I imagine Trump is referring to specific things he’s not allowed to talk about (the gag order) - and he has to be vague to comply with the gag order.
Not commenting on whether I agree, but this is what I think he is referring to.
I have given up giving Trump the benefit of the doubt for “well this is probably what he meant to say”
Sort of but not really.
He and many, many, many others have often claimed, not just here but in several other cases, that any restriction on speech (or rather the prospect of facing consequences for threatening or intimidating witnesses, court officials, potential jurors, etc) is equivalent to not allowing him to speak at all. It’s part and parcel of the martyrdom/persecution complex they love to playact.
That his situation - saying those things in front of the national press who are literally recording every word - literally contradicts what he’s saying in real time is inconsequential to the strategy.
But threatening, intimidating, and ridiculing is pretty much all that Trump does. Now that’s he’s raging with a special hate against the justice system and everyone in it, not being able to direct his customary vitriol against them must be very stressful for him.
How exactly do the fines work? Would Trump get a bill in the mail or would he need to pay on the spot before he’s allowed to leave the courthouse at tge end of the day?
Yeah personally I’d treat the seven cases brought up by the prosecution as 7 different instances not just one, which seems likely (or at most two where he will get both a warning and fine Wednesday)
But still that doesn’t mean he’ll never given a custodial sentence. I suspect the judge will make it clear on Wednesday that the next time he does this he’ll spend a night in the cells.
I predict it’s David Pecker. He has no obvious credibility issues (other than being head of the National Enquirer, based on its reputation for gossip) and can lay out the “catch and kill” strategy used during the election. And, I’m pretty sure, he’ll testify to a meeting, with Trump in attendance, where that plan was confirmed (from there the DA can then call other people - like Hope Hicks - who can explain the urgency with this scheme after the Access Hollywood tape, and then bring in Michael Cohen to confirm specific details of the Stormy payment. Since others have already given the jury the broad strokes, defense claims that Cohen is just a disgruntled liar will have less impact).
But before we get to witnesses we’ll have opening statements. I’ve always been cautioned against overly long openings : you don’t want to promise more than your evidence will deliver (since the other side will hammer that at closing), and given that witnesses can be unpredictable and rulings may limit certain questions, you should err on the side of only speaking in generalities. I think most defense attorneys limit themselves to just a few minutes.
Having said that, I’m often surprised at how long opening statements in high profile cases actually end up being. So, while I personally wouldn’t lay out the entire case in my opening (it’s the closing where you go point by point), don’t be shocked if we get reporting that the DA took a long time to do so. And while I, as a defense attorney, would merely try to pinpoint areas of emphasis (I.e. “As you listen to this case, be sure to note all of the people not named Trump who are acting. Does the DA prove that Trump and his campaign coordinated these actions, or are they just telling you what Trump supporters were doing on their own?”), don’t be surprised to hear that they took a similarly long time talking to the jury and laying out their defense.
It feels, to me, like Individual-ONE’s team are fighting tooth and nail to not get stuck on a case way above their skill level, terrified that a loss would end up consigning them to work at Triangle Shirtwaist.
Defense lawyers who have shitty cases with bad facts and guilty clients love to remark
You can’t out litigate bad facts. It’s kind of like how even the best doctor might lose a patient who comes to the hospital with 6 bullet wounds.
So as long as their retainer check cleared, those lawyers are good. They’ll have stories to tell at the next conference they attend.
(I’d take Donald’s case. I’d charge $10 million, payable in advance. But I’d take the case).
‘I only ride them. I don’t know what makes them work.’ - Oddball, Kelly’s Heroes
On TV sometimes the defense reserves their opening statement. I think that means they will make their opening statement after the prosecution finishes making their case. I can see where there could be some real advantages to doing this.
Is this a real thing? If so, is it something that Trump’s defense might want to do?
You’d have to put up with the stench, the abuse, and the hit on your reputation.
Yes.
A criminal trial starts with the State’s case. The state calls their witnesses, who they question, so as to to establish the elements of the alleged crime.
As each witness testifies, the defense gets to cross examine them.
But eventually the state rests. At that point the defense can put on a case, if they so choose. This time, they get to call witnesses, who the state cross examines.
Now, oftentimes, the defense doesn’t put on a case. They just argue that the state didn’t meet its burden of proving the crime. Sometimes, the defense calls the defendant as a witness.
But if the defense has some alternate theory of what happened, and intends to present a bunch of witnesses to prove their alternate claim, it might make sense to lay out a narrative first. In that case, the defense might choose to delay their opening until they present their case.
Here, donald may testify, although if he does I’m guessing it’s against his lawyers’ advice. I don’t really see an advantage to a delayed opening.
With $10 million in the bank, I’m not practicing law anymore.
I’d ask for cash up front if I were you.
What makes you feel that way?
To me it’s a sign of how absolutely terrified Trump is of these criminals cases that (unlike the civil cases) he seems to have have forked out a big chunk of cash for fairly competent experienced lawyers. Not with his own money obviously (good luck paying for ads in those swing Congressional seats Republicans LOL)
And unless they pull a Alina Habba and get him convicted by making a completely rookie mistake, they will be fine win or lose. It’s not a super winnable case*, and they have THE WORST CLIENT in the universe. Plus ultimately they have got their names on one of the most epoch defining cases in US history, that’s a big deal. The fact there aren’t world renown law firms queuing up to represent Trump shows how truly truly awful he is as a client.
‘*’ - not a slam dunk for the prosecution like the documents case, there are some question marks about how it was made into a felony., but the prosecution are expected to win.
So he did say in court today he was going to testify. I am assuming when his lawyers finally overcome his narcissism and megalomania with his fear of prison, he can change his mind without prejudicing his case?
I assume that’s what “payable in advance” means.
That’s an easy defence. Just because he was at a meeting, doesn’t mean he was conscious. He’s currently on trial, perhaps the most important meeting of his life, and he keeps nodding off. The defence just need to point at the snoring, farting Trump.
Yeah, but definitely wait for the check to clear.
Nope. I want a briefcase of cash or nothing.