How Would You Defend Trump?

[Rebound]

This is not a political thread. 
Scenario: Donald Trump has hired you as one of his defense attorneys in the Mar-a-Lago documents case.  He’s paid you a $3 million retainer.

Question: What is your defense strategy? What LEGAL arguments do you bring to the judge and jury to win the case? Keep it succinct; juries fall asleep if you make pages and pages of arguments. 

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

This is not a political thread. 
Scenario: Donald Trump has hired you as one of his defense attorneys in the Mar-a-Lago documents case.  He’s paid you a $3 million retainer.

Question: What is your defense strategy? What LEGAL arguments do you bring to the judge and jury to win the case? Keep it succinct; juries fall asleep if you make pages and pages of arguments. 

Make up crap; throw it against the wall, and see if it sticks.

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

Question: What is your defense strategy? What LEGAL arguments do you bring to the judge and jury to win the case?

Tough to say because it depends on what is contained in those documents. 

It could be that he kept a record of some things for the sake of defending himself from future witch hunts, like the Russian collusion show trial and the Ukrainian collusion farce, and if he did that's completely understandable considering that the FBI already committed several crimes and tried to coerce false testimony from several witnesses to frame him for a crime that they don't have a shred of evidence that he committed.

In case you don't recall, the Ukrainian collusion case was actually about the Russian collusion case, because when asked Zelenski for a bit of help he specifically asked about crowdstrike - which had no bearing on anything else in the world aside from the first witch hunt.

Whether you are willing to acknowledge it or not, the above is an actual example of Trump trying to get information to protect himself from FBI malfeasance.

If the docs that he had in his possession contain US military secrets of a highly sensitive nature then there really is no defence because 1) things like that can't be left lying around, even if there is SS at his house all the time and 2) things like that are only accessible on a "need to know" basis and he definitely doesn't need to know them anymore once he's no longer president. His possession of those kinds of documents would have posed an actual, verifiable threat to the US. 

I'm pretty sure that this wasn't the case though or this would have been resolved by now, to Trump's detriment.

Quote

Keep it succinct; juries fall asleep if you make pages and pages of arguments. 

That's the exact opposite of the Dems' last attempt to get Trump: they tried to make 36 separate charges out of him being on one equal payment plan. 

[Rebound]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

Make up crap; throw it against the wall, and see if it sticks.

You can do better than that. 

[Rebound]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

Tough to say because it depends on what is contained in those documents. 

It could be that he kept a record of some things for the sake of defending himself from future witch hunts, like the Russian collusion show trial and the Ukrainian collusion farce, and if he did that's completely understandable considering that the FBI already committed several crimes and tried to coerce false testimony from several witnesses to frame him for a crime that they don't have a shred of evidence that he committed.

In case you don't recall, the Ukrainian collusion case was actually about the Russian collusion case, because when asked Zelenski for a bit of help he specifically asked about crowdstrike - which had no bearing on anything else in the world aside from the first witch hunt.

Whether you are willing to acknowledge it or not, the above is an actual example of Trump trying to get information to protect himself from FBI malfeasance.

If the docs that he had in his possession contain US military secrets of a highly sensitive nature then there really is no defence because 1) things like that can't be left lying around, even if there is SS at his house all the time and 2) things like that are only accessible on a "need to know" basis and he definitely doesn't need to know them anymore once he's no longer president. His possession of those kinds of documents would have posed an actual, verifiable threat to the US. 

I'm pretty sure that this wasn't the case though or this would have been resolved by now, to Trump's detriment.

That's the exact opposite of the Dems' last attempt to get Trump: they tried to make 36 separate charges out of him being on one equal payment plan. 

You have somewhat of a framework there, but it needs work. 
Your central argument is that you doubt that the classified material was as significant as they say. That is a good argument, and it could work, depending, as you say, whether the material was significant or not.  
Your second prong of “I’m pretty sure this wasn’t the case” isn’t too strong.  But in any case, playing down the significance of the material is a good defense strategy. And it would likely work for at least some of the classified items. 

[Guest]

I would need to know the entirety of the documents he held. 

Did he have any right to have any of them? Is there any legal recourse to avoid him jail?

Once I have the necessary documentation providing me with a credible alibi, I would use every ounce of savvy that I have, to sew doubt in those who have charged him.

More importantly, I would put him on orders to be silent, or I walk.

If I am speaking for him, I give him the best chance that he has to win.

He chooses to jury rig his defense, then good luck to him. I wouldn't put my name on anything illegal or that would sully it.

[Rebound]

5 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

I would need to know the entirety of the documents he held. 

Did he have any right to have any of them? Is there any legal recourse to avoid him jail?

Once I have the necessary documentation providing me with a credible alibi, I would use every ounce of savvy that I have, to sew doubt in those who have charged him.

More importantly, I would put him on orders to be silent, or I walk.

If I am speaking for him, I give him the best chance that he has to win.

He chooses to jury rig his defense, then good luck to him. I wouldn't put my name on anything illegal or that would sully it.

You can be sure the man won’t shut his mouth. He day after he lost a defamation lawsuit, he defamed the victim again on national TV.

I don’t think you understand the meaning of alibi.  
 

The hardest part about this case is this: They suspected he didn’t return classified documents.  They interviewed his staffers, and they confirmed it. They got a search warrant. 
 

It’s like a drug case: “Judge, we have PC that this person has drugs at his house” They get a warrant, they search, and the drugs are there. Open and shut.  
 

You can go after the way they searched, question whether their procedures were legitimate… but they surely were as perfect as they could be. They almost surely videotaped the search from start to finish.  There have already been tons of cases that attacked the way the evidence was gathered.  I think that, yes, this would be one of many paths to take, but it won’t likely work.  

Edited June 19, 2023 by Rebound

[robosmith]

3 hours ago, Rebound said:

You can do better than that. 

Not to defend against the strong evidence against Trump.

I really see crap as the ONLY available defense and what Trump will use AS USUAL.

[CdnFox]

He only has certain options.

For the purposes of this i assume everything in the indictment is true. They actually have the tape etc.

1 - get the tape thrown out.  Without that the case becomes MUCH harder. If they cannot prove he KNEW that the documents were classified when he showed them to other people and withheld them then this case becomes very very hard.  If you can't then spin what you said about it being classified .

There's a couple of possible ways to do that.  None of them are high probability of success but there you go.

If that fails i'd argue common tradition - tonnes of people leak classified info to the press and get away with it.  So you didn't realize it was an issue for the president to do it. That might work.

The lawyer's testimony might be easier if he can demonstrate it was privileged. It is WRONG to tell your lawyer you're going to go commit a crime, but if you're just asking questions about what is or isn't legal then that's not illegal. It's what lawyers do.  So  he might get away with making a case for that and having that testimony thrown out.

I'd look very closely at the search warrant. The fbi has lost many a case with bad search warrants. If they didn't jump through the hoops property and precisely that evidence could be dismissed and this is over.

This is bad for him, but it's not necessarily unwinnable.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Rebound said:

He day after he lost a defamation lawsuit, he defamed the victim again on national TV.

Some of those charges were thrown out, like the sexual assault.

He removed credibility from her, in recounting her story. If his recounting is accurate, then it was a politically motivated hit piece.

7 hours ago, Rebound said:

They almost surely videotaped the search from start to finish.

Of course. 

They documented every nook and cranny.

The only avenue he has, is to debate under what set of laws he is being charged under. If there is a loop hole, then that would be his fighting chance. 

I don't think this case is the slam dunk people think it is.

 

[Rebound]

1 hour ago, Perspektiv said:

Some of those charges were thrown out, like the sexual assault.

The only avenue he has, is to debate under what set of laws he is being charged under. If there is a loop hole, then that would be his fighting chance. 

I don't think this case is the slam dunk people think it is.

 

The (civil) jury found Trump guilty of sexual assault but not rape.  
 

I don’t think this will be an easy case, but if it were any other defendant he would already be in prison. I don’t think “look for a loophole” is a great defense, unless you find one.  But Trump is charged with many different crimes… the Espionage Act charges are 31 charges. Each is up to 20 years in prison. 32 is Conspiracy to obstruct Justice, and that’s up to 20 years as well. Then there’s a few about corruptly concealing records from federal investigations… 20 years a piece, and a few more charges that are 5 years a piece.  
 

I don’t think he’ll be sentenced to all 700 years, though… so there’s some positive news I’d say. 

[WestCanMan]

11 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

More importantly, I would put him on orders to be silent, or I walk.

I hope you have comfortable shoes lol. Trump can stay quiet like that squirmy kid can sit through a opera.

He paid $5M to clap back against E Jean Caroll and he still hasn't shut up about her. 

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

The (civil) jury found Trump guilty of sexual assault but not rape.  

That was another show trial.

That woman couldn't even name what year she was allegedly raped let alone a month or a date. It never would have made it to trial if it wasn't for the political smear factor. The Dems and their lackeys in the FBI and DOJ needed case for political reasons, it had nothing to do with justice or laws. 

If she brought that weak claim against Obama it wouldn't just be Barack that was calling her names, the entire MSM would be calling her worse things than Trump did.

Quote

I don’t think this will be an easy case, but if it were any other defendant he would already be in prison. I don’t think “look for a loophole” is a great defense, unless you find one.  But Trump is charged with many different crimes… the Espionage Act charges are 31 charges. Each is up to 20 years in prison. 32 is Conspiracy to obstruct Justice, and that’s up to 20 years as well. Then there’s a few about corruptly concealing records from federal investigations… 20 years a piece, and a few more charges that are 5 years a piece.  

Hillary could have been charged with a litany of similar charges but instead the FBI gave her friends immunity for no testimony and let her walk. Destroying subpoenaed evidence was a slam dunk and no one was even charged for that. "Oopsie!"

I wanna change my answer from my first post to:

"Trump should say 'I bumped my head and I can't remember' to everything that he is asked for the remainder of all these trials. It has worked for Hillary on two separate occasions now, she gets temporary amnesia more often than the quadruple-vaxed get covid. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Rebound said:

The (civil) jury found Trump guilty of sexual assault but not rape.  

Sexual assault when she stated she was raped, doesn't make her case convincing.

Her story was flimsy at best. The timing suspect.

2 hours ago, Rebound said:

I don’t think this will be an easy case, but if it were any other defendant he would already be in prison.

This is a president. The same laws don't apply, or George W Bush would also be in prison for war crimes.

People say that they do, only when they apply to their opposition.

2 hours ago, Rebound said:

the Espionage Act charges are 31 charges. Each is up to 20 years in prison.

I guarantee he doesn't serve a day in jail.

If his lawyer is worth his salt, he picks apart loopholes in the antiquated act.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Rebound said:

 I don’t think “look for a loophole” is a great defense, unless you find one. 

It's historically the single most successful defense out there    It's not really a 'loophole' per se but a technicality you're looking for. 

As an example if there is ANYTHING wrong with the fbi search warrant - and there often has been with the FBI  -  then all the boxes get thrown out as evidence. That's the end of most of the charges.  So if trump's lawyers can argue that once again the FBI used improper data as they did with the 'russian conspiracy' investigation then the majority of his problems go away.

Likewise if he can claim that his lawyer's information falls under privlidge the obtruction charges go away.

I think that will be 90 percent of their efforts - looking for technicalities to get evidence tossed. Whatever they can't deal with doing that, THEN they'll try to find a lawful excuse that will stick in court.

[Deluge]

16 hours ago, Rebound said:

This is not a political thread. 
Scenario: Donald Trump has hired you as one of his defense attorneys in the Mar-a-Lago documents case.  He’s paid you a $3 million retainer.

Question: What is your defense strategy? What LEGAL arguments do you bring to the judge and jury to win the case? Keep it succinct; juries fall asleep if you make pages and pages of arguments. 

I would lead off with precedent and motive. There is no precedent for what the left-wingers are trying to do, and their motive is to bury the Trump presidential campaign. 

[Rebound]

30 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Sexual assault when she stated she was raped, doesn't make her case convincing.

Her story was flimsy at best. The timing suspect.

This is a president. The same laws don't apply, or George W Bush would also be in prison for war crimes.

People say that they do, only when they apply to their opposition.

I guarantee he doesn't serve a day in jail.

If his lawyer is worth his salt, he picks apart loopholes in the antiquated act.

There’s a debate tactic conservatives use a lot, called “spreading,” which is you spray out so many arguments in different directions that nobody can answer all the nonsense.  
 

Donald Trump has been charged with 38 Felonies. The question is how would you, as his attorney, defend the case in court.  
 

This judge has already been severely admonished by a Trump-appointed Federal appeals court for stating that different rules of law apply towards Presidents.  To any extent that different rules may apply, they were clearly burned when the government ASKED for the documents’ return, then DEMANDED the documents’ return, because Trump has not been charged for retention of THOSE documents. He has only been charged in connection with the documents which were found as a result of the search warrant, even though he could have been charged regarding the others. 
 

I agree that picking apart the Espionage Act may be decent strategy. Although the challenge there is, it may be an old law, but it is the law. And we have many quotes and recordings of Trump stating that proper handling of classified materials is important and violators should be prosecuted. So he’s not being prosecuted for an obscure law which was dug up out of nowhere.  Yet, Daniel Ellsberg, who passed away last week, wanted to challenge the constitutionality of that law.  I can see that it allows overly broad applications which could be unconstitutional, but I don’t see how this particular situation fits that. 
 

But, ok, if you challenge the constitutionality of the Espionage Act, then you’re left with the conspiracy charges, which would probably remain. Here, you’d have to challenge the admissibility of evidence gathered by the crime fraud exception.  
 

Trump better have the world’s best lawyers if he wants a shot at this. Or the world’s most corrupt judge.  

[Rebound]

28 minutes ago, Deluge said:

I would lead off with precedent and motive. There is no precedent for what the left-wingers are trying to do, and their motive is to bury the Trump presidential campaign. 

Not unprecedented. Here is a list of 62 people convicted under the Espionage Act:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_convicted_under_the_Espionage_Act_of_1917
 

Reality Winner:  One document, five years in prison 

[Deluge]

1 minute ago, Rebound said:

Not unprecedented. Here is a list of 62 people convicted under the Espionage Act:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_convicted_under_the_Espionage_Act_of_1917
 

Reality Winner:  One document, five years in prison 

Point out former Presidents, Vice Presidents and Secretaries of State. 

Then talk about the danger the country is in because of Trump's actions. 

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, Deluge said:

Point out former Presidents, Vice Presidents and Secretaries of State. 

 

The fact a president hasn't been charged is not a 'legal precedent'.  YOU haven't been charged either -  but that doesnt' mean you couldn't be

The decision not to charge past leaders is political, not legal. The law hates it.  But -the idea of a new president locking up his political opponents  theoretically puts the whole system into question and erodes faith - it weakens democracy by shaking people's confidence in it

So - historically it's been avoided.  But - that has NOTHING to do with the law.

That will likely play out well for Trump in the court of public opinion, but not in the actual court who won't even consider it.

[Rebound]

12 minutes ago, Deluge said:

Point out former Presidents, Vice Presidents and Secretaries of State. 

Then talk about the danger the country is in because of Trump's actions. 

Point out a former President, VP or SoS who violated THIS LAW.  I understand that you don’t get this… and, man, you REALLY can’t get this through your thick skull… but nobody goes to prison for breaking RULES. You go to prison for breaking the LAW. Here is the law, precisely. Pay attention to the bold text; it’s vitally important. The word “and” in the bold face text also matters; a lot.  It is not the word “or,” it is “and.”

“e)Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or… 

 

(g)If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy…

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.“

Edited June 19, 2023 by Rebound

[Deluge]

6 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

The fact a president hasn't been charged is not a 'legal precedent'.  YOU haven't been charged either -  but that doesnt' mean you couldn't be

The decision not to charge past leaders is political, not legal. The law hates it.  But -the idea of a new president locking up his political opponents  theoretically puts the whole system into question and erodes faith - it weakens democracy by shaking people's confidence in it

So - historically it's been avoided.  But - that has NOTHING to do with the law.

That will likely play out well for Trump in the court of public opinion, but not in the actual court who won't even consider it.

I disagree. But even if precedent can't hold up, then you hit them with consistency. If Trump is being hauled in then so must George Bush, HRC, Hussein Obama, the hair sniffer and any other high level political figure who brought classified docs home. 

4 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Point out a former President, VP or SoS who violated THIS LAW.  

What law? How is what Trump did any different than Hussein Obama, HRC, or crazy Biden?  

Edited June 19, 2023 by Deluge

[Rebound]

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

The fact a president hasn't been charged is not a 'legal precedent'.  YOU haven't been charged either -  but that doesnt' mean you couldn't be

The decision not to charge past leaders is political, not legal. The law hates it.  But -the idea of a new president locking up his political opponents  theoretically puts the whole system into question and erodes faith - it weakens democracy by shaking people's confidence in it

So - historically it's been avoided.  But - that has NOTHING to do with the law.

That will likely play out well for Trump in the court of public opinion, but not in the actual court who won't even consider it.

You’re partly right. Good analysis.  Please read the law I quoted in the post above, especially the bold part:

WILLFULLY RETAINS AND FAILS TO DELIVER IT.

In the Biden and Clinton cases, prosecution would depend on determining that they WILLFULLY retained classified information AND failed to return it to the government once they realized they had it. I don’t see any way you could prove that in their cases, but you can prove it in Trump’s. He was served with a warrant to return the documents and instead he orders his people to hide them and he lied to his lawyers about it. That is clearly WILLFUL and it is clearly FAILURE TO DELIVER. 

Edited June 19, 2023 by Rebound

[Guest]

44 minutes ago, Rebound said:

There’s a debate tactic conservatives use a lot, called “spreading,” which is you spray out so many arguments in different directions that nobody can answer all the nonsense.  

Sorry, but this is a leftist and conservative tactic.

45 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Donald Trump has been charged with 38 Felonies. The question is how would you, as his attorney, defend the case in court.  

How legitimate are the felonies would be a start. If legit, are there any clerical errors? Does the espionage act apply to 2023, considering it was initially created in the early 1900's? Or is this case unprecedented enough to where new annexes must be added.

With laws this old, it would be possible to find a loophole that absolves the president of any jail time. If so, I would exploit the living daylights out of it.

48 minutes ago, Rebound said:

but it is the law.

Correct, but this case is unprecedented enough that there may not be a precedent within that law, that applies to this case.

A good lawyer will do their research and find that loophole.

50 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Trump better have the world’s best lawyers if he wants a shot at this. Or the world’s most corrupt judge.  

What if he has both?

He was arrested in Florida. There is a reason for this. He would not get a fair trial in a democrat run state. It then also looks like a legal hit piece. 

Also, if he wasn't cooperating with the law, you must be able to demonstrate that this was in fact what he was doing. He turned himself in, and they conducted their search. 

He is innocent until proven guilty. He could also angle with the media painting him as guilty, immediately. Disgust. Corruption.

Biden has same charges leveled against him, and is given an easy ride. It was blatant.

Whether it was discovered later that the documents weren't as bad, the media coverage and even political coverage from the opposition looked like this was being used as ammunition vs genuinely wanting to throw a president in prison.

There are so many angles to go by, but I would truly try to sew doubt that this has anything to do with criminal behavior, and everything to do with retribution for declaring himself as running for president again.

[Rebound]

8 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Sorry, but this is a leftist and conservative tactic.

How legitimate are the felonies would be a start. If legit, are there any clerical errors? Does the espionage act apply to 2023, considering it was initially created in the early 1900's? Or is this case unprecedented enough to where new annexes must be added.

With laws this old, it would be possible to find a loophole that absolves the president of any jail time. If so, I would exploit the living daylights out of it.

Correct, but this case is unprecedented enough that there may not be a precedent within that law, that applies to this case.

A good lawyer will do their research and find that loophole.

What if he has both?

He was arrested in Florida. There is a reason for this. He would not get a fair trial in a democrat run state. It then also looks like a legal hit piece. 

Also, if he wasn't cooperating with the law, you must be able to demonstrate that this was in fact what he was doing. He turned himself in, and they conducted their search. 

He is innocent until proven guilty. He could also angle with the media painting him as guilty, immediately. Disgust. Corruption.

Biden has same charges leveled against him, and is given an easy ride. It was blatant.

Whether it was discovered later that the documents weren't as bad, the media coverage and even political coverage from the opposition looked like this was being used as ammunition vs genuinely wanting to throw a president in prison.

There are so many angles to go by, but I would truly try to sew doubt that this has anything to do with criminal behavior, and everything to do with retribution for declaring himself as running for president again.

Not the same. 
Law says: “willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it”

[Nationalist]

I think Trump's only real hope is in The Presidential Records Act and the ample precidents set to support it over the decades.

To me...this should be an open and shut case.

We will see.