Robert wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 7:54 pm
It is about to get interesting. They may not want this discovery.
So ... Trump doesn't know who is on trial? He thinks he is running the prosecution?
This is indeed going to get interesting. "What they don't want you to know" is going to come out in court. And "they" means Trump and the people he has been working with. We'll see what that is.
Trump has been trying to block all discovery in this case. He can't do that forever. Eventually, the truth does come out.
1 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
Bootstrap wrote: ↑Tue Nov 28, 2023 11:31 amSo ... Trump doesn't know who is on trial? He thinks he is running the prosecution?
Huh? Defendants are allowed to subpoena and get evidence, particularly any evidence the prosecution is using. If there were informants instigating the 1/6 protests and trying to turn them into a violent riot, that is very relevant information for a defence.
This is indeed going to get interesting. "What they don't want you to know" is going to come out in court. And "they" means Trump and the people he has been working with. We'll see what that is.
Trump has been trying to block all discovery in this case. He can't do that forever. Eventually, the truth does come out.
It is completely standard tactics for both defence and prosecution to try to deny the other's discovery requests.
Bootstrap wrote: ↑Tue Nov 28, 2023 11:31 amSo ... Trump doesn't know who is on trial? He thinks he is running the prosecution?
Huh? Defendants are allowed to subpoena and get evidence, particularly any evidence the prosecution is using. If there were informants instigating the 1/6 protests and trying to turn them into a violent riot, that is very relevant information for a defence.
If there were informants doing that, they should face trials too. So far, nobody seems to be able to find evidence that it's true. Lots of speculation has been shown false. First, find the evidence. Then bring them to trial if that evidence actually exists. The fact that people are telling stories on the Internet is not evidence. And it will not stop no matter how often these claims are proven false.
But that's not Trump's role in these trials. Trump is on trial for his own behavior. Facing evidence against him in a court of law. And there seems to be a lot of it. I think the courts have determined that Trump is the defendant in this case. This is not a rally where he can spout all kinds of unproven conspiracy theories and rally up the crowds and make dramatic legal gestures to capture the media cycle. In court, it's a lot harder to simply change the subject with lots of bravado.
2 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
According to Alan Dershowitz, some subpoenas used against Trump were too wide and vague just like the ones they were requesting. He points out the Mar-a-lago subpoena as one of those. I think he is fairly honest and straight about legal things. I do not always agree with his positions, but he is very consistent and does not follow the political path, but the legal and citizen rights path. I respect him for that.
Do you think Alan Dershowitz was honest and straight about OJ Simpson? Claus von Bülow? Mike Tyson? Jeffrey Epstein? Leona Helmsley? Alan Dershowitz had a career defending people who do outrageously wrong things. Both in court and in the media. He is a devil's advocate. But that matches today's culture, doesn't it? The whole glorification of the "bad boy" who won't let morals get in the way. And Trump fits that description perfectly.
I think the juries got it right in each of these cases. Alan Dershowitz has made a career out of defending people who do outrageous things. It has also made him a media star. Trump has really helped restore his prominence.
Long after the juries hear the evidence and decide, people like Dershowitz are out there riling people up and defending the outrageous. Dershowitz is not the justice system. He has no obligation to let each side present its case. There are no appeals. There is no process to promote fair, informed decisions. The court system has to do all of this. There has to be a way to hear these cases, and that's the court system.
In the Mar-a-lago case, the judge is a Trump appointee who is very Trump friendly, he can raise any concerns he has there.
While Dershowitz is not the justice system, he does have an expert opinion based on his years as a defense attorney. Another way of framing his role is that even people who act outrageously deserve a defense in court. However, I don't agree with Dershowitz on a lot of things and I think he's a high-profile ambulance chaser.
0 x
“It’s easy to make everything a conspiracy when you don’t know how anything works.” — Brandon L. Bradford
Bootstrap wrote: ↑Tue Nov 28, 2023 9:50 am
Do you think Alan Dershowitz was honest and straight about OJ Simpson? Claus von Bülow? Mike Tyson? Jeffrey Epstein? Leona Helmsley? Alan Dershowitz had a career defending people who do outrageously wrong things.
He also defended some Neo Nazis because he thinks that the law should be fair to all, not just whom he likes. I really respect that.
He defended Trump in one of the Impeachment trails, then did not vote for him the next election. I have listened to a lot of his podcasts. He is quite consistent about individual rights. I do not always agree with him, but he has been consistent over 50+ years on his stances. He feels everyone deserves their day in court and one should be considered innocent until proven guilty. I agree.
0 x
Try hard not to offend. Try harder not to be offended.
Just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean they are not after you.
I think I am funnier than I really am.
Robert wrote: ↑Tue Nov 28, 2023 9:00 pm
He feels everyone deserves their day in court and one should be considered innocent until proven guilty. I agree.
Sure. Trump will have his day in court.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
Josh wrote: ↑Tue Nov 28, 2023 11:46 am
Huh? Defendants are allowed to subpoena and get evidence, particularly any evidence the prosecution is using. If there were informants instigating the 1/6 protests and trying to turn them into a violent riot, that is very relevant information for a defence.
It is a Brady Law violation if they do not disclose ALL evidence to the defense that they will be using in court. The prosecution HAS to give over the evidence or it can easily be declared a mistrial on appeal.
0 x
Try hard not to offend. Try harder not to be offended.
Just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean they are not after you.
I think I am funnier than I really am.
Josh wrote: ↑Tue Nov 28, 2023 11:46 am
Huh? Defendants are allowed to subpoena and get evidence, particularly any evidence the prosecution is using. If there were informants instigating the 1/6 protests and trying to turn them into a violent riot, that is very relevant information for a defence.
It is a Brady Law violation if they do not disclose ALL evidence to the defense that they will be using in court. The prosecution HAS to give over the evidence or it can easily be declared a mistrial on appeal.
What makes you think they haven't already done so through the ordinary process of discovery?
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
Ken wrote: ↑Tue Nov 28, 2023 10:44 pm
What makes you think they haven't already done so through the ordinary process of discovery?
Because of said subpoena requesting said information. The prosecution has information they are using that has not been fully released. According to the prosecution, they are not using it, but they have it. The defense does not trust or believe them and wants to see it so they can use it for their defense. The prosecution does not get to decide what the defense needs. So they subpoena the prosecution and the Judge decides. If it comes out that the prosecution was hiding information the defense could have used, it can be appealed and ruled a mistrial.
I am not a lawyer, but I listen to lawyers about 4-6 hours a week discuss all this stuff. Meygn Kelly often will have two lawyers that are from the two different camps and they discuss stuff and present each side. It can be quite interesting and illuminating. I also listen to Alan Dershowitz "DerShow." I also listen to Viva Frei(Canadian Lawyer) and Robert Barnes(US Civil Rights Lawyer). I download their podcasts and listen while I work.
The media distorts and hides a LOT of stuff. This is why I often do not follow the media narrative because I have heard both sides and have already learned that there are a lot of distortions.
0 x
Try hard not to offend. Try harder not to be offended.
Just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean they are not after you.
I think I am funnier than I really am.
Ken wrote: ↑Tue Nov 28, 2023 10:44 pm
What makes you think they haven't already done so through the ordinary process of discovery?
Because of said subpoena requesting said information. The prosecution has information they are using that has not been fully released. According to the prosecution, they are not using it, but they have it. The defense does not trust or believe them and wants to see it so they can use it for their defense. The prosecution does not get to decide what the defense needs. So they subpoena the prosecution and the Judge decides. If it comes out that the prosecution was hiding information the defense could have used, it can be appealed and ruled a mistrial.
I am not a lawyer, but I listen to lawyers about 4-6 hours a week discuss all this stuff. Meygn Kelly often will have two lawyers that are from the two different camps and they discuss stuff and present each side. It can be quite interesting and illuminating. I also listen to Alan Dershowitz "DerShow." I also listen to Viva Frei(Canadian Lawyer) and Robert Barnes(US Civil Rights Lawyer). I download their podcasts and listen while I work.
The media distorts and hides a LOT of stuff. This is why I often do not follow the media narrative because I have heard both sides and have already learned that there are a lot of distortions.
In any trial, the defense attorneys aren't entitled to any confidential information they happen to want from the government. Only information that falls into two specific categories: (1) Evidence that will be used at trial in the case against the defendant, and (2) any exculpatory evidence that they the government may have.
The subpoena request that they made falls into neither category. That is why it was correctly rejected.
2 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
