The New York Turump Case Is Kind of Perfect. (George Conway)

[usonian]

I thought this trial was a sideshow; I now think I was wrong.

Paywalled at The Atlantic, Archived at https://archive.ph/hz8EB#selection-693.0-693.61

MAY 13, 2024

Not all that long ago, I thought that the trial currently being held in The People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump would be the last one I’d want to see as the first one tried against the former president. It seemed the least serious of the cases against him. Here’s a man who tried to overthrow American democracy by launching a coup to stay in power. A man who allegedly stole dozens of boxes of classified national-security documents from the White House, some containing secrets about other countries’ nuclear-weapons capabilities, then lied about the documents, concealed them, and obstructed a federal investigation about them.

I thought I would have strongly preferred the cases about those matters to have gone first, particularly the secret-documents case, which substantively would be a lock, were it not for the judge overseeing it. But I feel the need to admit error. The truth is, I’ve come around to the view that People v. Trump is, in at least some ways, the perfect case to put Trump in the dock for the first time, and—I hope, but we’ll see—perhaps prison.

...

All these locutions work, but what the case is really about is Trump’s modus operandi—lying. He’s a matryoshka doll of mendacity. He lies, usually lies some more, and then often lies about the lies he’s previously told. He told at least 30,573 lies while president, by The Washington Post’s count. He lies almost whenever he opens his mouth, even when truth would better serve him. To be sure, his other criminal cases involve lies—lies about the 2016 election, lies about the military secrets he stole. But the alleged lies in People v. Trump strike at the core of his moral putrescence—and Trump knows it. They are lies allegedly meant to cover up a tawdry man’s tawdry behavior. The case truly embodies Donald Trump. And for that reason, I think, it deeply disturbs him.

...

Trump’s insistence on pointlessly contesting Daniels’s veracity entitled the prosecution to draw her account out even more than it otherwise could have ... The result, thanks to the defendant, was the introduction of more evidence that made him look like a duplicitous clod.

Lots more at the link.


OPINION:

All of which begs the question ( to me ) "If he's a lying liar, why not put him on the witness stand, where a lie is perjury?" My Perry Mason memory is vague, but wouldn't that be the defense attorneys' job? And what if he was goaded into overriding their advice?




https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-absolutely-testify-new-york-criminal-trial-rcna147663

Trump says he would 'absolutely' testify in his New York criminal trial



April 12, 2024, 2:51 PM PDT / Updated April 12, 2024, 3:07 PM PDT
By Jake Traylor and Gabe Gutierrez

PALM BEACH, Fla. — Former President Donald Trump told reporters Friday he would "absolutely" testify in his upcoming hush money trial that is set to begin on Monday.

"Yeah, I would testify, absolutely," he said in response to a question from NBC News.

[OAITW r.2.0]

1. He won't testify. Lawyers wouuld probably quit (if they could).

He can lie in a lot of venues, but lies in Court are perjury.

[2naSalit]

2. That's right...

Last edited Wed May 15, 2024, 01:04 AM - Edit history (1)

And he knows it. What I think George is saying is what I concluded earlier, a day or so ago, this trial exposes the true nature and how the office was stolen but more importantly, how he destroys people and how they fall for the allure he has to gain such power over them. He might be the devil that so many fear.

[OAITW r.2.0]

3. You are.....

not wrong.

[Quanto Magnus]

7. Didn't he say the same

in the E. Jean Carrol case?

He said he'd testify, then never did.... His cultists won't remember what happened the last time he said that...

[Cha]

4. Riveting.. TY!

[ShazzieB]

5. I think you're asking the wrong question.

All of which begs the question (to me) "If he's a lying liar, why not put him on the witness stand, where a lie is perjury?"

There is no one who can "put him on the witness stand," except Trump himself. His lawyers undoubtedly have an opinion on the matter, but they can't stop him if he decides to go ahead.

A defendant can't be compelled to testify at his own trial, and he can't be forced not to.

[et tu]

6. d45 gets more

pinocchios everyday!

[WestMichRad]

8. He would testify only if...

… the prosecution is prohibited from cross-examination. Since that’s a non-starter, he won’t testify.

While I agree that the current trial is excellent for exposing what a shallow, decrepit creature he is… I really want to see him face the music for the stolen controlled documents. That’s the one for which he’ll face serious incarceration.

[70sEraVet]

9. Yeah, he'll testify, right after he releases his taxes (remember those?)

Should have a smiley with long gray hair and cobwebs (still waiting)!