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

It's called Obstruction of Justice.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...-the-courts-to-keep-witnesses-from-testifying

In this battle, another set of Trump attorneys is working to prevent a federal grand jury from ever hearing evidence of Trump’s actions in attempting to overturn the 2020 election results, including how Trump participated in events leading to the violence of Jan. 6. Trump has reportedly constructed a “firewall” around the conversations he had in the White House, and tearing down that wall may be the most important step in seeing Trump indicted for his attempts to overthrow the lawful government.


That 'firewall' is the 'executive privilege' claim by Trump. He's using it to conceal illegal acts of conspiracy, or that is what the article is saying.

But, as the article points out, he's up against:

“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.”

 

Every communication between trump and those butthurt thugs that rioted is already available to the public.

 

Well, he fa and will fo. The noose is tightening, he's skated for way too long.

 

will be interesting to see if the Trump picks choose Trump over the law, but hopefully the rest do what is right

 

Trump is in the midst of still another losing court battle. This time he wants to keep information away from the grand jury.

CNN reports, "Former President Donald Trump’s attorneys are fighting a secret court battle to block a federal grand jury from gathering information from an expanding circle of close Trump aides about his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, people briefed on the matter told CNN.

"The high-stakes legal dispute – which included the appearance of three attorneys representing Trump at the Washington, DC, federal courthouse on Thursday afternoon – is the most aggressive step taken by the former President to assert executive and attorney-client privileges in order to prevent some witnesses from sharing information in the criminal investigation events surrounding JPresidentanuary 6, 2021."

So, why is Trump going to lose still another court fight?

In terms of executive privilege, it is strongly contended that we have only one President at a time, and only he can assert executive privilege. Our President is not doing that. Also, if the talks involved a scheme to overthrow the elected government, those talks are outside the scope of executive privilege.

In terms of attorney-client privilege, that is even simpler. If a discussion between an attorney and his client involves a crime such as a coup attempt to overthrow our elected government, then attorney-client privilege does not apply.

 

link?

 

Thats not how it works. The burden falls on the accuser. Can you quote him on what you believe is inciting insurrection?

 

YOU

''Every communication between trump and those butthurt thugs that rioted is already available to the public.''

ME

link?

SEE HOW IT WORKS, YOU MAKE AN ASSERTION, YOU NEED TO BACK IT UP!

 

Well, the idea is just to troll by passive aggressive deflection and flaming. Might even throw in a "difference with distinction argument" if that's an option leading to a rabbit hole.

 

There are many threads about it here. Did you come up with something new?

 

Got it, in other words don't expect to have you back up your assertions

 

I agree, you're entitled to a link, so am I. I already know Trump is a one man crime wave but when a poster posts a claim, it should be legitimately supported. I haven't seen or heard of any evidence of any communication between those who stormed the Capitol and Trump.

 

If I were accusing someone of inciting insurrection, I would have to back that up. I would never take a position that FBI and media had a damning quote they did not use. If that is your position and you would like me to challenge it with an article listing his communications, I will do that. If you find one that was never published, I will admit I was wrong.

 

Perhaps I misunderstood your claim. There was in fact direct communication between the Trump and the rioters prior to the siege on the Capitol, he incited them, there's no question about that, it's a slam dunk. I took your claim to mean there was some other form of communication during the siege (or prior to his speech). Please correct me if you meant the latter and provide a link, otherwise I agree with the former.

 

I am not aware of any other communication. I am curious, what did he say/write that you believe is inciting insurrection?

 

You made THIS assertion

YOU

''Every communication between trump and those butthurt thugs that rioted is already available to the public.''

Just give me a link that supports your posit? Should be simple IF it were true right?

 

Trump White House Called Capitol Rioter on Jan. 6, Book Says
Denver Riggleman, a former staff member of the House committee investigating the assault on the Capitol, said the call came from a White House landline.


January 6 hearings: Trump tried to contact witness, Cheney says – as it happened

Witness declined phone call, Liz Cheney says, and panel ‘will take any efforts to influence witness testimony very seriously’
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ist-groups-house-committee-us-politics-latest

Trump didn’t want to call for Jan. 6 rioters’ prosecution, new video shows
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/07/25/trump-jan6-doj-prosecution-video/

NO PAYWALL LINK NOT WORKING HERE ANOTHER LINK

https://www.businessinsider.com/tru...-rioters-prosecuted-fullest-extent-law-2022-7

 

Read Trump's Jan. 6 Speech, A Key Part Of Impeachment Trial
"We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore," he said.
https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/966396848/read-trumps-jan-6-speech-a-key-part-of-impeachment-trial

'We won this election, and we won it by a landslide'
'We will stop the steal'
'We will never give up. We will never concede. It doesn't happen'

 

These political platitudes are far from inciting insurrection.

 

Opinion

Analysis by Professor Epps
What is incitement under the law?

Incitement is not a crime under the First Amendment unless it meets certain criteria.

First of all, it has to be intended to cause violence (and you infer that intent from the circumstances). It also has to be likely to cause violence.

If I go downtown and I say to two drunks standing in front of a bank, "let's rob this bank right now", I haven't really incited anybody, because it's not very likely they'll rob the bank.

If I say let's meet here tomorrow and rip things up, I'm not inciting because - in the words of the Supreme Court - where there is time for better counsels to prevail, the remedy for speech is more speech.

The speech has to be likely to cause - and this is very important - imminent violent action.

If this was a court of law, does Trump cross the line?

It's quite rare that somebody can be convicted of incitement. In applying that to the president's speech at the rally, it's an agonisingly close case.

It's pretty ******n imminent because he's telling people to march to the Capitol and I will march with you. There wouldn't be any time for better counsels to prevail because you're just going to leave the Ellipse and walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.

He said we have to fight and show strength, but he also said we're very peacefully and patriotically going to ask, so he's covering himself. In the end, I think it's a jury question.

I'm not sure he's entitled to a dismissal of charges as a matter of law. There's some discussion that government leaders have more leeway, but I don't know how that would play out.

He clearly knew there were people in that crowd who were ready to and intended to be violent, and he certainly did nothing to discourage that. He not only did nothing to discourage it, he strongly hinted it should happen.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55640437

 

You are not qualified to speak for what he "knew" and have not been able to quote what a reasonable person could translate into a call for violence. Even if you amend it to "should have known", you could not get past the fact that the butthurt thugs had the element of surprise.

"Should have known" would mean reinforced security in advance.

 

‘The intelligence was there’: Law enforcement warnings abounded in the runup to Jan. 6
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/10/07/law-enforcement-warnings-january-6-515531

Trump wanted troops to protect his supporters at Jan. 6 rally
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/co...botched-capitol-riot-preparations-2021-05-12/


Cassidy Hutchinson testified on Tuesday that both former President Donald Trump and his chief of staff Mark Meadows were warned on the morning of Jan. 6 that supporters gathered on the National Mall brought weapons with them, yet they failed to take action to stop the ensuing violence.

'Things might get real, real bad on Jan. 6': Key WH aide says Trump knew protesters had weapons

'I Don't F—ing Care That They Have Weapons': Trump Wanted Security to Let Armed Supporters March on Capitol

“The advanced team had relayed to [Trump] that the mags were free flowing,” she told the committee, referring to the magnetic security readers that detect weapons. “Everybody who wanted to come in had already come in but he still was angry about the extra space and wanted more people to come in.”

Hutchinson recalled a separate conversation where Trump said of his armed supporters: “‘I don't even care that they have weapons, they're not here to hurt me. Take the effing mags away.’”

Hutchinson says WH counsel Cipollone told her, ‘We're going to get charged with every crime imaginable’ if Trump marched to Capitol


https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/news/2022/06/28/cassidy-hutchinson-trump-january-6-captiol-riot

 

If you don't know then you're not "curious" you are in willful denial. It was answered quite explicitly by JonK22 but no one needs that kind of detail, all anyone needs is to listen to Trump's speech prior to the insurrection, it was incitement supported by everything he did for months prior. It's not rocket science.

 

I thought that being armed and marching were rights. The "I heard Trump say" comments still do not reach the level of inciting insurrection.

 

Refusal to suckle from partisan media nipples is not the same thing as denial. Nothing he said/wrote can be translated into a call for violence by a reasonable person.

What, in your opinion, did he say that you believe a reasonable person would translate into a call for violence?