Writes former prosecutor Elie Honig, in
"Will Donald Trump Take the Stand?" (NY Magazine).
We can already see Trump’s subtle but unmistakable retreat from bluster to sanity. At first, Trump boasted that he “would” testify in his own defense. Note the careful word choice: Would, which includes an element of conditionality, isn’t quite the same as will. Days later, he prudently stepped back: “Well, I would if it’s necessary. Right now, I don’t know if you heard about today. Today was just incredible. People are saying — the experts, I’m talking about legal scholars and experts — they’re saying, ‘What kind of a case is this? There is no case.’”...
[Trump has] two ironclad reasons not to testify.
First: He’d get annihilated.... Did he in fact have affairs with McDougal and Daniels? If not, why did he falsely deny knowing them? Did he know about the hush-money payments made for his benefit? Did he authorize them? Why? And why did he falsely claim publicly to know nothing about the women and the payoffs? Why did he sign a series of reimbursement checks to Michael Cohen? There’s little chance he’d offer coherent, consistent, plausible explanations....
That brings us to the second point: Trump doesn’t need to take the stand in his own defense... [H]is lawyers have all the ammunition they need to raise a defense... Why does Trump need to swear he never dealt with Jeffrey McConney about the internal accounting behind hush-money reimbursements when McConney admitted the same in cross? Why must Trump proclaim Michael Cohen a liar when virtually every prosecution witness who has ever met the infamous “Fixer” has ranted about how he is (or was) a mendacious sleaze?...
Posts
43 comments:
He has every reason not to testify, but the biggest is probably that there's no live camera feed in the courtroom so he's probably a lot less tempted than he otherwise might have been.
JournoListic jingoism.
Trump shouldn't take the stand because he doesn't need to. The prosecution hasn't (and can't) produced any evidence that Trump intended to defraud anyone or violate whatever federal or state election statute Bragg keeping secret. The whole case is "Trump is bad" so convict. With 12 lefty jurors and a Biden Donor Judge, they'll probably get one. The judge and Bragg aren't even pretending this is anything other than an exercise of their raw political power. They don't even care if a guilty verdict is overturned on appeal, which it would be. Their goal is to influence the election with a guilty verdict against Trump. By the time it's overturned, the election would be over.
My President Donald J Trump is an extremely courageous man, but he is also not stupid. There is no reason to testify in this abomination of a "trial".
As Rick Scott said, this is about an ENTRY in a ledger. That is all.
The Democrat party is destroying any semblance of justice in this country. Completely corrupt.
If he doesn't take the stand then everything the prosecution has presented so far is going to get any guilty verdicts immediately thrown out on appeal since none of the testimony so far has anything to do with the charges.
It must be pointed out: Trump is being charged with campaign finance violations because he DIDN'T USE CAMPAIGN FUNDS to pay for Cohen's attorney fees.
Because Trump used personal funds to pay his personal attorney he influenced the 2016 election.
The "Judge" in this case has family members sending out fundraising emails right now to defeat Trump.
The people supporting this trial are evil pieces of shit.
If this were a real trial, the first point could be neutralized by his attorney objecting to the irrelevant line of questioning. The second point is the more serious one in that Trump can't help himself, he can only hurt. The prosecution has failed to make its case; either that matters to the jury or it doesn't.
Aside from election interference, one could argue Judge Merchan wanted Trump in the courtroom every day to drive home wrongfully the question in the jury's mind "why isn't Trump testifying in his own defense?"
"Let me preempt the Hamlet routine... around whether Trump will take the stand in his own defense: He shouldn’t, and he won’t."
Who is the real "Hamlet" in this "routine"?
I think it's the punditry, not Trump.
What Tim Maguire wrote- the jury will either convict or acquit regardless of what Trump does. You only testify if you think it will help your chances- here that clearly isn't the case since the prosecution seems not to have even bothered to try to prove their charges- the prosecution obviously thinks evidence doesn't matter- only the pool the jury was selected from.
Trump is testifying. You can read his responses on Truth Social. He has more freedom to say what he wants there, and the prosecutors are free to use it in the trial. Since his comments there are "perfect", why would he feel the need to clarify them to a corrupt prosecutor and judge.
Balfegor makes a great point. There are no cameras for Trump to grandstand. All he has is pool reporters, who will spin whatever lies sells to their audience. Trump has no ability to speak directly to the jurors either.
I could say that Trump taking the stand will be evidence enough of his stupidity. However, there is a small possibility that he does something truly remarkable that puts to shame this entire event and secures his freedom. I think he would realize a greater possibility to the remarkable thing on a stage of his choosing.
If the lefty pundits are pushing the idea that Trump won't -and shouldn't- testify, presumably that's reverse psychology, that they are trying to bait him into thinking they're all afraid that he WILL testify so he'll decide to do just that because he really does want get up there and talk. Like in "A Few Good Men", Tom Cruise (Kaffee) and his co-counsel (Weinberg) making the decision to call Jack Nicholson (aka Colonel Jessup):
Kaffee : Good. Jessup told Kendrick to order the code red, Kendrick did and our clients followed the order. The cover-up isn't our case - to win Jessup needs to tell the court members that he ordered the code red.
Lt. Weinberg : And now you think you can get him to just say it?
Kaffee : I think he wants to say it. I think he's pissed off that he's gotta hide from this. I think he wants to say that he made a command decision and that's the end of it.
I think Melania should testify.
You can’t see the forest for the trees can you, Honig.
If he does not testify on his own behalf, he cannot be cross examined by the prosecution. Since the state has failed to prove its case (or even saying what the case is), Trump's testifying would only serve to give the prosecution an opportunity to engage in gratuitous bear baiting.
Yancey Ward said...
What Tim Maguire wrote- the jury will either convict or acquit regardless of what Trump does. You only testify if you think it will help your chances- here that clearly isn't the case since the prosecution seems not to have even bothered to try to prove their charges- the prosecution obviously thinks evidence doesn't matter- only the pool the jury was selected from.
Out of this I will make an argument that Trump should testify.
This is obviously not a real trial.
1. They are trying to argue that Trump NOT using campaign funds to pay Cohen did not follow campaign finance laws and thus committed a felony. Paying a private attorney out of private funds is the crime we are having this trial over.
2. The "Judge" in this trial will not allow the FEC officer who investigated this case to tell the court why he does not believe this violates federal election laws.
3. But the "Judge" will allow a porn actress who tried to extort Trump before an election burn her credibility to the ground for 2 days.
4. The "Judge" will also allow his daughter to send out fundraising emails about the case he is presiding over.
The whole thing is a sham. He could take the stand and embarrass the court by turning it into a bigger circus than it already is like he did with the Engoron farce.
Tally of the costs, anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
https://www.city-journal.org/article/the-costs-of-get-trump
He is facing a prosecutor who would indict him for perjury if he left out his middle name while stating his name at the beginning of his testimony. Ms. Daniels story is weak, but Ms. Carroll’s story was far, far, far, weaker and two New York juries said Trump lied when he called Ms. Carroll a liar. Trump should never go under oath in any setting.
G-Pub
The prosecution hasn't even bothed to NAME the charges. Let me repeat, the prosecuting has not NAMED the crime he is being tried for. Let that sink in.
It is completely corrupt, anyone supporting it is also corrupt and I have nothing in common with.
"Blogger Achilles said...
The people supporting this trial are evil pieces of shit."
Just so.
This is a sham trial and Trump can point that without testifying.
this jury will convict him in a short deliberation. it's a done deal. will they hop back into court like good kangaroos?
The curse of the white-collar prosecutor. Always preparing extensively to cross the defendant, all for nothing (With a few exceptions that prove the rule like Sam Bankman-Fried and Elizabeth Holmes, both convicted.)
One hopes that the prosecution will have to specify and introduce evidence of the crime that is notionally facilitated by the otherwise time barred misdemeanors — or else lose a motion for directed verdict.
Once that crime is specified there will be a basis for determining whether Trump should testify.
One hopes that the prosecution will have to specify and introduce evidence of the crime that is notionally facilitated by the otherwise time barred misdemeanors — or else lose a motion for directed verdict.
Once that crime is specified there will be a basis for determining whether Trump should testify.
Like in "A Few Good Men", Tom Cruise (Kaffee) and his co-counsel (Weinberg) making the decision to call Jack Nicholson (aka Colonel Jessup)
You understand that that's a movie, right? A scripted event?
We need Trump on that wall.
They want him against the wall.
"Out of my weakness and my melancholy,
as he is very potent with such spirits,
abuses me to damn me. I’ll have grounds
more relative than this. The play’s the thing
wherein I’ll catch the conscience of the king."
The practical reason he will not testify is that it gets him back out on the campaign trail sooner. The prosecution would drag out questioning on unrelated things as long as possible if he testified.
Besides, as others have said, if he is convicted based on the testimony to date, he can appeal and win on appeal.
I try to avoid predictions, but what about this;
Jury is hung, a mistrial is declared, Bragg decides to retry the case and that trial runs into the new Trump Presidential term putting Trump in a New York courtroom for weeks while he is serving as president.
What's to stop them?
Defense call Bragg as witness to define the specific crime.
I understand Elie Honig's technical legal points. No disagreement. But as usual with Trump, he's made it easy to ridicule him when he doesn't testify.
First and foremost, there has been Trump's long-running political tease about how he'd like to testify, and is planning on testifying -- "absolutely." Et cetera, et cetera. Trump always says he plans to testify in his various civil and criminal cases, and he never does. He refused to testify before the House Select Committee on January 6. On rare occasions in civil cases where he cannot claim self-incrimination protections, he has been forced to sit for depositions. He is always a spectacluarly shitty witness.
But there is also Trump's infamous griping about those Fifth Amendment protections. He knows he can't be forced to testify in this prosecution's case, and doesn't have to testify in his own defense. Thanks to the Fifth Amendment, of course.
Still, Trump has said so much stupid crap about invoking the Fifth Amendment in different cases, Politifact has a whole page devoted to the many flips and flops (always stated in a laughably inarticulate Trump manner, in which he tries to be the smartest guy in the room with his blathering opinions) that Trump has twisted in his long history with self-incrimination. Trump took the Fifth in his divorce case, and in the New York civil financial fraud case, and I don't even know how many others.
And yet Trump is the guy who said of Hillary Clinton (who never did take the Fifth) "When you have your staff taking the Fifth Amendment, taking the Fifth so they’re not prosecuted, when you have the man that set up the illegal server taking the Fifth, I think it’s disgraceful. And believe me, this country thinks it’s — really thinks it’s disgraceful, also."
Have a nice Trump Trial Day.
this jury will convict him in a short deliberation.
Yes, but of what? How long can this farce go on before the prosecutor has to, you know, identify the actual crime with which Trump is being charged?
So, did Trump bait the TDS prosecutors with the thought he would take the stand? Is that why they called Stormy Daniels and the others to open areas that are not material, but could be character assassinating if Trump were on the stand?
We can all see the legal "profession" is not appearing too well these days. The lying, falsifying prosecutors spread across the land. The corrupt DOJ lawyers. The Hamas-aligned law school faculties and students.
Really, the ambulance chasers are the moral guiding lights for the profession these days.
Donald is absolutely positively terrified of being cross-examined on the witless stand.
Chuck said...
Have a nice Trump Trial Day.
We are.
Everyone in the country is asking the same question right now: What crime are they charging Trump with?
Nobody can figure it out and you people run from this question like the intellectual cowards you are.
I can't wait until the "Judge's" instructions to the Jury are posted in the transcript.
I am also really looking forward to the posting of the "Judge's" instructions to Daniels are made public during appeal.
Watching you squirm around those is going to be epic.
When I was practicing law I had several heavy-hitter clients, many in the real estate biz. I didn't represent or advise any of them in criminal cases; not my field. But I know this: They got to be heavy-hitters by being very smart and very careful. If the smart and careful thing to do if you're dragged into criminal court is NOT testify, they would NOT testify.
But, none of them was running for President. (Nor would it have occurred to any of the ones I knew to do so.) So Trump is different. I don't know if he has respect for his lawyers in this case, whether he thinks they are really doing the best possible job in defending him. If he thinks they are really on his side, and their advice is professional and sincere, then when they say: DON'T TESTIFY BECAUSE . . . he should listen. I think the best argument is: When the verdict is in, the gag order is over, and after you're convicted -- as you will be -- you can say what you want.
Did he in fact have affairs with McDougal and Daniels? If not, why did he falsely deny knowing them?
Shouldn't that be "if yes"?
I thought it was okay to deny having "sexual relations with that woman".
Chuck the Cunt shows up again, and again fails to address the key issue in this trial- what is the crime being charged, and has the prosecution done anything at all to reveal that or to support that criminal charge.
So, Chuck the Cunt- enlighten us- what is the charge and what evidence is in the transcripts? Or are you going to slither away again like a shit weasel?
If Trump takes the stand, no matter what he says, Bragg will have him indicted on perjury, the case will be assigned to Merchan and the trial will start around the first of October and last approx 5 weeks.
Howard said...
Donald is absolutely positively terrified of being cross-examined on the witless stand.
6/10
>>after you're convicted -- as you will be -- you can say what you want.
No, that's not true. Trump said he was innocent of the charges after the first E Jean Carrol trial, and they went after him AGAIN for saying he didn't do it.
Expect the same here. He will be convicted, claim innocence, and Bragg will turn that into yet another felony.
His biggest reason to not testify is that he's already guaranteed to win on appeal.
“Jury is hung, a mistrial is declared, Bragg decides to retry the case and that trial runs into the new Trump Presidential term putting Trump in a New York courtroom for weeks while he is serving as president.”
“What's to stop them?”
The Supremacy Clause. They could conceivably retry him, but as long as he is the sitting President, the judge here is unlikely to be able to force Trump to sit through everyday of the trial. That would negatively affect the running of the Executive Branch of the federal government, and thus be preempted. Moreover during the Immunity case discussions a month or so ago, the general consensus was that he couldn’t be tried in a state court while he was President, but rather prosecution would have to wait until he left office.
But if the judge did try to retry him for those alleged crimes while he was in office, he could always have his DOJ investigate, indict, and try the DA and judge for violation of his civil rights, under color of law. The charges against him are bogus, and ultimately would be reversed and dismissed. Esp when it comes to his Due Process rights. The DA and judge knows this. The judge isn’t going to do anything about it, because his daughter is fund raising like crazy from her father’s role in the case. They are both corrupt as hell, and most everyone knows it. It’s just that they are safe because every higher level of legal authority, except the US Supreme Court, is under firm Dem control right now.
For example, think of the Obstruction charge against Trump by Jack Smith (18 U.S. Code § 1512(c)) or even the false entry claims against Trump in this case, in view of this: Bragg’s Paralegal Admits His Office Deleted Three Pages of Phone Calls Between Stormy Daniels’ Lawyer and Michael Cohen and Confirmed: Political Hitman Jack Smith Admits to Violating the Same Law as J6 Defendants Who Were Sent to Prison for Years.
Everyone in the country is asking the same question right now: What crime are they charging Trump with?
@Achilles, I’m surprised at you. He is charged with the dual crimes of kicking Hillary Clinyon’s vary ample ass and criticizing the Biden administration. Conviction is certain.
Everyone in the country is asking the same question right now: What crime are they charging Trump with?
@Achilles, I’m surprised at you. He is charged with the dual crimes of kicking Hillary Clinyon’s vary ample ass and criticizing the Biden administration. Conviction is certain.
Post a Comment