Proud Boys 'intend to subpoena' Trump at their seditious conspiracy trial: report

[Peacenik]

Members of the Proud Boys are reportedly telling former President Donald Trump to stand back and stand by for a subpoena.


According to New York Times reported Alan Feuer, members of the Proud Boys who have been accused by the government of engaging in a seditious conspiracy are saying they "intend to subpoena Donald Trump as a witness at the trial."


Although it's not clear why members of the gang would want Trump to testify on their behalf, many other January 6th defendants have argued that broke into the Capitol and violently clashed with police officers because it was what the former president wanted them to do.


Feuer, however, expresses skepticism that the defendants will really be able to compel Trump's testimony.

This has been tried before and failed.

It is doubtful the judge will allow this, and if so, even more doubtful if Trump would acquiesce.

I wonder what the chances of a guilty verdict are?

 

[Chomsky]

This has been tried before and failed.

It is doubtful the judge will allow this, and if so, even more doubtful if Trump would acquiesce.

I wonder what the chances of a guilty verdict are?

I'd like to see it occur. It's not unheard of for uncooperative relevant witnesses to be subpoenaed for their testimony. If Trump's testimony is relevant, let him get subpoenaed.

 

[Peacenik]

I'd like to see it occur. It's not unheard of for uncooperative relevant witnesses to be subpoenaed for their testimony. If Trump's testimony is relevant, let him get subpoenaed.

It would be quite the spectacle.

Time will tell.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

I'm reminded of this exchange in the hilarious film, My Cousin Vinny:

Your Honor, may I treat the witness as hostile?

You think I'm hostile now? Just wait til tonight!

What? You two know each other?

Yeah, she's my fiancée.

Well, that explains the hostility.

 

[Top Cat]

I'm reminded of this exchange in the hilarious film, My Cousin Vinny:

Your Honor, may I treat the witness as hostile?

You think I'm hostile now? Just wait til tonight!

What? You two know each other?

Yeah, she's my fiancée.

Well, that explains the hostility.

Love that scene

 

[Top Cat]

Imagine a sharp prosecutor tearing into lard ass. Epic theater.

 

[Chomsky]

I'm reminded of this exchange in the hilarious film, My Cousin Vinny:

Your Honor, may I treat the witness as hostile?

You think I'm hostile now? Just wait til tonight!

What? You two know each other?

Yeah, she's my fiancée.

Well, that explains the hostility.

Haha!

 

[jpn]

This has been tried before and failed.
It is doubtful the judge will allow this, and if so, even more doubtful if Trump would acquiesce.
I wonder what the chances of a guilty verdict are?

In opening statements last month, an attorney for longtime Proud Boys Chairman Henry “Enrique” Tarrio argued that the former president was the one responsible for the deadly riot.​

​

The subpoena effort is almost certain to fail. Duke University law professor Lisa Kern Griffin, who studies constitutional criminal procedure, noted that the defendants face multiple obstacles to putting Trump on the stand.​

​

Judge Timothy J. Kelly would have to rule Trump’s testimony admissible at trial. Judge Reggie B. Walton, in a different Jan. 6 criminal case in which the defendant sought to put Trump on the stand, ruled last year that the former president’s intent was “irrelevant” to how an individual supporter responded.​

“The probative value of such testimony is substantially outweighed by the danger of confusing the issues and misleading the jury,” Walton wrote.​

​

Although it almost certainly won't come to that, Trump could assert executive privilege or take the Fifth. Again.

As usual, Trump demands loyalty for himself but will throw anyone under the bus when it suits his self-interest.

The riot of Trump's fault. But taking responsibility for his criminal actions has never been his way.

 

[Peacenik]

In opening statements last month, an attorney for longtime Proud Boys Chairman Henry “Enrique” Tarrio argued that the former president was the one responsible for the deadly riot.​

​

The subpoena effort is almost certain to fail. Duke University law professor Lisa Kern Griffin, who studies constitutional criminal procedure, noted that the defendants face multiple obstacles to putting Trump on the stand.​

​

Judge Timothy J. Kelly would have to rule Trump’s testimony admissible at trial. Judge Reggie B. Walton, in a different Jan. 6 criminal case in which the defendant sought to put Trump on the stand, ruled last year that the former president’s intent was “irrelevant” to how an individual supporter responded.​

“The probative value of such testimony is substantially outweighed by the danger of confusing the issues and misleading the jury,” Walton wrote.​

​

Although it almost certainly won't come to that, Trump could assert executive privilege or take the Fifth. Again.

As usual, Trump demands loyalty for himself but will throw anyone under the bus when it suits his self-interest.

The riot of Trump's fault. But taking responsibility for his criminal actions has never been his way.

Trump is guilty of incitement of insurrection. Tarrio is guilty of acting on it.

 

[Lycanthrope]

It won't happen, but how delightful to think of Trump's sorry ass dragged into court so the public can hear him plead the fifth repeatedly.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

This has been tried before and failed.

Which is, of course, exactly why the legal "brains" working for the "Proud Boys" are 100% confident that it will work this time.

It is doubtful the judge will allow this, and if so, even more doubtful if Trump would acquiesce.

But it would be a whole lot of fun if the judge did. Watching Mr. Trump answer the question "Is your name Donald John Trump?" with "I respectfully decline to answer that question on the grounds that it might tend to incriminate me." would be an absolute hoot.

I wonder what the chances of a guilty verdict are?

Well, since their defence appears to be "We were only following orders." and they aren't going to be able to present any evidence that they got orders to do what they did, I think that I'd bet my lunch money that an honest judge and an honest jury would convict. What the odds are in this trial I simply cannot say.

 

[uptower]

Imagine a sharp prosecutor tearing into lard ass. Epic theater.

Can witnesses plead the fifth?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Can witnesses plead the fifth?

Since "The Fifth" says "No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." the answer, technically, is "No." as a witness is not a defendant in a case "against himself". However, by judicial extension, witnesses (even in civil trials or before legally constituted investigatory bodies) in the US do not have to answer any questions at all REGARDLESS of whether that refusal results in the trier of fact being deprived of information that would enable it to determine the validity of the charges against the accused (or even if charges were warranted).

Under Canadian law, the witness may avail themselves of the provisions of the Canada Evidence Act which prohibits their testimony (and, by judicial extension, any evidence obtained as a result of their testimony) from being used in any subsequent prosecution(s) against them BUT they MUST testify so that the trier of fact can determine the validity of the charges against the accused. In fact, the Canadian judge can order the witness to testify but, if they do do so, then the protection against self incrimination under the Canada Evidence Act are automatically extended.

One system promotes the finding of fact and one doesn't.

 

[Peacenik]

Which is, of course, exactly why the legal "brains" working for the "Proud Boys" are 100% confident that it will work this time.

But it would be a whole lot of fun if the judge did. Watching Mr. Trump answer the question "Is your name Donald John Trump?" with "I respectfully decline to answer that question on the grounds that it might tend to incriminate me." would be an absolute hoot.

Well, since their defence appears to be "We were only following orders." and they aren't going to be able to present any evidence that they got orders to do what they did, I think that I'd bet my lunch money that an honest judge and an honest jury would convict. What the odds are in this trial I simply cannot say.

I hope there is a conviction followed by a lengthy sentence.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I hope there is a conviction followed by a lengthy sentence.

There likely (see previous caveat re "honest judges and juries") will be. Of course that will be followed by lengthy appeals, cross appeals, re-appeals, and pardons - right?

 

[Peacenik]

There likely (see previous caveat re "honest judges and juries") will be. Of course that will be followed by lengthy appeals, cross appeals, re-appeals, and pardons - right?

I doubt a sentence would be suspended pending any of that. Let them complain about it from a cell.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I doubt a sentence would be suspended pending any of that. Let them complain about it from a cell.

See former caveat regarding "honest judges and juries". Besides those people have "deep roots in the community" (as well as not being admissible to around 90% of the world's countries [and wouldn't be able to get to them anyway because the US government would have cancelled their passports {which they never <in all likelihood> had in the first place}]) so they are not "flight risks".

 

[Athanasius68]

But it would be a whole lot of fun if the judge did. Watching Mr. Trump answer the question "Is your name Donald John Trump?" with "I respectfully decline to answer that question on the grounds that it might tend to incriminate me." would be an absolute hoot.

Well, since their defence appears to be "We were only following orders." and they aren't going to be able to present any evidence that they got orders to do what they did, I think that I'd bet my lunch money that an honest judge and an honest jury would convict. What the odds are in this trial I simply cannot say.

One would suspect that if the DOJ had evidence that Trump ordered the Proud Boys, or any of the Jan 6 defendants to do what they did, or to 'incite' them to do what they did, that would be front and center.
But as they don't, this explains the DOJ opposition to a subpoena for Trump. He has nothing to offer in those prosecutions.

 

[dcsports]

This has been tried before and failed.

It is doubtful the judge will allow this, and if so, even more doubtful if Trump would acquiesce.

I wonder what the chances of a guilty verdict are?

I'm not surprised they asked. Given the likely defense of 'we thought we were following Trump's instructions' it's a natural ask.

I would be shocked if the judge granted the request.

 

[dcsports]

I'd like to see it occur. It's not unheard of for uncooperative relevant witnesses to be subpoenaed for their testimony. If Trump's testimony is relevant, let him get subpoenaed.

First, they have to prove it's relevant. A public speech at a political rally isn't going to do that.

 

[Galactic Spin]

One would suspect that if the DOJ had evidence that Trump ordered the Proud Boys, or any of the Jan 6 defendants to do what they did, or to 'incite' them to do what they did, that would be front and center

Once again, skipping the hearings embarrasses you.

 

[dcsports]

Since "The Fifth" says "No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." the answer, technically, is "No." as a witness is not a defendant in a case "against himself". However, by judicial extension, witnesses (even in civil trials or before legally constituted investigatory bodies) in the US do not have to answer any questions at all REGARDLESS of whether that refusal results in the trier of fact being deprived of information that would enable it to determine the validity of the charges against the accused (or even if charges were warranted).

Under Canadian law, the witness may avail themselves of the provisions of the Canada Evidence Act which prohibits their testimony (and, by judicial extension, any evidence obtained as a result of their testimony) from being used in any subsequent prosecution(s) against them BUT they MUST testify so that the trier of fact can determine the validity of the charges against the accused. In fact, the Canadian judge can order the witness to testify but, if they do do so, then the protection against self incrimination under the Canada Evidence Act are automatically extended.

One system promotes the finding of fact and one doesn't.

That's interesting.

Does that ever lead to any prosecutorial issues? For example, if someone gets on the stand and says "No, he didn't kill John, I did. The body is buried in my backyard with the murder weapon and all the evidence".

 

[Galactic Spin]

First, they have to prove it's relevant. A public speech at a political rally isn't going to do that.

But coordination with people who acted as go betweens to the oath keepers and Proud boys would support that.

Right?

 

[dcsports]

But coordination with people who acted as go betweens to the oath keepers and Proud boys would support that.

Right?

It might support issuing subpoenas to those people.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

One would suspect that if the DOJ had evidence that Trump ordered the Proud Boys, or any of the Jan 6 defendants to do what they did, or to 'incite' them to do what they did, that would be front and center.
But as they don't, this explains the DOJ opposition to a subpoena for Trump. He has nothing to offer in those prosecutions.

And there are many other good tactical reasons for not turning the trial into a circus other than "I implicitly believe 100% of everything that Donald John Trump {BBHN} says.".