Trump has spent a lifetime successfully delaying litigation against him. And it has worked.
I see no reason why it will not work again.
The day he is spending the night in a prison come back here and tell me how wrong I am. I will happily embrace how wrong I was in this instance and you (whomever) can claim all the internet points you want.
Put another way, I do not believe Trump will ever spend a night in prison. This will be dragged out forever and, if nothing else, he will die of old age before he sees a prison.
Some here think sentencing guidelines are bound to be ignored so he never goes to prison.
Others here think that the prosecutors and judges are determined to hold him to account almost as strictly as partisan Democrats on internet chat sites.
Maybe because I’m an ever-so-slightly-to-the-left political centrist, I’m in the center here as well. I think he will be treated as any other rich prominent defendant up to the point where it has substantial impact on running for, or serving as, president.
The question you are raising is whether the justice system would risk being seen as impeding the presidential transition. I don’t see it. The national mood would be so much in favor of gave-him-a-chance AKA don’t poke the ogre at the start of his day.
He’s spent a lifetime with this working for civil litigation. This case is criminal, what worked in civil cases doesn’t necessarily work in criminal litigation. The interview he publicly did with Fox alone pretty well sinks any defense he could mount, that tape is almost certainly going to be used against him at trial. In it he admits to every element of the crime as well as acknowledging that he knew it was a crime yet came out from that interview thinking he had done a great job, a ‘perfect interview’ if you will. All he can hope to do is to delay the case, and there are limits to how much of that you can get away with in a criminal proceeding as opposed to a civil one.
I unfortunately tend to agree with this, but think it will likely be a result of the sentence he receives, not as a result of him delaying the case until he dies of old age.
I was foreman of a jury for a criminal trial (not a very serious one) and this was my experience. First, no one in the jury box struck me as the slightest bit stupid. Second, the one holdout we had didn’t hold out long. (As in under 10 minutes.) And the evidence was not nearly as strong as the evidence against Trump.
People should remember that there are Trumpists even in NY, but that didn’t help him in the civil case. And, since the tape of him revealing a classified document to those not authorized to see it (which has not been charged in Florida) was taped in NJ, he could be charged with that and that trial would be in a blue state.
I heard an interview on Ari Melber where he interviewed the attorney that represented Michael Flynn. This guy suggested Trump’s defense team will adopt the strategy of focusing on convincing a single juror so they end up with a hung jury. He said they will likely focus on the element of intent (which surprised me). See Trump as President had unlimited access to classified documents and could look at anything or declassify anything he wanted to for all those years, so why should he be convicted for doing the very thing that he was elected to do.
Yeah I know, that’s weak sauce, but so far it sounds like the best argument of the horrible lot we’ve heard from Trump so far.
Even that’s not true. The POTUS can’t declassify “anything he wants”. Granted, I’m guessing he could have declassified most of what he’s being charged with possessing, but some documents can’t be declassified by the POTUS (like nuclear secrets).
That’s not just weak, it’s not even totally correct.
Drat, and he would have gotten away with it too if it weren’t for you meddling kids publically admitting to knowingly committing a felony and being aware that what he was doing was criminal.
The document that he’s referring to in the Bedminster tape is not one of the ones in the criminal indictment, so it doesn’t matter whether he had anything in his possession at all. It seems like the reason that Jack Smith included this conversation in the evidence is that it’s cutting off one of Trump’s defenses: that he declassified all the documents in his possession with his mind before leaving office. This conversation shows that he knew that wasn’t true.
Yes, he did say he could declassify with his mind, like a Jedi. But just to nitpick, I think the defense that Smith was obliterating was the assertion that there was a standing policy that all documents that left the White House were automatically deemed declassified.
We all have fun with Trump’s “I can declassify just by thinking it” comments, but that defense wasn’t going to make it into court. A standing policy, however ill-advised it would have been, and however divorced from actual standard practice, was slightly more plausible. You get one toady sycophant to testify he was for sure aware that was Trump’s instruction…
Trump argued early on that he had a standing order that anything that he removed from the White House was to be considered declassified. Journalists did a FOIA request recently to see this order. You’ll be shocked SHOCKED to learn there’s no evidence that any such order existed.
Right? I mean, he could have foreseen all this and never run for president in the first place since that’s what he blames for ruining his perfect life.
I really can’t wait to see what preposterous thing he throws out next.
Is single juror a real strategy? How is it executed when the other eleven jurors are also listening?
As to whether it could be a good strategy, I doubt it. It is emotionally hard for one to stand up against eleven. Maybe they’ll try a two-juror strategy, but, then again, is that a real strategy, or just a defense dream?
Beyond such ridicule, I don’t believe in a one-juror strategy because of the large number of counts. Juries don’t like to hang. So a compromise verdict is possible (how common?) where the jury majority decides to acquit on certain counts to avoid being hung. The judge would then probably give concurrent sentences, making the acquittals barely matter.