The (many) indictments of Donald Trump

#11,502
#11,502
bamawriter said:
The evidence was in his personal residence from at least January of 2021.
Click to expand...

So? The case against him wasn't wrapped up, indictments made, etc in Jan 2021. Doesn't make a bit of difference where the evidence was because the evidence doesn't try itself and doesn't determine the strategy. You'd fit right in with a totalitarian state with the give him a fair trial and hang him ... he doesn't need lawyers, any specifics, or time to prepare because "he knows what we say he did".
 
#11,503
#11,503
AM64 said:
So? The case against him wasn't wrapped up, indictments made, etc in Jan 2021. Doesn't make a bit of difference where the evidence was because the evidence doesn't try itself and doesn't determine the strategy. You'd fit right in with a totalitarian state with the give him a fair trial and hang him ... he doesn't need lawyers, any specifics, or time to prepare because "he knows what we say he did".
Click to expand...

You brought up his access to the evidence. The evidence was stacked up in boxes all over his house. How much more access could he have possibly needed?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Franklin Pierce
#11,508
#11,508

​

Classic gangster: please break laws for me--but if you get caught, tough luck, you're on your own.​

​

‘Trump isn’t funding any of us’: Co-defendants in Georgia case are struggling with mounting legal bills​

 
#11,509
#11,509
turbovol said:

​

Classic gangster: please break laws for me--but if you get caught, tough luck, you're on your own.​

​

‘Trump isn’t funding any of us’: Co-defendants in Georgia case are struggling with mounting legal bills​

Click to expand...
Well I mean it probably helps the RICO case against him if he's funding their defense
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sudden Impact and Orangeslice13
#11,511
#11,511
bamawriter said:
In the Mar-a-Lago case, Trump had access to the evidence for far longer than the AG.
Click to expand...

Not at all what I said. I consistently pointed out that Trump and lawyers should have as much time viewing what basis and how the prosecution intends to proceed. That is the "fact" that each prosecution intends to present as its case - doesn't have anything to do with boxes of old files Trump had hanging around. The files you are going on about are immaterial except in the FL case. Truth is I was talking about the GA case anyway - which seemed to be where the current conversation has centered.
 
#11,517
#11,517
When you have no defense, you need more time to create a defense and stir the masses.
Trump has probably been given more leeway than 90% of the defendants.
Serious charges, election year coming, should not be any different, and one would hope that Trump would be interested in clearing his name.
I hate if for him he has the money to right the ship if he is innocent.
Jack Teixeira says "HELLO" from behind bars awaiting trial.
 
#11,518
#11,518
bamawriter said:
When did that become a rule of criminal procedure in any jurisdiction?
Click to expand...

9-5.000 - Issues Related To Discovery, Trials, And Other Proceedings

And guess what. When you tie a whole batch of cases together like the Atlanta trial, it means there's a whole lot of information that doesn't even pertain to all individuals, but some of that peripheral information might give a smart defender something he wouldn't have had if the cases were tried separately. But when the prosecution gathers volumes of "evidence" then in the name of fairness, it takes a while for the defense to go through it all and build a counter strategy. From the outside looking in, it would seem that the more "evidence" necessary to prove a point, the less direct evidence there really is of a crime ... baffle them with BS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol
#11,519
#11,519
AM64 said:
9-5.000 - Issues Related To Discovery, Trials, And Other Proceedings

And guess what. When you tie a whole batch of cases together like the Atlanta trial, it means there's a whole lot of information that doesn't even pertain to all individuals, but some of that peripheral information might give a smart defender something he wouldn't have had if the cases were tried separately. But when the prosecution gathers volumes of "evidence" then in the name of fairness, it takes a while for the defense to go through it all and build a counter strategy. From the outside looking in, it would seem that the more "evidence" necessary to prove a point, the less direct evidence there really is of a crime ... baffle them with BS.
Click to expand...

You're gonna need to highlight the section that says "the defense gets as much time as the prosecution to review the same evidence."
 
#11,520
#11,520
bamawriter said:
You're gonna need to highlight the section that says "the defense gets as much time as the prosecution to review the same evidence."
Click to expand...

Don't know that it is in there per se, but the whole concept is built around the constitutional right to a fair trial. If the defense is inhibited from completely analyzing what the prosecution is required to provide, that diminishes the constitutional right to a fair trial. The defense should also have the time not just to review the material but to investigate as necessary ... without the assistance of hordes of taxpayer funded investigators. Limit any of that and you limit the constitutional right of the defendant(s). In the Atlanta case there's even more crap to wade through since short fat fani saw fit to bundle it all together. Challenges to the fitness of a judge based on background should also be part of the right to a fair trial.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol
#11,521
#11,521
AM64 said:
Don't know that it is in there per se, but the whole concept is built around the constitutional right to a fair trial. If the defense is inhibited from completely analyzing what the prosecution is required to provide, that diminishes the constitutional right to a fair trial. The defense should also have the time not just to review the material but to investigate as necessary ... without the assistance of hordes of taxpayer funded investigators. Limit any of that and you limit the constitutional right of the defendant(s). In the Atlanta case there's even more crap to wade through since short fat fani saw fit to bundle it all together. Challenges to the fitness of a judge based on background should also be part of the right to a fair trial.
Click to expand...

That's why we have judges presiding over cases long before they go to trial. They are to there set reasonable timeframes for discovery, review, edvidentiary challenges, etc.
 
#11,522
#11,522
bamawriter said:
That's why we have judges presiding over cases long before they go to trial. They are to there set reasonable timeframes for discovery, review, edvidentiary challenges, etc.
Click to expand...

And that's why judges should be impartial. History says that's not always the case. At least two of Trump's opposing judges have a very biased political background. In fact considering their backgrounds neither is likely fit to even be a judge - and that would go for someone with extreme right views also.
 
#11,523
#11,523
AM64 said:
And that's why judges should be impartial. History says that's not always the case. At least two of Trump's opposing judges have a very biased political background. In fact considering their backgrounds neither is likely fit to even be a judge - and that would go for someone with extreme right views also.
Click to expand...

Well, the judge in the Mar-a-Lago case is about as friendly as Trump could hope.
 
#11,524
#11,524
luthervol said:
What you have failed to ever accept is that Trump represented the low that should have never been reached.
Politics has aways been ugly. Politicians have always been scummy......but there was a line that most were unable to cross.

Trump and his supporters obliterated that line, and the nation contiues to suffer because of it.
Click to expand...
You misspelled Soetoro
 
  • Like
Reactions: VOLS INC. and AM64
#11,525
#11,525
bamawriter said:
Well, the judge in the Mar-a-Lago case is about as friendly as Trump could hope.
Click to expand...

That's the case for which I have little sympathy. I've had security clearances off and on, and I completely disagree with the current lack of concern for security. As far as I'm concerned nobody should have classified materials off site or out of approved areas, and the reason doesn't matter - simply the fact that it happened makes it wrong - the way the military generally views it. I also don't think stuff should be classified on political grounds ... or basically because the content would be embarrassing. Military and intelligence issues are different and require classification. Politicians should be forced to act in the open or find a different job if they have problems with that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: newokie03
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top