What’s Trump’s Trial Strategy?

Politics & Elections
1

Not specific to any one case, but in general, I think he’s conceding that he will be found guilty of committing at least one felony, and very likely more, and that he will have little to no basis for a winning appeal when all is said and done. That is, I think realistically he recognizes (despite his frequent public pronouncements to the contrary) that he is headed for a long, long term in some sort of confinement. (Probably home confinement, in my view, but very unpleasant from Trump’s perspective at best.)

Which is why he’s mouthing off, in interviews and public speeches, the way he is. Well, also because he’s a born blabbermouth, but not completely. He has nothing to lose, and one thing to gain, by mouthing off: he gains sympathy from those inclined to give it to him. (Also money, but that’s just Trump doing Trump.) He’s decided that, legally, he’s screwed. Too many cases, too much evidence, to hope to skate on everything, so he’s betting all his chips that he’ll eke out a win in the Electoral College in 2024, and then self-pardon his way to freedom. That’s his strategy.

I put it at something like 5-to-1 against, maybe 10-to-1, but one hell of a lot better than his chances of being found not guilty of all the felony charges he will face in the next two or three years. The Presidency is his only realistic shot at beating the raps, and he’s going all in on that shot.

So all this talk about mounting particular defenses in specific cases is nonsense. He’ll do it, sure, or his lawyers will, but it’s all a distraction: judges, case law, constitutional interpretation, venue, voir dire—none of it is relevant to him. He is going to lose and lose bigtime—this is ALL a race against the clock, November 2024, and if the big enchilada escapes his grasp, then (to paraphrase Bill Barr and mix my culinary metaphors in the process) he is toast.

2

Lie, deny and delay; a tried and true tactic that has served him well up to this point.

3

What’s trump’s strategy?

What strategy does a bulll employ when it finds fancy dining sets for sale?

4

I suspect that its going to be similar to the O.J. defense. Fuhrman was a racist therefore he targeted O.J. so you should ignore all of the other evidence. Similarly the argument will be that Biden and by extension the FBI is targetting Trump for political reasons, therefore ignore all the evidence.

5

You’re distracted by the pretense that he’s putting up any defense. He’s cooked, legally. The only chance he has is re-election in 2024. All else is a sideshow.

6

Allowing that the final trial strategy doesn’t yet exist, this sounds correct.

I read another idea in a bit of punditry that I now cannot find. The starting point was that the jury will want to make a document-by-document decision as to which are serious “national defense information,” so cconviction on all counts is unlikely. Trump’s lawyers will try to get the jury to think that the whole case should be judged by the weaker counts.

Another part of the strategy will be to get Trump excused from attending the trial. I realize others here disagree, and I could be wrong.

Question: Is the jury likely to be sequestered? That should have some influence on strategy.

7

Maybe he’s cooked, but I’m not convinced. If I read on my computer that a Trump criminal jury just came back, I’m going to be on tenterhooks, checking every few minutes to find out the verdict.

8

It’s not the evidence in any one case, or the number of counts he’s indicted on. It’s the sheer number of trials, all of which have strong evidence. He might skate on one or two, but there are more coming, and they’re too many to win every time. He’s toast, and it doesn’t matter which defense he’s gonna use in each case.

9

The fact that he confessed his guilt in a Fox interview and thinks that he “crushed” the interview speaks volumes. He doesn’t have a legal defense to his actions, much less a coherent trial strategy.

10

I’m not sure even this Supreme Court would uphold a self pardon. That would mean no accountability at all. I think he’s wishing for a R president to pardon him someday.

11

Not even necessary. He’s old, couldn’t offer himself a pardon until he was 79 or so, then you’d need someone (who?) with standing to sue him in a lower court, then appeal it all the way up to SC–you’re talking about YEARS for the SC to rule that the lower court had it right and Trump goes to jail, or home confinement. As it is, he’s living on borrowed time.

12

“Meanwhile, some of the ex-president’s current and former legal advisers were watching in terror”

The former not as much as the current.

13

What makes the OP think that Trump has a strategy?

It seems to me that Trump’s plan, to the extent that he plans anything, is to sow chaos and confusion, and then to be the first one to take advantage of the confusion to get what he wants. And yes, it seems to have worked for him so far.

14

I think it depends on the scenario.

Is he already in prison on inauguration day? Federal or state?

In general, I think the Supreme Court wouldn’t like self-pardons. But they even more wouldn’t like to make a ruling that changes the decision of the electorate. And depending on who is Trump’s vice-president, progressives might not be thrilled by a self-pardon reversal either.

P.S. Is there a scenario possible where a failed self-pardon, or something comparable, throws the election to the House of Representatives?

15

I expect he doesn’t have a valid legal strategy to beat the rap (although their may be those in his circle who do, a la Eastman), so it’s going to be delay, delay delay and hope he wins at which point he’ll make the claim that he can’t serve from a cell and do the job required. And he’ll be able to make a very good case for it. So when (in his mind) he wins, he’ll fundamentally be free anyway. And that’ll take him well past any likely sentence.

And on the day before he finishes, he’ll absolutely self-pardon, and he’ll be long dead before that works it’s way through the legal system and all the appeals.

His alternate, is to make himself such an important kingmaker (with threats of his base primarying/staying home) to some other candidate with the requirement that they publicly, frequently, and in writing (and possibly blackmail/escrowed funds) warranty his pardon upon assuming office. And this too is likely a valid strategy.

So, he has no likely plan to beat the charges, but lots of options to get them nullified.

16

How would it? If the people want to elect an incarcerated criminal, they get to elect an incarcerated criminal. Being in prison doesn’t prevent him from being POTUS.

Now, if Congress wants to make a 25th amendment ruling and have him removed from office, that’s on them.

17

While being incarcerated for a few days wouldn’t prevent someone from doing the POTUS job, that situation would create a constitutional crisis. Public opinion wouldn’t tolerate it for long.

Probably he won’t be in prison on Inauguration Day, because it is easy for me to see his prison reporting date delayed during appeals. I know, you have to report if appeals are likely to fail. But with this Supreme Court, no one really believes that.

Being elected president is actually a pretty good trial strategy for Trump, broadly speaking.

18

So far, from all evidence I have seen, Trump’s trial strategy is to type on his own media platform in ALL CAPS begging congress to bail him out somehow.

19

It would be sweet to imagine Trump being aware of his legal predicament. I think it’s more likely that he doesn’t have a clue that he’s in serious trouble.

20

I don’t see how this is the case. What’s the crisis?

If people don’t want a POTUS in prison, don’t vote for a guy on trial with serious crimes.

I’m not being snarky, I literally do not see a problem at all. A person already incarcerated can run for office and win and serve. Why is it any different if they are imprisoned after being elected?

Let’s say hypothetically a guy runs for president while in prison and wins. Does he get released because public opinion is against him being in prison? That’s not how the law works.

This argument makes no sense to me.