Jan. 6 defendant seeks to subpoena Trump as witness at trial
Source: NYTimes
Almost from the moment that the first rioters were arrested in connection with the violent attack on the Capitol last January, defendants have tried in various ways to blame former President Donald J. Trump for their behavior.
Some have attempted to get out of jail on bail by claiming that they stormed the building because Mr. Trump said they should. Others have sought reduced sentences by arguing that they only joined the riot because they believed Mr. Trump had authorized them to do so.
On Friday, however, one Jan. 6 defendant took a different and much bolder step in seeking to pull Mr. Trump into the center of his case: He and his lawyer asked a federal judge for permission to subpoena the former president and several of his allies to testify as witnesses at his trial.
It is anticipated that, when called as a witness, Donald J. Trump will testify that he and others orchestrated a carefully crafted plot to call into question the integrity of the 2020 presidential election and the validity of President Bidens victory, the lawyer, Samuel H. Shamansky, said in court papers filed on behalf of his client, Dustin Thompson.
Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/04/us/politics/jan-6-defendant-trump-subpoena.html
dem4decades
(11,304 posts)former9thward
(32,077 posts)ificandream
(9,387 posts)former9thward
(32,077 posts)The defendant has a theory of the case just like a prosecutor does. Witnesses that are called are only allowed if they have testimony that support's the theory of the case by the side that is calling them. Testimony by public figures has to be testimony that is not otherwise available by public media.
ificandream
(9,387 posts)... but at least they have to try.
reACTIONary
(5,771 posts)Turbineguy
(37,365 posts)msfiddlestix
(7,286 posts)It will be interesting to see how this one will roll.
Srkdqltr
(6,317 posts)Cha
(297,655 posts)Sucker Thompson.
usonian
(9,867 posts)the previous time he swore an oath? As in "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States"?
Unfortunately, he found a loophole:
"to the best of my Ability"
And who can forget
The mob takes the Fifth", or
If youre innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?"
Some of his pals just did.
It would be interesting, but don't count on it.
Grokenstein
(5,727 posts)jmowreader
(50,562 posts)SergeStorms
(19,204 posts)Although Trump doesn't believe in god (except with himself assuming the position) he'll never be sworn in to testify. He could never keep a straight face when asked if he "swore to tell the truth ". He's deathly allergic to truth of all kinds.
twodogsbarking
(9,808 posts)He could swear on anything and keep a straight face. He doesn't have human qualities at all.
If it benefits him he will tell the truth; or lie. To most there is a difference. To Trump neither truth or lies
are in his limited vocabulary. Never expect him to act, well, human. He is a cold blooded creature.
Emile
(22,914 posts)ancianita
(36,133 posts)former9thward
(32,077 posts)No judge or court has said Trump must appear. The SS will not block subpoenas.
ancianita
(36,133 posts)3Hotdogs
(12,408 posts)subpoena witnesses, no matter how insignificant the case or important the person being served.
Acting presidents have been exempt. Former presidents... I don't know of any cases.
If Trump doesn't show, does the defendant get to walk?
I recall that Alex Jones lost a civil case because he failed to honor a subpoena.
former9thward
(32,077 posts)No, you can't subpoena anyone "no matter how insignificant the case". No courts have said Trump must appear.
bluestarone
(17,030 posts)What would br TFG's defense as to NOT being subpoenaed? Does he have one, in your opinion?
former9thward
(32,077 posts)Someone saying "I believe Trump wanted me to take over the Capitol building" is not going to do it. They would have to show that Trump specifically directed the defendant(s) in illegal actions. They would also have to show that whatever Trump said was said in some sort of private communication to them and not in a public media which is available to anyone. If they can't pass these bars then a court would not compel testimony.
bluestarone
(17,030 posts)Thanks.
70sEraVet
(3,512 posts)And SOMEBODY ELSE can't seem to get one!