Bill Barr says he’s willing to testify against Trump at Jan. 6 trial

Yakuda said:
Want to bet he never does?
Click to expand...

I'd take that bet instantly.

Even if he did not volunteer you can bet Smith would call him. Smith wants to make the entire case with Republicans closest to Trump and needs to.

Trumps lawyer is making a case that 'how could Trump not listen to esteemed constitutional lawyer Eastman.'. You counter that with Trumps AG and WH counsel who will all be called to testify.
 
floridafan said:
A criminal does not have to admit that he murdered someone, but witness will testify that they heard him say so, or saw him do it. Its more than enough to wind up in jail.
Click to expand...

Witness testimony can and is often refuted.

I could say I saw you do something but that doesn't make it true.
 
QP! said:
I'd take that bet instantly.

Even if he did not volunteer you can bet Smith would call him. Smith wants to make the entire case with Republicans closest to Trump and needs to.

Trumps lawyer is making a case that 'how could Trump not listen to esteemed constitutional lawyer Eastman.'. You counter that with Trumps AG and WH counsel who will all be called to testify.
Click to expand...

They have no interest in Barr
 
Yakuda said:
No he isn't entitled to do those things but you just have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did them.

Let me ask you a question, do you REALLY think trump can get a fair trial?
Click to expand...

Of course Trump can get a fair trial.

Does that mean that in Florida or in Washington one or more jurors could lie in voir dire. No. Of course a person, when questioned with regards to their ability to put aside any positions they have before trial could deliberately lie to get on the jury regardless. Something far more likely to happen in Florida than Washington, btw and yet you do not see 1/1000th of the tears about it.

But people lying in voir dire is a system wide threat to the courts, not a Trump thing specifically.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
Witness testimony can and is often refuted.

I could say I saw you do something but that doesn't make it true.
Click to expand...

Plus eye witness testimony is terribly unreliable. Which eye witnesses would they call? The ones that already hated trump? Built in reasonable doubt. As a juror I'd only give weight to the testimony of people I think that have absolutely nothing to gain or lose from trumps acquittal or conviction.
 
Yakuda said:
Plus eye witness testimony is terribly unreliable. Which eye witnesses would they call? The ones that already hated trump? Built in reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Unless they have actual proof then I doubt any of their testimony will be taken seriously.

Everyone that I've heard of like Barr has enough negatives against them to discount them right out of the box.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
Exactly.

Unless they have actual proof then I doubt any of their testimony will be taken seriously.

Everyone that I've heard of like Barr has enough negatives against them to discount them right out of the box.
Click to expand...

Right.

As a juror I'd only give weight to the testimony of people I think that have absolutely nothing to gain or lose from trumps acquittal or conviction.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
Exactly.

Unless they have actual proof then I doubt any of their testimony will be taken seriously.

Everyone that I've heard of like Barr has enough negatives against them to discount them right out of the box.
Click to expand...

https://www.crf-usa.org//bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-13-3-c-how-reliable-are-eyewitnesses

From the link

"Studies have shown that mistaken eyewitness testimony accounts for about half of all wrongful convictions. Researchers at Ohio State University examined hundreds of wrongful convictions and determined that roughly 52 percent of the errors resulted from eyewitness mistakes. Legal scholar Edwin Borchard studied 65 cases of "erroneous criminal convictions of innocent people." Mistaken eyewitness identification was responsible for approximately 45 percent of Borchard's case studies."
 
Tinkerpeach said:
You are in for a shock.

Can't wait to see you cry.

url

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url...ved=0CBAQjRxqFwoTCIiL4-zyyoADFQAAAAAdAAAAABAE
Click to expand...

Please tell me the shock, to be expecting!
 
floridafan said:
Please tell me the shock, to be expecting!
Click to expand...

She's praying for the Traitor Trump to be reelected so he can make American Great Again...Again. :thup:

No doubt he'll also pardon all the 1/6 Traitors like he promised to do in the first place along with all the criminals in his administration while he'll abuse his powers of office to hunt down and seek revenge upon those who stood against him.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
You are in for a shock.
Click to expand...

You think so?

Mike Pence isn’t the brightest bulb on the tree, but no one disputes his honesty. He can testify as to what Trump tried to get him to do on Jan 6.

“The American people deserve to know that President Trump asked me to put him over my oath to the Constitution, but I kept my oath and I always will.“

Trump called him “delusional”. Lol.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
I didn't realize that witnesses had a choice on whether or not to testify.

But Barr probably wouldn't be a good witness as he is on record as being against Trump.

In my opinion.

Frankly if this is how Smith wants to take on Trump, by claiming people told him he lost and Trump acting anyway, it's a losing one.

Plenty of people also told Trump the election results were tainted and the defense will be calling them up.

It turns into a he said she said thing with not enough evidence either way to warrant a conviction.

I don't think Barr is required. Seems like more of a risk than anything since the defense will just bring up Barr's statements against Trump.
Click to expand...

He can testify about attempts by the White House to pressure the DOJ into starting an investigation into election fraud. Barr said they did investigate and found no evidence.
 
Flash said:
He can testify about attempts by the White House to pressure the DOJ into starting an investigation into election fraud. Barr said they did investigate and found no evidence.
Click to expand...

Then he would have to show how Trump pressured them, what threats he made against them.

Simply asking them is not pressuring.

Do you see the flaws in Smiths case yet?
 
Tranquillus in Exile said:
You think so?

Mike Pence isn’t the brightest bulb on the tree, but no one disputes his honesty. He can testify as to what Trump tried to get him to do on Jan 6.

“The American people deserve to know that President Trump asked me to put him over my oath to the Constitution, but I kept my oath and I always will.“

Trump called him “delusional”. Lol.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter what Trump wanted him to do, what matters in a court of law is if Trump threatened him.

Asking is not a crime.

This is what the prosecution has to prove for Trump to be found guilty.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
Then he would have to show how Trump pressured them, what threats he made against them.

Simply asking them is not pressuring.

Do you see the flaws in Smiths case yet?
Click to expand...

I don't see any flaws--just difficult to prove charges. It is difficult to prove things like inciting a riot, threats, etc. I think it is based on all the activities taken together demonstrate a conspiracy.

I don't think there is any doubt he was seeking to block the election results to prevent Biden from taking office, but proving he committed specific crimes is more difficult.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top