Yes, I think that a written confession in a public forum by the suspect himself that he indeed had hidden the documents would suffice.
Keep talking Trump. Keep talking.
Many years ago, I did a lot of work around collecting of electronic evidence for investigations and lawsuits and whatnot. Cases not dissimilar from Trumps.
What you are referring to is “chain of custody”. Law enforcement agencies and entities working on their behalf (like the sort of consulting and accounting firms I work for) have strict processes and procedures for documenting the collection, handling, storage, and analysis of evidence. They don’t just send a bunch of goons in suits into a building and start dragging stuff out.
A lot of times, it is based on sworn testimony, supported by proper documentation. Who found that document? What box what is found in? Who collected that box? Who handled that box between then and now?
Keep in mind, verdicts are based on “reasonable doubt”. While juries can be fickle, typically saying “oh the FBI must have planted that” or “I don’t know where those documents came from” isn’t really much of a tenable defense if they have boxes and hard drives full of documents they can show they collected from your property…
The problem with people who follow Trump is that they tend to venture into weirdo-conspiracy territory. That makes it convenient for them to ignore any evidence because it’s all “fake news” or “tampered by corrupt Liberal elites”.
You know, the best of all possible worlds is just an inexorable tightening of the noose of pressure over the next few months, from the J6 committee to the DOJ, from the House committee getting his financials to the actions in Georgia, from the NY State issue to the debt coming due over the next few years… increase the pressure and let nature take its course.
sort of like squeezing a pimple?
On the Pritzker strategic model, if there’s a risk that Truth Social is about to go under, I feel that Democrat donors should try to keep it afloat at least long enough for Trump to continue testifying against himself in this case.
I believe he has in his response to the DOJ’s objections to a Special Master. He contends there that classified documents should be expected to be found at his residence. That is both an admission that he had them in his possession and that he had not declassified them.
And in this he is perfectly correct, of course. That is why the judge signed the search warrant.
I think this will be a big one if Trump tries to claim the evidence was planted by the FBI. There’s going to be proof that Trump had the documents in his possession from when he was President.
What’s Trump going to say? “Those are some other president’s classified secrets!”
Yes, this is a potentially major one here. What was the evidence of probable cause that satisfied the judge who issued the warrant? If the FBI can call several people from Mar-a-Lago who are prepared to testify that they saw documents marked “top secret” in Trump’s office and living quarters, before the FBI ever came, that is significant evidence to rebut the ‘planting’ argument.
Except, of course, those witnesses are FBI stooges that the FBI tricked Trump into hiring, so that they could give their fake testimony.
It’s elephants all the way down.
Yes, however his contention that it was ‘normal’ is not going over well so far. We have a lot to find out soon when the Trump appointed judge who had no basis to consider the request for the special master in the first place makes a decision whether to appoint one.
The GOP is behind it all?
It is a very deep state.
AFAIK their best defense (whether against insane rant by former POTUS, or the completely justified victim of police malfeasance) is the fact the juries are inclined to believe whatever police officers tell them, excluding anything else even evidence that contradicts them.
Funny. I get out of jury duty usually by explaining (truthfully) that I tend to mistrust testimony given by a police officer.
more like lancing a boil on the buttocks of democracy.
Back when I was routinely handling court transcripts it was “These aren’t my pants.”
So many people out here just wake up and put on pants they randomly find laying around without worrying about who actually owns the pants. It’s very odd.
It sounds to me like “You planted that” is a pretty weak line of defense that doesn’t survive very far into the process. What do attorneys do to convince their clients that “You planted that” will be a waste of time, and to convince their clients to pursue defenses that have a better chance of succeeding (or to plea-bargain, or to inform on someone else, etc.)? Do many clients insist “No, I’m sticking with ‘They planted it on me’”?
Me too and let’s not forget that Trump,and his team said that they watched the search on security cameras in real time. So, if evidence was planted, they should have no trouble providing the public with the tapes.
Who among us has not been in that position?!