Trump fighting a 'secret war' in the courts to keep witnesses from testifying

There's nothing reasonable about a Trump worshiper. That cockroach is a one man psychopathic crime wave but his cult will never ever see anything negative in what he did, does, said or says, not even suggesting that injecting disinfectant is a cure for Covid. There's no point in try to explain to you a no brainer that's as obvious as the nose on your face, it's an exercise in futility.

 

The term "trump worshiper" was fed to people to rebleat for the purpose of demonizing those with opposing beliefs. I voted for Jo, but understand why people would support trump. I asked a simple, non-partisan question and you are avoiding it by saying "its obvious"

 

Call it what you want, for me it's a group-think cult.

Donald Trump shares Truth Social photo proclaiming him as second only to Jesus



https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-shares-post-proclaiming-him-second-only-to-jesus-2022-9

I also voted for Biden. It was the first time I voted in almost half a century. Not because I like Biden, I can't stand him and despite taking back his position on the Middle East genocide, he's a war criminal, that he can't take back. I did it only because I wanted to do my part in getting rid of that monstrosity infesting the White House. I too understand why people support Trump, over 95% of Germans adored Adolf Hitler and the vast majority of the population of this planet still believe in organized religion. Humanity has not really evolved that much since the Stone Age. I too was indoctrinated into group-think religion as a child, but eventually I grew up, many never grow up.

I'm not going to translate Trump's speech to you, it's plain English. If you don't understand the meaning of his words, it's not my job nor am I inclined to teach you plain English.

 

I never said I voted for Biden.

You already translated trumps speech for me. You could not quote what a reasonable person could translate into a call for violence. Resorting to an ad hom fallacy reveals the inability to defend a position on merit.

 

This is a lie.
The tactics are legal.
The stupid can't imagine why anyone would would want or need to hide something if they weren't doing anything wrong.
But any lawyer knows this.

 

He comes from New York City. Every tactic he learned from the Democrats there.

Half the Democrat politicians are not any better.
Of course the media doesn't shine a big spotlight on it when they do it.

 

You said you voted for "Jo", I thought you left out the "e". So who is "Jo"?

Sorry, I'm not interested in willful denial mentality. You think he wasn't inciting a violent insurrection? Who cares, so do all Trump worshipers, except once they got in front of a judge. They don't believe he ever did anything wrong.

 

With respect to any attorney/client privilege claims, they are superseded by the crime-fraud exception. Meaning that protection is moot if the conversation has to do with the act of committing or concealing a crime.
As for EP, we've been down that road already. He has no legal leg to stand on.........unless the case is tried in Judge Cannon's court that is.

 

This is about Trump, not about Democrats. Most of our pretend government (all 3 branches) are corrupt criminals regardless of what phony political party they're affiliated with or where they are from.

 

What is publicly known and what is admissible in a court of law as evidence, or made available to a grand jury, are two distinctly different things.

 

I will make you a deal. You teach me plain English with a quote that can be defined as a call for violence, and I will teach you about the other candidates on the ballot.

 

Even the "I heard trump say" quotes don't add up to inciting insurrection.

 

Sorry, but no. There are philosophical differences on political issues and then there is the cult of personality surrounding Trump. Most often having little to do with issues oriented matters.

 

You're off topic. The thread is about blocking testimony attempting to be made available to a grand jury.

 

Devout partisans do show a willingness to follow without question. Plenty of those on both sides. For me, its about the issues and there nothing here.

 

If Trump is fighting in the courts what's the problem?

 

So his followers were not being reasonable, yet he did nothing to stop them for several hours. He was still President at the time and thus the highest and most powerful official of the US Government with a sworn duty to defend it. At the least, he is violating his sworn oath, at the most, he is violently rebelling against the legitimate government. He is insurrecting in either circumstance.

 

The fight in the court IS the problem. He is using the powers of the Presidency in a criminal way.

 

The courts can protect themselves, they're not helpless. Everyone has the right to use the courts.

 

just pretend all of his paperwork was under subpoena and he simply erased it because he was too busy talking to the attorney general about grandchildren and golf on the tarmac that day.

Then you will see things through a completely differently colored lens.

 

Oh, it's clear why someone would want to hide something if they knew it was wrong or illegal. Such a thing is the driving motivation to obstruct.

And whether or not the 'tactics are legal', this still remains:

“The Supreme Court in United States v. Nixon (1974) held that executive privilege cannot be invoked at all if the purpose is to shield wrongdoing. The courts held that Nixon's purported invocation of executive privilege was illegitimate, in part, for that reason.”

 

By poisoning 65 million minds such that confidence in democracy has been shaken, he poses a threat to national security, that's the problem.

 

Is a US citizen not permitted to argue his case in court? Or are the courts only for people you agree with?

I'm not trying to be contentious, this is a real issue. Dictatorial regimes routinely deny accused citizens access to the court system.

 

If that were all Trump was up to, I wouldn't mind. But, as the 1/6 committee will reveal, he was up to much more than that.

the Senate Judiciary Committee has already produced an interim report, which only gets to a small portion of what the Jan 6 committee is uncovering:

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Interim Staff Report FINAL.pdf

 

Such a statement from you is not entirely clear or does not make sense.

You write "Oh, it's clear why someone would want to hide something if they knew it was wrong or illegal", as if to make it sound logical.

It's a statement that could mean two different things, one of which is true but irrelevant to the argument, the other relevant to the argument but is untrue.
I believe in logic this sort of thing is called an equivocation fallacy. (I'm not sure you even considered this alternate meaning to your statement, but it is fair to point it out since it seems to insinuate that)

I am going to assume that what you actually meant was something along the lines of
"There is no reason for a person to hide something unless that something was wrong or illegal".

That is not true.

I can't believe you would even think that was true.

Witnesses can have incentives to lie when under pressure from prosecutors. Prosecutors can take things and twist them, can convince people that things that are not illegal are illegal.
Decisions made by the court are not always going to be fair, and the wording of the law is not always going to be fair, as applied to all situations.
To explain that would take a long explanation and many examples. (I think I have in fact provided many examples in the Law & Justice section of this forum)

Any lawyer will tell you that it is common practice to try to prevent something from appearing in court if they think there is a possibility it might hurt their side in any way. A lawyer would be incompetent if they did not do that.

Courts are not always about truth and logic.

Considering how much the media has twisted things, you really cannot blame Trump's lawyers for being afraid the prosecutor and the media would twist things again.