s attorney/mouthpiece – may be a lot of things (and I’d argue she definitely is), but she may not have misspoken about deposing witnesses:
This is Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
In General. A party may move that a prospective witness be deposed in order to preserve testimony for trial. The court may grant the motion because of exceptional circumstances and in the interest of justice. If the court orders the deposition to be taken, it may also require the deponent to produce at the deposition any designated material that is not privileged, including any book, paper, document, record, recording, or data.
So … IANAL, but … she may have (intentionally or fortuitously) been right on this one.
Blind squirrel … acorn … all that stuff.
Trump’s also represented by Todd Blanche (which is a perfect name for a Trump lawyer) who seems to have more experience in law (and in representing terrible people). Perhaps he advised her?
That’s really only if they aren’t going to be able to make it to trial (so, for example, somebody who is sick and not expected to live long enough).
Normally, there aren’t federal criminal depositions. Either side can speak to the witnesses, but they aren’t obliged to respond.
(Although, if the government does speak to a witness, they are going to disclose the contents of the conversation to the defense to avoid any constitutional violations about withholding exculpatory evidence).
If I were Trump’s legal team, I would begin with the assumption that the expected lifespan of anybody who is likely to testify against my client would be dramatically attenuated 
That rule is for exceptional cicumstances, like when a witness is about to die or leave the jurisdiction. “To preserve testimony for trial” is not the discovery type of depositions you’d see in a civil case.
From the comments:
Note to Subdivision (a). 1. This rule continues the existing law permitting defendants to take depositions in certain limited classes of cases under dedimus potestatem and in perpetuam rei memoriam, 28 U.S.C. [former] 644. This statute has been generally held applicable to criminal cases, Clymer v. United States, 38 F.2d 581 (C.C.A. 10th); Wong Yim v. United States, 118 F.2d 667 (C.C.A. 9th)—cert. den., 313 U.S. 589; United States v. Cameron, 15 F. 794 (C.C.E.D.Mo.); United States v. Hofmann, 24 F.Supp. 847 (S.D.N.Y.). Contra, Luxemberg v. United States, 45 F.2d 497 (C.C.A. 4th)—cert. den., 283 U.S. 820. The rule continues the limitation of the statute that the taking of depositions is to be restricted to cases in which they are necessary “in order to prevent a failure of justice.”
- Unlike the practice in civil cases in which depositions may be taken as a matter of right by notice without permission of the court (Rules 26(a) and 30, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [28 U.S.C., Appendix]), this rule permits depositions to be taken only by order of the court, made in the exercise of discretion and on notice to all parties. It was contemplated that in criminal cases depositions would be used only in exceptional situations, as has been the practice heretofore.
Thank you both for the clarification.
Could Judge Aileen Cannon be looking at a pretty significant deck-stacking maneuver? Hmm.
The Trump-appointed judge overseeing the Mar-a-Lago documents case signaled that she will hold his trial in a court likely to have a conservative jury pool, according to The New York Times.
This one … wouldn’t be anything new, but … still …
Before we all lose our collective shit, I would at least like to note that she indicated the trial would be in Ft. Pierce, which is where her courtroom is located. It’s not inherently weird.
Guys, leave it to the professionals.
St Lucie county is conservative, but so is everything in Florida outside large cities. And, looking at the last few presidential ejections*, it’s not nearly as conservative as it might be.
Trump carried the county in the last two elections, but only by a couple of points each time. Before that it was reliably blue for a long time. Hell, Al Gore won by 9 points there!
I think it’s fine.
*This is an autocorrect typo but I’m keeping it.
[D]espite difficulties retaining new legal representation, Trump bragged to a group of supporters at a fundraiser at Bedminster that some of the “biggest” firms and lawyers have called him asking to represent him in the upcoming federal trial.
“I tell all these people, they all come in — they want to help,” Trump said speaking about the upcoming 2024 election. “The biggest, some of the biggest people, the biggest law firms, the biggest lawyers, I say listen, “I don’t need any help. I don’t want any help in campaigns.”
The article says Trump has turned down law firms wishing to represent him at his federal trial. But Trump says he doesn’t need any help with campaigns. Maybe the trial and his campaign are the same thing to him?