Which is why Trumps rants and rally speeches always include the dire warning that “if they can come after me, they’ll come after you.” My troubles are your troubles.
Which is complete horseshit, of course.
FBI Search and Seizure at Trump's Mar-A-Lago Residence, August 8, 2022, Case Dismissed July 15, 2024
It’s become much more self aggrandizing than that actually. It’s “they’re not coming after me. They’re coming after you. I’m just standing in their way.”
Right… like Trump has ever done anything for the benefit of someone besides himself.
“I’m at the golf course grifting.”
Then it’s just a single small potatoe.
Based on Gov’t latest filing asking to delay trial to Dec 2023, they now clearly indicate they plan to use the CIPA pre-trial process.
CIPA is a process to determine how classified documents will look at trial, and it’s all done pre-trial. It’s complicated, but the CIPA process basically makes all objections to the evidence that would normally be done at trial (or days before), come much earlier. For example, instead of Judge/Prosecutor/Defendant deciding how a classified document will look before it’s submitted as evidence during trial, it’s done much earlier.
In this way, CIPA allows the Gov’t to know what their classified evidence will look like now, and then they can decide if they still want to proceed with it or not.
Here’s the proposed CIPA schedule. July 10 to turn over initial classified docs. Dec 5th deadline of CIPA process (the last hearing). Trial starts on Dec 11.
So, a best case scenario, is 5-6 months of CIPA litigation (assuming no appeals).
Thank you for your entire post, and especially for the proposed CIPA schedule.
You know there will be appeals. But the Eleventh is onto Trump and his delay tactics, as is the SCOTUS. I don’t think either bench will delay the trial much.
Is this public pronouncement going to bite him in the ass when his defense attorneys ask for the inevitable continuance/delay to allow more time to assemble their legal team?
“Well, yes, your Honor, he did say that he turned down law firms wishing to represent him at his federal trial. But we all know he’s an habitual liar, so that statement cannot be taken at face value.”
Legally, is that accurate?
Public statements not under oath by a politician, especially this one, are not really evidence, are they?
I wonder why Nauta documented the cartons in their various locations. For whose benefit were those pictures taken? And most employees, when they see a box of spilled documents, would get them back in the box and not say a word. I don’t get it.
Maybe (as Dear Abby used to say), he woke up and smelled the coffee.
They can be. Admissions against interest can be an exception to the hearsay rule.
That’s why the tapes made at Badminster, and his recent interview with Fox, will likely be put forward as evidence by the prosecution.
I love the smell of covfefe in the morning.
I’m learning a lot here. I didn’t know hearsay was any statement made outside of court used to prove that statement was true. According to Cornell Law, there are exceptions to the rule against hearsay.
Excited Utterance: A statement relating to a startling event or condition, made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement that it caused.
Obviously I’m not a lawyer, even after so many Law & Order episodes I didn’t truly understand what hearsay is, but Trump’s statements while under the stress of being interviewed could be viewed as excited utterances. Maybe? Anyone with more knowledge about the law willing to chime in here?
If Trump chooses to testify and argues that he didn’t really mean what he said while not under oath it’s going to lead to the prosecution getting to say something I think all lawyers secretly want to say during a court case: “Were you lying then or are you lying now?”
Yes, hearsay is classically defined as a statement not made in court, not under oath, and not subject to cross-examination.
I’m not knowledgeable about the details of US federal evidence rules, but just based on general common law evidence, I wouldn’t say it counts as an excited utterance. Trump has five decades of experience being interviewed and four years as president. I think it would be hard to make the case that his statements in a planned Fox interview were excited utterances. Those are more like spontaneous, unplanned reactions to something unexpected happening.
I would go instead with statements against interest. That is a well-established exception to the hearsay rule. The basis for the exception is that if a person voluntarily says something that is against their interest, that is a reason to be able to trust that it’s significant statement, that can be considered in court.
Does it matter if there are conflicting interests?
In Trump’s case there is the court case interest, which those statements are against, but also political primary election interests, which those statements are not against.
Does the court only accept the defendant’s interest as a defendant?
Good question, but I would think the courts would just measure it against the criminal charges before them. For whatever reason, he has stated that he kept the documents, knowing that the Archives wanted them back. That relates to the issue that the court has to resolve.
I’m so confused. I thought hearsay was literally when you hear someone else say something. Your own words, by my definition, cannot be hearsay.
Are you guys saying that if Trump is on the stand, and a lawyer asks him “Did you say blah blah blah”, that could be objected to as hearsay?
