Trump Faces Major New Charges in Documents Case

Tinkerpeach said:
I think you believe he would incriminate himself in cross but he wouldn't be going in without being coached so he would know how to avoid the prosecution questions.

If he has to take the stand to refute an allegation against him in a he said she said situation I believe he would.
Click to expand...
Nope.

He cannot testify under any circumstances.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
I think you believe he would incriminate himself in cross but he wouldn't be going in without being coached so he would know how to avoid the prosecution questions.

If he has to take the stand to refute an allegation against him in a he said she said situation I believe he would.
Click to expand...
Name one instance where trump obeyed a lawyer's advice in his myriad criminal/civil trials
 
Tinkerpeach said:
Why not?

Is there some law I am unaware of?
Click to expand...
Trump could testify but it would be the worst thing he could do for his defense.

Trump can't testify because he would be under oath and prosecutors could ask him questions that he would have to answer truthfully. Prosecutors can ask all kinds of questions, not just the questions you think Trump would answer.

Perhaps the biggest risk for Trump is if he testifies and blames it all on Natua and De Oliviera. It would certainly give them an incentive to look for a deal to testify against Trump.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
I think you believe he would incriminate himself in cross but he wouldn't be going in without being coached so he would know how to avoid the prosecution questions.

If he has to take the stand to refute an allegation against him in a he said she said situation I believe he would.
Click to expand...

LOL. His lawyers can NOT put him on the stand if they know he is going to lie. It would lose them their law license. There is no way to avoid the prosecution questions. They could simply ask him yes/no questions and he can't refuse to answer. Either he testifies completely and truthfully or he doesn't testify.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
LOL. His lawyers can NOT put him on the stand if they know he is going to lie. It would lose them their law license. There is no way to avoid the prosecution questions. They could simply ask him yes/no questions and he can't refuse to answer. Either he testifies completely and truthfully or he doesn't testify.
Click to expand...

They would simply deny they knew he was going to lie.

They wouldn't recommend him to lie either, they would coach him on how to avoid the questions the prosecutions questions.

Questions are not hard to dodge.

If they are yes and no questions his lawyers will simply explain them in the rebuttal.

They can also work out questions to be asked and be put off limits before Trump were to testify.

Don't ask us this and we won't ask you this type of thing.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Trump could testify but it would be the worst thing he could do for his defense.

Trump can't testify because he would be under oath and prosecutors could ask him questions that he would have to answer truthfully. Prosecutors can ask all kinds of questions, not just the questions you think Trump would answer.

Perhaps the biggest risk for Trump is if he testifies and blames it all on Natua and De Oliviera. It would certainly give them an incentive to look for a deal to testify against Trump.
Click to expand...

People lie all the time on the stand and get away with it.

Unless they have proof and you know they do you can deny everything.

As I said, if Trump told De Oliviera to take care of the tapes he could simply still deny it, there is no proof he told him to do so other that De Oliviera's word.

Not enough to convict him on.
 
Jarod said:
Civilly, as a matter of law, he raped E. Jean Carol.
Click to expand...

But they couldn't convict him criminally on it could they, meaning there wasn't enough proof, meaning that this lady got a sympathetic jury to side with her.

They were probably all anti-Trumpers.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
People lie all the time on the stand and get away with it.

Unless they have proof and you know they do you can deny everything.

As I said, if Trump told De Oliviera to take care of the tapes he could simply still deny it, there is no proof he told him to do so other that De Oliviera's word.

Not enough to convict him on.
Click to expand...

How do you know that? You do not. I bet they have tapes , phone records, or paperwork.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
They would simply deny they knew he was going to lie.

They wouldn't recommend him to lie either, they would coach him on how to avoid the questions the prosecutions questions.

Questions are not hard to dodge.

If they are yes and no questions his lawyers will simply explain them in the rebuttal.

They can also work out questions to be asked and be put off limits before Trump were to testify.

Don't ask us this and we won't ask you this type of thing.
Click to expand...

LOL. Questions are hard to dodge. Dodging questions in front of the jury makes you look guilty.
You can't put topics relevant to the crime off limits. They can't ask him what he had for lunch but they can ask him about every document in his possession and every conversation he had about those documents. They can also ask him about everything he has said in public about those documents.

Questions that show the jury Trump is lying
Did you have the documents?
Did you declassify the documents?
Did you say that you didn't have the documents? (Proves he knew he shouldn't have them.)
Did you say the documents were planted? (Proves he knew he shouldn't have them.)
Did you say you declassified the documents? (Proves he knew the documents contained national security secrets.)
Did you tell people you couldn't show them the documents because they were secret? (Proves he knew the documents contained national security secrets.)

Trump can't testify because his own actions and words will prove his guilt.

The defense doesn't get to bargain as to what questions they won't ask. They get to ask questions deemed relevant to the defense. The judge won't allow them to ask what the prosecutor had for dinner.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
People lie all the time on the stand and get away with it.

Unless they have proof and you know they do you can deny everything.

As I said, if Trump told De Oliviera to take care of the tapes he could simply still deny it, there is no proof he told him to do so other that De Oliviera's word.

Not enough to convict him on.
Click to expand...

People lie on the stand and evidence shows they are lying so the person lying ends up being convicted.

Let's look at Trump on the stand.

Did you call De Oliviera 3 days after you got the subpoena and talk to him for 24 minutes?
What did you talk about? (Trump claims he called to talk about the weather or xxx)
Do you often call De Oliviera to talk about the weather in Florida?
What made you decide to call him on this day since you have never called him before and there is no other records of you calling him and talking to him?

Within an hour of hearing about the subpoena you had your assistant find Natua so you could talk to him. Why was that?
Within an hour of talking to you Natua changed his plans so he didn't go with you to IL but instead went back to Florida. Why was that?
Did Natua tell you why he was going back go Florida?
Do you always let your employees change their plans without an excuse? or If Natua had a family emergency why did you contact him instead of him contacting you?

Trump would end up looking stupid if he testified. There is no way his lawyers would let him testify.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top