By Curt_Anderson June 14, 2023 11:39 am Category: Law (0.0 from 0 votes) Rules of the Post Write A New Article How To Post Here Rate this article (5=best, 0=poor)

Here are the various credible legal defenses for Trump that I'm aware of. All of them are terrible. There is no Perry Mason-like defense of exposing the real killer and exonerating defendant Trump. Trump's defenses are all about suppressing evidence, claiming Trump is a "victim", and asserting some special unique rights that only Trump should be granted.

1. Selective prosecution. That's the whataboutism defense. It basically is saying somebody else (Hillary, Joe Biden, Mike Pence) also did something similar. Trump wouldn't return "my boxes" when asked nicely by the government. The other pols didn't put up a fuss like Trump and cooperated. The problem with the "selective" claim is that is many lower level and not-so famous people have been sentenced to lengthy prison terms for doing the same thing as Trump. If Trump were NOT prosecuted that would be selective.

2. The notes by Trump defense lawyer Corcoran should be excluded. Corcoran's notes have been allowed as evidence because of the crime-fraud exception. Excluding that evidence is not an argument that Trump is innocent. It's that Trump doesn't want the jury to see documentation of his guilt.

3. Trump declassified them before leaving office. He has said he can declassify with his mind. This doesn't pass the laugh test. He is also on tape admitting he cannot declassify as an ex-president.

4. Prosecutorial misconduct. Supposedly that happened during the grand jury stage. That ship has already sailed. The indictment has already been issued. Even if it were the case (there is no reason to think that it did), the guilty attorneys might have be disciplined; but the indictment is not thrown out.

5. Trump or some other GOP candidate should be elected president and pardon Trump That's not an effort to prove he is innocent. It's just admitting that Trump is guilty. It also is an attack on the jury saying that they cannot render a fair and honest verdict, even though it's in Trump's preferred venue with Trump's preferred judge.

Comments Start Below

by HatetheSwamp on June 14, 2023 11:56 am Oy, Curt. What I've been hearing over here on the right these last 24 hours or so is that, in Florida, this will be easy schmeezy for Trump...that Smith has huuuuuuuuugely over charged the crime. I guess we'll see! by Curt_Anderson on June 14, 2023 12:06 pm HtS, Here's the problem for Trump. There are 37 counts to the indictment. Each carries a long time in prison. Trump has to win on all counts. Also, you know that Trump will use his usual delaying tactics and drag the case out. The evidence against him will dribble out. That's not a good look politically to have a presidential candidate who might be found guilty of violating laws about state secrets. by HatetheSwamp on June 14, 2023 12:39 pm Curt, What I'm hearing now is that there's a crime in what Trump did, but not the crime of espionage. Smitty will have a problem proving that charge. My sense is that Smith has demonstrated that pb's right, i.e., Trump is despicable. But, actually guilty of espionage? Not so much. by Curt_Anderson on June 14, 2023 1:01 pm HtS, I know that Lindsey Graham was nearly in tears over this, but a person doesn't have to be spy to charged with violating the Espionage Act. (e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it;...Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. There is apparently evidence that Trump showed these documents to people "not entitled to receive it". Notice that the documents don't have to be classified. It is only that they "could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation". If I can cite pertinent laws, I am sure that Jack Smith can too. uscode.house.gov by oldedude on June 14, 2023 3:59 pm You really don't understand your prosecutory rights. #1. This means the DOJ/FBI complete FUBARd the setup for this. It's the most plausible. If they used "Illegal" evidence into their decision, they're sunk. They've done this before. They've ruined lives with illegal evidence. Heads will roll now that the GOP rules the house. As they should have if the dims ran it, but the dims are too tied in to hilclit and the DOJ/FBI (read banana Republic) #3. Trump declassified them before leaving office. He has said he can declassify with his mind. This doesn't pass the laugh test. He is also on tape admitting he cannot declassify as an ex-president. We don't know that because it hasn't been tried in court. It's pretty much the same defense billclit had. So if he went to jail, trumpster should go to jail. #4. Prosecutorial misconduct. Supposedly that happened during the grand jury stage. That ship has already sailed. The indictment has already been issued. Even if it were the case (there is no reason to think that it did), the guilty attorneys might have be disciplined; but the indictment is not thrown out. This is one of those things curt doesn't understand about the US Justice System. If you attempt to bribe a member of the Grand Jury on a case, that throws the whole case out. Screw them. by HatetheSwamp on June 14, 2023 5:17 pm Curt, "Willfully communicates..." Do you honestly believe that is what Trump did? Honestly? by Curt_Anderson on June 14, 2023 6:51 pm Yes, honestly. Read the indictment. It’s only 40 some pages long. Federal prosecutors allege Donald Trump showed off classified documents months after leaving the White House, flashing battle plans and a classified map in front of a writer and a member of his political action committee in two separate incidents. by oldedude on June 14, 2023 7:54 pm What you still don't understand, or know or have a clue is about the law. by Indy! on June 14, 2023 9:27 pm Think I've hit on the perfect combination for everybody to both love and hate this one... by Donna on June 14, 2023 11:42 pm Hi Indy. I seem to recall you predicting that in 2020. by HatetheSwamp on June 15, 2023 3:48 am The thing is that TDSers have been confident in proclaiming that Trump is on the verge of legal disaster since before he took the Oath of Office in 017. Fact? Still waiting... by HatetheSwamp on June 15, 2023 5:20 am On the Biden bribery: "this is now verified." View Video by oldedude on June 15, 2023 6:26 am goose. gander. goose. gander. But you know he'll make excuses, reasons, and justifications, regardless of how implausible for his "friends." I'm beginning to think he was one of the only remaining survivors of the jim jones cult and he found himself another cult to be a part of. by Indy! on June 15, 2023 1:42 pm You think I predicted Trump going to jail in 2020, Donna? Perhaps as sarcasm during Rachel, Russia, Rachel's Red Scare era when I was mocking that fraudulent nonsense. Otherwise, I highly doubt it. Just so know - I'm still mocking this whole process. If you want to know my actual prediction - I've already said it on this board... If by some miracle Trump is found guilty of a crime - he will be pardoned in some way. Most likely by whoever is president at the time (D or R). by Indy! on June 15, 2023 1:57 pm There's absolutely nothing in that Fox video that proves anything other than what anyone who's ever watched Fox for more than 10 seconds understands - they spend most of their time pimping themselves as the only (alleged) arbiters of truth. We know Biden is dirty - but if the Rs really wanted to prosecute him, they would go after the obvious stuff like Hunter's overpriced artwork bribes. Yes, I've had to watch it a few times because my dad has serious health issues so I've spent more time with him lately. He loves the Fox Nonnewssense as much as peebs and Old Dud here. by Curt_Anderson on June 15, 2023 2:15 pm “We know Biden is dirty - but if the Rs really wanted to prosecute him, they would go after the obvious stuff like Hunter's overpriced artwork bribes.” —-Indy! Of course, we don’t know any such thing. It may be eyebrow raising, but what is the crime if Hunter Biden sells his artwork for exorbitant prices? That’s good old American capitalism! That Hunter Biden exploited his famous family name is not a crime. For it to be a bribe there has to be some evidence that the high price paid for a painting resulted in some sort of quid pro quo from Joe Biden. What besides a living room couch sized painting did these art patrons get for their money? by Indy! on June 15, 2023 4:39 pm That's what I like about you, Curt - you'll never pass up a chance to apologize for D corruption. If you want to know why the movers and shakers of the world are willing to pay thousands of dollars for Hunter's "art" (or Hillary's 'Masterclass' or Obama's $450,000 lunch speeches) - you investigate. But the Rs won't go there. They're too busy chasing Chinese ghosts and imaginary laptop files because they know it will never lead to an indictment. Go To Top

Find old posts & articles

Show Most Recent Articles Articles by category: Politics+ Religion+ Law & Crime Military News Media History Health Sports+ Humor Entertainment Misc.

Report spam & abuse SelectSmart.com home page