The legal system just handed trump the perfect excuse not to testify. (2 Viewers)

[SkyChief]

Why do only trump supporters worry about a perjury trap, and only with concern to trump?

Who's worried about it? The perjury trap is something that desperate prosecutors rely on when their case is weak.

It was wise for me to bring attention to it. Somehow it triggered you. That was not my intent.

You can keep pretending I was asking something else, but you know I wasn't.

You seem to be trying to make an argument - but you're having some difficulty in making it.

Just state your argument. State why you think it would be in Trump's best interest to take the witness stand.

 

[Cardinal]

Who's worried about it?

ya

The fact that you brought it up and can't defend your "perjury trap" position says everything.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

Nonsense

If you had actually been to law school, then you wouldn't pretend that law students are unfamiliar with perjury trap strategy. Of course they are.

"Perjury trap" is a very specific prosecutorial strategy thst involves getting people who otherwise don't have any criminal liability to lie to a grand jury, and then charge them with perjury.

What you are describing is getting the opponent to lie on the stand - which is, of course, every trial attorney's goal. But it's not some secret strategy they teach you in law school.

If you had been to law school, you wouldn't be using the term "perjury trap" wrong.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

Who's worried about it? The perjury trap is something that desperate prosecutors rely on when their case is weak.

This is the type of gibberish that keeps me coming back to this site.

Tell me more about what "desperate prosecutors" rely on.

 

[WorldWatcher]

At his core, Trump is a petulant child born with a silver spoon in his mouth who has never learned about consequences or being told “no”. The idea that he would accept someone “not allowing” him to do something he wants to do doesn’t mix with his malignant narcissism.

His lawyers may tell him that testifying is a bad idea, but if he wants to do it, they aren’t going to stop him. If they try, he will have new lawyers.

At that point in the case the Judge (I assume) wouldn't release the lawyers, but the lawyers would inform the court that their defendant has chosen to testify against their advice.

If he still chooses to do that the judge may warn him on the record that about ignoring advice of counsel and ensure he understands the scope of questions the prosecution will be able to ask him about based on the Sandoval Hearing. (Not sure if the jury would be present for this, but I doubt it.)

(That prevents an appeal based on incompetent counsel later.)

WW

 

[The AntiDonald]

Cross-examination by the prosecution is not a problem.

It would be a bad idea for Trump to take the stand - we probably agree on that. The Prosecution would quickly set a perjury trap, which often torpedoes defendants who foolishly take the witness stand.

Trump would be best advised to not testify. His legal team should be clear on that.

I don't believe in perjury traps. If Trump doesn't want to lie, he doesn't have to. The problem with Trump is, he thinks he's smarter than everyone else.

It gets him in trouble every time. We can only hope he decides to take the stand.

 

[SkyChief]

This is the type of gibberish that keeps me coming back to this site.

Tell me more about what "desperate prosecutors" rely on.

I shouldn't need to explain what desperate prosecutors rely on, but OK.

Desperate prosecutors are those with a weak case (lack of evidence, credible witnesses, burden of proof of intent, etc). This criminal case is weak and the stakes are incredibly high because if trump is acquitted, it could translate into a huge win for Trump in November.

Dems put all their chips on this trial. Anyone with the most fundamental understanding of criminal law knows that proving intent is one of the most challenging things to do in a courtroom.

These are the 3 main reasons why Trump's prosecutors are desperate:
Weak case
Unusually high stakes
burden of proving intent

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

I shouldn't need to explain what desperate prosecutors rely on, but OK.

Desperate prosecutors are those with a weak case (lack of evidence, credible witnesses, burden of proof of intent, etc). This criminal case is weak and the stakes are incredibly high because if trump is acquitted, it could translate into a huge win for Trump in November.

Dems put all their chips on this trial. Anyone with the most fundamental understanding of criminal law knows that proving intent is the hardest thing to do.

These are the 3 main reasons why Trump's prosecutors are desperate:
Weak case
Unusually high stakes
burden of proving intent

This is amazing.

By all means, go on. You didn't tell us what they rely on.

 

[SkyChief]

I don't believe in perjury traps.

Perjury Traps exist, whether you believe in them or not.

If Trump doesn't want to lie, he doesn't have to.

He doesn't have to take the stand if he doesn't want to. His lawyers are compelled to advise him that it would be a huge mistake for him to testify. The prosecution would destroy him, and his team needs to make that very clear.

The problem with Trump is, he thinks he's smarter than everyone else.

True.

It gets him in trouble every time. We can only hope he decides to take the stand.

He might decide to, but his lawyers will give him an ultimatum: If Trump takes the stand, they walk - - he'll be on his own.

 

[ElChupacabra]

I could totally see Trump going into an anger fueled ramble, a few good men style, YOU'RE GAWDAM RIGHT I PAID HER OFF TO HELP MY CAMPAIGN. I WAS A PRESIDENT WHAT HAVE YOU DONE MR BRAGG

It probably wouldn't be that dramatic. I remember back to that deposition where he said women have been abused "fortunately or unfortunately" for millions of years. It will probably something immensely stupid like that. The man's a pillock, and can get easily tripped on his own need to be right and assertive.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

He doesn't have to take the stand if he doesn't want to. His lawyers are compelled to advise him that it would be a huge mistake for him to testify. The prosecution would destroy him, and his team needs to make that very clear.

Do you think they haven't told him that?

 

[SkyChief]

Do you think they haven't told him that?

What a dumb question - - of course they told him. I was trying to help someone understand the burden on the defense in a criminal trial.

The defense is compelled to do three things (and three things only) in a criminal trial:

1) enter a plea
2) submit opening statement to the jury
3) submit closing statement to the jury

That's all they need to do. They don't need to call any witnesses, and they don't need to cross-examine the prosecution's witnesses. Many people mistakenly think that the defendant needs to prove innocence in the trial. There is no such burden, and that's why I told him:

. . . He doesn't have to take the stand if he doesn't want to. . .

 

[Cardinal]

What a dumb question - - of course they told him. I was trying to help someone understand the burden on the defense in a criminal trial.

The defense is compelled to do three things (and three things only) in a criminal trial:

1) enter a plea
2) submit opening statement to the jury
3) submit closing statement to the jury

That's all they need to do. They don't need to call any witnesses, and they don't need to cross-examine the prosecution's witnesses. Many people mistakenly think that the defendant needs to prove innocence in the trial. There is no such burden, and that's why I told him:

Somebody just started watching legal youtube videos this week.

 

[SkyChief]

Somebody just started watching legal youtube videos this week.

It's good that you're taking steps to become more informed. I like that!