The legal system just handed trump the perfect excuse not to testify.

[Luce]

what are we supposed to read?> are there transcripts yet? or are you talking about a bunch of biased twitterettes?

The article in the OP. Nobody said anything about transcripts, because there aren't any.

There are, however, and MSN and NYT link. If that's what you mean by "Twitterettes".

 

[ataraxia]

Cross-examination by the prosecution is not a problem.

It would be a bad idea for Trump to take the stand - we probably agree on that. The Prosecution would quickly set a perjury trap, which often torpedoes defendants who foolishly take the witness stand.

Trump would be best advised to not testify. His legal team should be clear on that.

So what's the problem here? Why the cries of persecution and unconstitutionality?

 

[Buckeyes85]

So that certainly makes biased and unprecedented rulings by liberal Trump hating judges to rule to make sure they stick him deep in it. But, hey, it's nothing I don't expect from democrat progressives who have no sense of right/wrong within the justice system or in the realm of politics.

Biased and unprecedented? According to whom?

So in your bizzaro Trump world, he could get on the stand, and testify as to how honest he is, how moral, of great character, devoted husband and father, etc. - and the prosecutors couldn't cross examine him with the fact that in several prior cases, the judge or jury found the opposite, and concluded he was a liar?

Our system doesn't work that way. And both sides know it.
If you choose to testify on your own behalf, be prepared to face the skeletons in your closet.

 

[ElChupacabra]

So that certainly makes biased and unprecedented rulings by liberal Trump hating judges to rule to make sure they stick him deep in it. But, hey, it's nothing I don't expect from democrat progressives who have no sense of right/wrong within the justice system or in the realm of politics.

In many ways, Trump not testifying is an act of grace. He is prone to ramble incoherently, has the attention span of a child, and would likely ramble himself into more trouble. I'm sure his attorneys are happy about this.

 

[SkyChief]

And this is once again a post that separates the left from the right.

How so? It would be a really bad idea for Trump to testify - he would be ripped apart in cross-examination. You disagree?

We aren't out to set perjury traps for trump like the right would do, we're out to find the truth and serve justice if it is needed.

Prosecutors often use perjury traps when proving guilt is difficult.

Why do folks like you find this so offensive?

I don't find it "offensive".

Could it possibly be because you guys are great at denying facts?

LOL "you guys"?

You're blaming me for Trump? LOL!

 

[Buckeyes85]

Not always.

Many times innocent people who foolishly took the stand were caught in lies, even though they did not commit the crime they were accused of.

The prudent thing for ANY defendant in a criminal trial to do is make the prosecution PROVE them guilty - and not give them an opportunity to set a perjury trap.

Setting a perjury trap is 1st Year Criminal Law. The prosecutor's wettest dream is for the defendant to testify.

Not sure what law school you attended, but what you describe is not a perjury trap. Your definition is merely hoping that the defendant testifies, and then catch them lying. That is not a trap. That is simply perjury.

There are 2 easy ways to avoid committing perjury in your own trial: 1) don't lie under oath or 2) don't testify at all.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Has Trump tried NOT breaking laws?

No.

Glad to help.

WW

 

[ataraxia]

I said prosecution - not "persecution".

There's a big difference!

OK. What I am pointing out is that Trump and his supporters are talking like this prosecution IS persecution.

But I am just still wanting to know what is unconstitutional here or different than any similar other court case?

In fact, the pattern of how Trump is going down is not too different a pattern than how law enforcement has brought down many other powerful, charismatic, and even highly popular mob bosses and crime syndicates throughout history: you start with the lower-downs and patiently work your way up the syndicate.

"John Gotti was loved by his community. He was sort of a hero to them and he treated them very well. I’d almost say, he was a terrific neighbor in many respects; he was also brilliantly public-relations minded...
And then, when the government started arresting him and he was [winning] cases…he took on a greater life. He became the Teflon Don. He’s the guy who sits in the courtroom and wins and pounds the table in victory and strolls out into the street and there are hundreds and hundreds of people cheering him on. It took on an enormous life from a public-persona view. He started gracing the covers of magazines.
That’s why, to a lot of working-class people, there’s always some sort of affinity to the rogue guy who’s beating the system, having a grand old time for himself."

Why Did the Working Class Love John Gotti So Much?

Journalist Murray Weiss tells us why working-class people loved John Gotti, how the Mafia has changed since the 1980s and what it was like for John Gotti Jr. to leave the mob.

www.aetv.com

 

[WorldWatcher]

A defendant in a criminal trial has the Constitutional right to testify in his or her defense.

If a judge were to deny the defendant his/her right to testify, it is a de facto mistrial.

This has nothing to o with a judge ruling that a defendant can't testify in a criminal trial.

The Sandoval Hearing was about what subjects the prosecution could have questions about if the defendant * * CHOSES * * to testify.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

Please Please Please Please let him go under oath.

He's been under oath in previous cases, the video of those depositions basically torpedoed his cases.

WW

 

[bongsaway]

How so? It would be a really bad idea for Trump to testify - he would be ripped apart in cross-examination. You disagree?

Prosecutors often use perjury traps when proving guilt is difficult.

I don't find it "offensive".

LOL "you guys"?

You're blaming me for Trump? LOL!

All the prosecution has to do is ask factual questions that can be proven, trump will perjure himself, no need to 'set traps'. That's the kind of dirty shit his lawyers will do, try to twist the facts so they don't stink so much.

 

[zincwarrior]

“It would be a disaster”: Judge’s ruling could “short-circuit” Trump’s plan to testify at trial.​

The judge overseeing Donald Trump's criminal hush-money trial on Monday ruled that prosecutors can confront the former president with his past misconduct if he chooses to testify.

Merchan ruled that prosecutors can ask Trump about six determinations in four previous court cases, according to NBC News, while noting that he "greatly curtailed" the list of topics the district attorney's office sought to ask about.

Prosecutors can ask about Trump's civil fraud ruling and his repeated violations of a gag order in the case as well as the defamation and rape trials brought by writer E. Jean Carroll and another lawsuit in which the Trump Foundation was found to be engaged in repeated self-dealing.

The order "significantly increased the potential blowback" Trump could face if he takes the stand, noted The Times' Alan Feuer.

"Although Trump has said he wants to testify in his own defense, this ruling could short-circuit that, essentially defeating the purpose of him taking the stand," added the Times' Benjamin Protess.

CNN legal analyst Elie Honig warned before Monday's ruling that Trump testifying "would be a disaster."

Idiot, no defendant testifies in a criminal trial.

 

[bongsaway]

Idiot, no defendant testifies in a criminal trial.

Sane defendant, one never knows with trump's ego.

 

[Questerr]

How so? It would be a really bad idea for Trump to testify - he would be ripped apart in cross-examination. You disagree?

Prosecutors often use perjury traps when proving guilt is difficult.

I don't find it "offensive".

LOL "you guys"?

You're blaming me for Trump? LOL!

Proving guilt would not be difficult for Trump. They have his own words admitting he wanted to hide the evidence of the affair so as to not influence the election.

 

[reflechissez]

What a remarkably ignorant post.

Any criminal lawyer will tell you that the perjury trap is a commonly used legal strategy to sway a jury in a criminal trial.

Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury_trap

Do a little research before making these arguments based on ignorance.

You said this:

Setting a perjury trap is 1st Year Criminal Law.

You do not post as if you've attended/graduated from law school.

Are you listening to Sunny Hostin again?

 

[Nickyjo]

So that certainly makes biased and unprecedented rulings by liberal Trump hating judges to rule to make sure they stick him deep in it. But, hey, it's nothing I don't expect from democrat progressives who have no sense of right/wrong within the justice system or in the realm of politics.

They are all out there skulking into their courtrooms the “liberal Trump hating judges.” One correction: “no sense of right/wrong within the justice system or in the realm of politics” is Trump’s thing.

Btw, what flavor is the Kool-aide Trump pours?

 

[SkyChief]

All the prosecution has to do is ask factual questions that can be proven, trump will perjure himself, no need to 'set traps'.

FYI, that IS a textbook perjury trap.

That's the kind of dirty shit his lawyers will do, try to twist the facts so they don't stink so much.

Trump's lawyers should not permit him to take the stand. It would destroy any chances for acquittal. The prosecution will catch him in lies, and perjury charges could be added to the existing charges.

 

[Ikari]

I wouldn't worry too much. Trump was never going to testify. All the bluster is purely for campaigning purposes.

Not even Trump would be stupid enough to testify in a criminal trial when he's the defendant.

 

[BabaVoss]

Trumpy was never going to testify. He's not very bright, but even he understand that his brain defaults to lying, ab out anything and everything. He has no self-control. Looking back, you can see he often made wild claims in public that his lawyers never said in court. He knows how it works. Its trouble if you lie on the stand, and he can't talk for long without lying.

 

[SkyChief]

You said this:


You do not post as if you've attended/graduated from law school.

Are you listening to Sunny Hostin again?

You're still making dumb arguments. In fact they're not even arguments - they're just dumb ad hominem comments.

If you have an intelligent argument to make, then MAKE IT.

Your vapid posts are really boring, and demonstrate that you're probably incapable of formulating an actual argument.

 

[Questerr]

FYI, that IS a textbook perjury trap.

Trump's lawyers should not permit him to take the stand. It would destroy any chances for acquittal. The prosecution will catch him in lies, and perjury charges could be added to the existing charges.

Because Trump can’t answer questions honestly?

 

[bongsaway]

FYI, that IS a textbook perjury trap.

Trump's lawyers should not permit him to take the stand. It would destroy any chances for acquittal. The prosecution will catch him in lies, and perjury charges could be added to the existing charges.

So if the prosecution asks, did you sign the three checks to payback michael Cohen for money he put out for you? Not even asking what the money is for just asking if Cohen put out the money, that's a trap? Sad how so many on the right still support this man.

 

[SkyChief]

Because Trump can’t answer questions honestly?

We need to get you up-to-speed in this discussion.

My position is that it would NOT be advisable for Trump to take the stand because he would be vulnerable to cross-examination. He would be caught in lies, which would be self-incriminating. The job of his lawyers is to advise him to NOT take the witness stand.

It is also the core idea of the OP .

 

[Cardinal]

Trump is not required to testify.

If I were Trump's lawyers, I'd be doing everything I could to keep him from testifying.

I think we're we're all missing something really important here: his face is doing lots and lots of testifying, and the jury is watching every second of it.

 

[Questerr]

We need to get you up-to-speed in this discussion.

My position is that it would not be advisable for Trump to take the stand because he would be vulnerable to cross-examination.

It is also the core idea of the OP .

Yes, he would be. Because he is guilty. He would either perjure himself lying about his actions when there are documents proving otherwise, or he would admit guilt and hand the prosecution a conviction on a silver platter.