So, what's his actual defense going to be?

[Goodheart]

You see, I'm asking because I don't think any competent judge would allow a trial to proceed unless the open question was one of commission, not whether or not he a technicality dismisses the charges.

For example, the question of whether or not he can declassify documents with his mind, or that they became his own personal records simply by taking them home, would be technical matters that should be resolved before a case is even brought to a jury. I just can't imagine that a jury would be asked to read, parse, and interpret statutes... to be asked to serve as legal experts.

So, I'm seeing two possible outcomes: the judge will dismiss the case, or the case will go to trial and the defense will be _________________?????

[Recycle_Guru]

1. you are seriously wrong if you think judge will dismiss

it is very locked down that A)Trump purposefully held onto classified docs and obstructed government in getting them back, and B)He knew what he was doing was illegal.

[Goodheart]

5. What makes you think I think that?

[TwilightZone]

2. No one believes that he can declassify documents with his mind or that they're his.

Including Trump, who is on record acknowledging that he knew what he was doing was wrong and that he didn't declassify "secret" docs.

The claims will have little relevance to the trial or will be easily dismissed.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/09/politics/trump-tape-didnt-declassify-secret-information/index.html

[Goodheart]

9. Correct. So what do you suppose his defense will be inside the court?

[TwilightZone]

18. He doesn't really have one.

He'll probably make the same claims he always does. He had the right. They were his docs. He declassified them.

It's all nonsense, but there's not much else there. He could feign ignorance or his team could try to argue technicalities of the law, etc.

[Chainfire]

3. His defense will be somethin like, "Yes, I did all of the things that I am accused of, but it is

not illegal because I am Donald Trump.

[Blue Owl]

15. So far all signs point to this defense

The bloated ego of Donald tRump needs to be pierced

[gab13by13]

4. Here's the deal, the arguments you have presented

will be laughed out of a courtroom. Everything in a courtroom must be based on the law.

What is confusing is Trump going around the country proclaiming those baseless reasons, not based on law, why he is innocent.

Trump is not doing this because he is stupid, he is trying to poison the jury pool, he knows he is guilty. Your post shows that Trump's strategy may be working.

[Goodheart]

6. So, so far, nobody has answered my question.

Are you insinuating that his strategy is working on ME? Maybe you should read my post more carefully.

[Recycle_Guru]

7. no need. it is up to defense to mount a defense

not us

[Goodheart]

8. Well, gee, as if I didn't know that.

[gab13by13]

10. The examples you gave are not technical matters that need to be resolved,

they are baseless, will not be admissible even to the jury, laughed out of the courtroom.

Of course the jury doesn't need to be experts in all of the legal statutes, but the lawyers need to be, and the jurors should decide guilt or innocence based on whether statutes were violated, based on the law.

I repeat, the examples you gave are defenses being thrown out there that are not based on the law, they are being used by Trump, and yes repeated by the MSM, to taint the jury pool.

[malaise]

12. Human law or Gawd's law?

[malaise]

11. I am the Emperor for Jebus

Last edited Sun Jun 25, 2023, 10:48 AM - Edit history (1)

Human law does not apply to me
That is all.

[Johonny]

13. Political attack

His defense is this is a political attack on him and not a real case. Only needs to convince one person on the jury.

[gab13by13]

16. Bingo,

Trump can't argue legal reasons why he is innocent.

If my township has an ordinance that says I can burn stuff outside so I burn my neighbor's house down and cite the ordinance, that's like what Trump's doing citing the Presidential Records Act, it simply doesn't apply to what he did.

[onenote]

14. Crazy at it might seem: his defense may be that he didn't have time to go through the boxes

Last edited Sun Jun 25, 2023, 12:51 PM - Edit history (1)

I know his claim that he was "too busy" has been ridiculed and that the facts laid out in the indictment indicate he did review what was in the Mar-a-Lago boxes.

But, I think he will focus on the statutory language in the unlawful retention provision requiring that the accused "had reason to believe" that the information in the retained documents could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation and were "willfully" retained.

I think trump’s lawyers will argue that these elements must be satisfied separately and specifically with respect to each of the 31 documents referenced in the complaint and that while Trump knew he had classified documents in his possession that alone isn't enough to prove he was aware he had those specific documents in his possession and thus he couldn’t have reason to believe those specific documents could be used to injure the US (or be "willfully" retained). In rebuttal, Smith undoubtedly will present witness testimony that Trump did in fact go through the boxes and had knowledge of the content of the classified documents cited in the indictment. Smith also will point to the Trump's actions in flashing a couple of classified documents around in Bedmister proved he knew or had reason to believe not only that those particular documents could be used to the harm of the US, but more generally that that he had reason to believe that any and all of the classified documents in his possession could contain information harmful to the US or to the benefit of foreign nations and that should be enough to satisfy the elements of the charge.

In short, I don't think it will be a successful defense, but I expect Trump's lawyers to try. Of course, it won't help Trump with the obstruction and conspiracy charges.

[Goodheart]

17. A real answer! Thank you.

[TwilightZone]

19. That's unlikely to work.

If he shouldn't have had the docs in the first place, not having time to go through them is irrelevant.

[onenote]

23. No. The statute requires more than his simply having the documents.

Otherwise all the other language in the provision is surplusage.

Here is the provision he is charged with violating.

(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.

There are four elements that have to be satisfied. First, with respect to each of the 31 documents that form the basis of the 31 charges under 18 USC 793(e ) Trump had to have had unauthorized possession of, access to or control over those documents. That's easy -- he had unauthorized possession, access and control over each of the 31 referenced documents, whether they were classified or not. Second, each document has to relate to the national defense. Based on the descriptions in the indictment, all 31 relate to the national defense, so check that box. The third and fourth are a bit more tricky. He retained the documents, but he had to do it "willfully" and his lawyers will argue that he couldn't have retained the documents willfully if he wasn't aware he had each of the documents cited. And they will argue that if he wasn't aware of each specific document and its contents he could not have had reason to believe those documents could be used to the injury of the US or the advantage of any foreign nation.

As I said, I think Smith will have evidence that he can present to overcome the arguments Trump's lawyers will make.

[TwilightZone]

24. That's a distinction without a difference.

All four boil down to that he shouldn't have had them, willfully or not. The point remains - not having enough time to go through them is irrelevant. That defense will go nowhere.

[inthewind21]

27. For petes sake

he was subpoenaed! He ignored it. Know what you do when you need more time to comply with a subpoena, you go the effing courts and ask for more time! Believe it or not, if your reasons are solid they WILL grant it! What you DON'T do, is lie and say you already gave them all back. Claiming he didn't have time way after the fact is not going to cut it in this case. Especially in light of the FACT that DJT is the "file a lawsuit" king and is more than familiar with how court cases work.

[onenote]

31. You must have attended a different law school than I did.

[Model35mech]

20. His defense is going to be terrible...and

hopefully a failure

[lame54]

21. It will be multiple choice

[ProfessorGAC]

22. I Think They're Setting It Up

He's tripling, quadrupling & quintupling down on the "I had every right" nonsense.
I think this sets up a "THEY (insert name(s) of person/people being thrown under the bus) told me I could".
That seems pretty weak, but the beating of that "mine, mine, mine" drum makes it seem likely it's what they plan to do.

[Johnny2X2X]

25. He's going to try to delay

Trump is all in, he thinks he can win in 2024 and he's wiolling to bet his freedom on it.

[inthewind21]

26. Not even close

It's already going to trial. You'll know what the defense is at the same time the jurors do. It's not announced before hand. THAT is the whole reason FOR a trial.

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

28. Fellas, I just need one juror, give me a break!

[ChoppinBroccoli]

29. Try To Suppress Everything, Hope For Friendly Judge, Jury Nullification

Oh, you were asking for a LEGAL defense? Yeah. He doesn't have one. Not a VALID one, anyway.

[haele]

30. Other than "When you're a star, they let you do anything you want?"

I can only assume his only defense that might actually be somewhat legit is some form of Dementia as evidenced by the recorded degradation of his ability to coherently put together sentences off the cuff, reactions, and memory from his "Apprentice" outtakes and various interviews.
He's needed minders since the early 2000's, when he went from just a banally selfish, evil liar to a forgetfully selfish, evil liar.

Any other defense won't at all. Being a Narcissist and aware of what you're doing is not a medical condition.

Haele