Democrat Prosecutor: Trump Should Not Be Allowed to Defend Himself

[Arlette]

Good fascist traitor!

I look forward to Trump using USMB to round up the traitors in 25!

I look forward to Trump taking the stand.

 

[hadit]

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.

And, quite frankly, the defense doesn't even have to name any other potential criminal, they just have to open the possibility that someone other than the defendant did it. "Beyond reasonable doubt" is the standard. And we do it that way on purpose, to give the defendant every chance.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Good.
Let the games begin, with the other fascist who tried to overthrow the US government.

Accused Capitol rioters blame Trump in novel legal defense​

Reuters
https://www.reuters.com › article
Feb 2, 2021 — Emanuel Jackson, a 20-year-old Washington area man, was caught on video using a metal bat to strike the protective shields wielded by police ..

You must be kidding. BLM and ANTIFA are on video hundreds of times doing that exact thing, and they were to summarily jailed, put in solitary confinement, and held without bail and without trial for more than a year.

Only the defendants actions are examined in a trial to determine guilt or innocence. A motion filed by Trump isn't gonna change that.

Right, and Trump’s actions that he is accused of whatever for, consist entirely of free speech, in particular political speech, the most protected class of speech of all.

 

[hadit]

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

They still are. Law and Order means the defendant gets every defense tactic allowed under the law. You do realize that, right?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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

That's not a defense. It is irrelevant. The prosecutor is correct.

 

[hadit]

It's amazing how many people discover they have hidden law degrees they never knew they had when a famous person is on trial.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's amazing how many people discover they have hidden law degrees they never knew they had when a famous person is on trial.

Right, maybe they didn't listen to Dan Bongino for 5 minutes and outsmart the career prosecutor.

 

[hadit]

Right, maybe they didn't listen to Dan Bongino for 5 minutes and outsmart the career prosecutor.

It's funny to watch a headline become a legal maneuver.

 

[BlindBoo]

"A bank robber cannot defend himself by blaming the bank's security guard for failing to stop him," the filing reads. "A fraud defendant cannot claim to the jury that his victims should have known better than to fall for his scheme. And the defendant cannot argue that law enforcement should have prevented the violence he caused and obstruction he intended."

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's funny to watch a headline become a legal maneuver.

What an odd post. In what we call reality, I'm pretty sure the legal maneuver generated the headline.

 

[Arlette]

......


Right, and Trump’s actions that he is accused of whatever for, consist entirely of free speech, in particular political speech, the most protected class of speech of all.

This trial is about the alleged attempt by Trump to subvert the results of the 2020 presidential election. Trump did a hell of a lot more than running his lying mouth.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

This trial is about the alleged attempt by Trump to subvert the results of the 2020 presidential election. Trump did a hell of a lot more than running his lying mouth.

That's the Alamo talking point for the cult, because they have no actual defense.

So they have to pretend Trump is indicted for speech, not actions.

Which is obviously absurd, but this isn't about what is rational. They just think that if enough people say something is true, then it is as true as anything. Because they watched Trump get rewarded for this behavior

 

[Arlette]

That's the Alamo talking point for the cult, because they have no actual defense.

So they have to pretend Trump is indicted for speech, not actions.

Which is obviously absurd, but this isn't about what is rational. They just think that if enough people say something is true, then it is as true as anything. Because they watched Trump get rewarded for this behavior

It's not gonna be "why did you strongarm Pence" but "did you strongarm Pence, yes or no".

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's not gonna be "why did you strongarm Pence" but "did you strongarm Pence, yes or no".

And trump will lie, then the prosecution will roll tape.

Rinse, repeat.

 

[Seymour Flops]

And, quite frankly, the defense doesn't even have to name any other potential criminal, they just have to open the possibility that someone other than the defendant did it. "Beyond reasonable doubt" is the standard. And we do it that way on purpose, to give the defendant every chance.

Yes, exactly.

For all the incredible injustice of the prosecutors trying to deny Trump a potential defense, when he has yet to have a chance to offer any defense at all, it may be a deliberate red herring by the prosecutors.

Trump’s defense will more likely be the blindingly obvious: he was exercising free speech, and never told anyone to commit any crime. That alone is enough, but he also asked them specifically to go “peacefully” to the Capitol like good Americans and let their voices be heard. Black letter proof of no criminal intent.

Who does the prosecutor think Trump will blame? Maybe they are concerned that he will blame FBI plants, and try to call the FBI to the stand. That would make sense

This trial is about the alleged attempt by Trump to subvert the results of the 2020 presidential election. Trump did a hell of a lot more than running his lying mouth.

Yes, he also tried the judicial branch to get his day in court. Again, that is perfectly legal, and even guaranteed by the Constituton.

 

[BlindBoo]

Trump’s defense will more likely be the blindingly obvious: he was exercising free speech, and never told anyone to commit any crime.

Except his VP whose only duty is to count the votes. Illegal and unconstitutional.

“I think it’s important that the American people know what happened in the days before January 6,” Pence said. “President Trump demanded that I use my authority as vice president presiding over the count of the Electoral College to essentially overturn the election by returning or literally rejecting votes. I had no authority to do that.”

 

[Stormy Daniels]

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

Nobody is saying that Donald can't present a defense. But the court is not obliged to entertain a Chewbacca defense.

 

[westwall]

Nobody is saying that Donald can't present a defense. But the court is not obliged to entertain a Chewbacca defense.

The DA demanded that actual evidence not be allowed to be presented.

Your analogy is specious at best.

 

[hadit]

Nobody is saying that Donald can't present a defense. But the court is not obliged to entertain a Chewbacca defense.

A judge controlling witness testimony on the grounds that democrats don't like what he's saying? There had better be some really super strong legal underpinning for that move.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

A judge controlling witness testimony on the grounds that democrats don't like what he's saying?

No, that's the idiotic strawman you invented. Because you are apparently terrified of the actual facts and arguments on the table.