Democrat Prosecutor: Trump Should Not Be Allowed to Defend Himself

[JoeB131]

This is a common police and prosecutorial mindset and tactic. The ridicule what they call "the SODI defense," meaning Some Other Dude Did It. But really, there are only two defenses to an accusation of a crime: 1) There was no crime, and 2) I didn't commit the crime. If the defendant didn't commit the crime, then "some other dude" did. So, the majority of defendants employ the SODI defense, and prosecutors don't like it. Eats into their winning record, and besides, so they think, most defendants are scumbags anyway, so if they didn't do this one, the did plenty of others.

I suppose the prosecutors would ask, "if Trump didn't do it, who did?" The answer is obvious: The rioters did the riot. They have been punished far out of proportion for their crimes, but they did it. If anyone else is to blame, I'd look to the FBI plants, that the FBI still refuses to say were not there, or what they were doing if they were. I'd blame them before I blame the guy who told the demonstrators to go peacefully to the Capitol and protest.

We see how unfair it is to try to deprive the defendant of his most obvious defense when it is a famous person like Trump. But it happens every day in every country. Police, prosecutors, and their puppets on Grand Juries bring people to trial. By the time the trial jury sees the case, it has been packages like a Hollywood production, and the defendant stands little chance.

Unless - like Donald Trump - they have the resources to fight back.

Hey, everyone, remember when the GOP used to be the party of "Law and Order"?

 

[JoeB131]

Free speech is supposed to rile people up, sometimes. You thinki all those pro-Hamas protesters are trying to keep everyone calm? Are you calling for them to go to jail, also?

If they specifically commit a crime, I'd be the first one for prosecuting them.

If Democrats don't like Trump or anyone else saying that they stole an election, they should stop cheating to win electons.

No, Trump lost because he fucked up in his job and the people voted him out. He just wasn't man enough to admit it, so he instigated a coup. That's why he's going to jail.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Democrats go full fascist part 380 in a continuing series.

Trump should be barred from blaming others for Jan. 6 riot at trial: Special counsel​

If a defendant chooses to blame space aliens, that is for the defendant to choose and the jury to decide if it really was space aliens. But Democrats know he can defend himself, so are now taking actions to ensure the kangaroo court finds a guilty verdict.

MSN

Actually, it's entirely normal and routine for the court to limit both prosecution and defense to the actual facts of the case.

The purpose of a trial is to present relevant facts that tend to support or diminish the accused person's culpability. In the same way that the prosecution is prohibited from offering irrelevant facts that don't actually speak to the charges at hand, so too is the defense prohibited from presenting non-relevant facts that don't actually address the evidence the same.

Additionally, it is the judge's responsibility to manage the court's time by maintaining orderly proceedings that say on target and move forward. So it's entirely within the trial judge's discretion to weight whether a defendant is attempting to introduce non-relevant evidence or arguments that waste the court's time, threaten to create chaos in the court's proceedings, or would serve only to create confusion among the trier(s) of fact.

This is the way the practice of law has worked for hundreds of years the world over. We're not going to change it now just for Donald.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Actually, it's entirely normal and routine for the court to limit both prosecution and defense to the actual facts of the case.

The purpose of a trial is to present relevant facts that tend to support or diminish the accused person's culpability. In the same way that the prosecution is prohibited from offering irrelevant facts that don't actually speak to the charges at hand, so too is the defense prohibited from presenting non-relevant facts that don't actually address the evidence the same.

Additionally, it is the judge's responsibility to manage the court's time by maintaining orderly proceedings that say on target and move forward. So it's entirely within the trial judge's discretion to weight whether a defendant is attempting to introduce non-relevant evidence or arguments that waste the court's time, threaten to create chaos in the court's proceedings, or would serve only to create confusion among the trier(s) of fact.

This is the way the practice of law has worked for hundreds of years the world over. We're not going to change it now just for Donald.

BS. If someone wants to claim zombies did it that’s their right.

You fascists are pathetic traitors.

 

[Weatherman2020]

If they specifically commit a crime, I'd be the first one for prosecuting them.


No, Trump lost because he fucked up in his job and the people voted him out. He just wasn't man enough to admit it, so he instigated a coup. That's why he's going to jail.

If they specifically commit a crime, I'd be the first one for prosecuting them.

Unless it’s illegally obtained guns by a Democrat, then it’s no big deal.

 

[Weatherman2020]

None of those people would have stormed the Capitol had Trump not spent months riling them up.

They are all going to jail, so should he.

Irrelevant lie.
A person has the right to defend themselves as they see fit and offer testimony as they see fit, fascist traitor.

 

[maybelooking]

All Trump would have to do in a court that wasn't stacked with lying, corrupt liberals is present evidence that he offered up the NG and that offer was declined.

The end.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

BS. If someone wants to claim zombies did it that’s their right.

You don't seem to get it. Granted, you're a cultist moron who doesn't want to get it, but the result remains the same.

Donald isn't accused of murder, where the deed is easily established but a responsible party must be shown. Donald is accused of engaging in insurrection.

The question will be whether his easily established actions amount to the legal threshold. The prosecution will present evidence of what Donald himself did. Whether Barbara Jane or Jimmy Bob did this or that has no relevance to whether Donald's actions amount to insurrection. The questions for the jury will be whether they believe the prosecution's evidence, and whether the actions amount to insurrection.

 

[Seymour Flops]

If they specifically commit a crime, I'd be the first one for prosecuting them.

What crime did Trump specically commit. Cite the criminal statute and the action Trump took to violate it.

No, Trump lost because he fucked up in his job and the people voted him out. He just wasn't man enough to admit it, so he instigated a coup. That's why he's going to jail.

Is your answer to the above "instigated a coup?"

 

[Seymour Flops]

Hey, everyone, remember when the GOP used to be the party of "Law and Order"?

Arresting political opponents is in no way "law and order."

It's called fascism.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Democrats go full fascist part 380 in a continuing series.

Trump should be barred from blaming others for Jan. 6 riot at trial: Special counsel​

If a defendant chooses to blame space aliens, that is for the defendant to choose and the jury to decide if it really was space aliens. But Democrats know he can defend himself, so are now taking actions to ensure the kangaroo court finds a guilty verdict.

MSN

/----/ From the link: "Donald Trump shouldn't be allowed to make "irrelevant" claims'
1. A jury decides what is irrelevant and what is relevant, not some deomocRAT whore.
2. Beside, democRATs do it all the time, Russia collusion, golden shower, and Jan 6 wild eyed claims.

 

[kyzr]

Jack Smith is illegitimate, so why is he still acting like a prosecutor?

The court needs to end this Banana Republic charade now.

 

[kyzr]

Arresting political opponents is in no way "law and order."

It's called fascism.

Especially when the prosecutor is illegitimate.

 

[ColonelAngus]

It is still amazing to me that one could accuse Trump of stealing 2016, like Hillary did..l.but if one said 2020 was stolen, you were banned from social media.

Anyone who sees this disparity and is fine with it is a communist.

 

[Weatherman2020]

You don't seem to get it. Granted, you're a cultist moron who doesn't want to get it, but the result remains the same.

Donald isn't accused of murder, where the deed is easily established but a responsible party must be shown. Donald is accused of engaging in insurrection.

The question will be whether his easily established actions amount to the legal threshold. The prosecution will present evidence of what Donald himself did. Whether Barbara Jane or Jimmy Bob did this or that has no relevance to whether Donald's actions amount to insurrection. The questions for the jury will be whether they believe the prosecution's evidence, and whether the actions amount to insurrection.

I don’t care if he’s accused of parking on Biden’s foot on live TV. A defendant has the right to defend themselves, you fascist traitor.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Trump gets no due process. Seems fair.

 

[westwall]

Actually, it's entirely normal and routine for the court to limit both prosecution and defense to the actual facts of the case.

The purpose of a trial is to present relevant facts that tend to support or diminish the accused person's culpability. In the same way that the prosecution is prohibited from offering irrelevant facts that don't actually speak to the charges at hand, so too is the defense prohibited from presenting non-relevant facts that don't actually address the evidence the same.

Additionally, it is the judge's responsibility to manage the court's time by maintaining orderly proceedings that say on target and move forward. So it's entirely within the trial judge's discretion to weight whether a defendant is attempting to introduce non-relevant evidence or arguments that waste the court's time, threaten to create chaos in the court's proceedings, or would serve only to create confusion among the trier(s) of fact.

This is the way the practice of law has worked for hundreds of years the world over. We're not going to change it now just for Donald.

The defense gets to mount a defense. Except in demofascist land of course.

 

[Arlette]

Typical of the orange liar, blame everyone but himself.
Trump has done that his entire life.

Yup. I was only able to rob this bank cause the security guard didn't stop me.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Yup. I was only able to rob this bank cause the security guard didn't stop me.

If that’s someone’s defense, they have the Constitutional Right to use it, fascist traitor.

 

[Arlette]

If that’s someone’s defense, they have the Constitutional Right to use it, fascist traitor.

It's irrelevant to the charge of bank robbery