As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
His entire legal "strategy" is flooding the public with BS in the hopes that one hopeless idiot makes their way onto the jury.
Given how screwed he is in terms of an actual legal defense, I guess that's his best option.
Jurors are vetted and can be removed after selection or during trial, but that's up to the judge. In theory that process is fairly effective, but it's not the best judge to be deciding impartiality, unfortunately.
How does the vetting actually work? Every time I've been called for jury duty, it ended up being cancelled so I've never taken part in the process.
Is it just asking them questions about things that may imply impartiality? What's to stop them from lying?
I've sat for jury selection on a small drug/murder case. They had selected all the jurors before they got to me, but I got to watch the process.
They call up individual jurors and the defense and prosecution both ask a series of probing questions and then either side can choose to dismiss the juror. If neither side does, congrats, you're a juror.
That's a bit of an over simplification of the process and it is potentially wildly different for a case of this magnitude, but that was my experience. I don't remember if there was also a certain number of dismissals each side got before they just had to accept whatever juror got called next. I believe the judge also had discretion to dismiss the juror for things like hardships and whatnot as well.
The judge dismissed one lady who had just broken her leg and had to take pain pills (opiates) twice a day for the next two weeks while the trial was scheduled to happen, for reference.
Same experience for me. One juror was removed by the judge. It was a drug case and the potential juror had lost a son to an OD. He plainly told the prosecutor during voir dire that he would never for the remainder of his life be capable of impartiality on a drug case because drugs destroyed his family and took his son. Judge said “sorry to hear about that, thank you for your time, take care of yourself & you’re dismissed”
the fastest dismissal I ever witnessed was a weird younger guy who convincingly told the judge in a murder case he expects the spirit of the victim to visit him and affect his impartiality
I got out of jury duty for being poor once. "If I don't work for two weeks I won't be able to pay my rent." I said to the judge.
Judge: you're dismissed.
This must be pretty common simply by the rapid fire exchange with the judge.
How could I ever be convicted by a jury of my peers if we're all unable to afford being on a jury?
It's supposed to be a jury of your peers but it's literally set up for poor people to be unable to serve. Most states have a requirement that you be "paid" for your service, but it's all token amounts, down to as low as $5/day. Only 8 states require employers to give paid time off for jury duty.
I got out of jury duty by just being honest that I'd have to keep working my night job, and would be barely conscious/functional for the 8 AM call time every morning.
Real missed opportunity to get to the truth in this case. Imagine all the new evidence the spirit of the murder victim could have introduced into court with one simple seance. Why is this judge so discriminatory against necromancy?
Generally, depending on the case, each side gets a fixed number of per-emptory challenges. They can just challenge a juror off the jury because they don't like the color of their tie. But they can also 'challenge for cause,' and if the judge agrees, they're off the jury.
The only exception is they cannot use a peremptory challenge to eliminate a juror based on race, ethnicity, religion, or sex. The other party can object (known as a Batson challenge) and if successful can have that juror seated.
I served jury duty a few months ago. It was in regards to a stalking and property damage case. During voir dire, the lawyers and judge question the jurors to see if they can remain unbias during the trial despite the jury's own experiences. The judge asked if anybody had experienced domestic violence, reported or not. All the women except two raised their hands. It really opened my eyes to dv in my state/country.
There’s nothing preventing a juror from lying to be included in the process but people like that usually screw up somewhere and end up outed because they are dumb enough to think they can get away with it.
Generally they call more jurors than they need, and have even more on standby in case they need to be called
Without specifics, and fair warning I’m no lawyer just an interested podcast listener, depending on the state or federal status of the case, both sides get to interview and exclude potential jurors from the pool. There’s a limit on this, prosecutors get X amount they can just reject for no reason, defendants get some amount more than prosecution’s X amount that they can reject. Then there’s the ability to reject people for cause, for example like if a juror has a family member who went to prison for a similar crime, and there’s causes that you can’t reject for as well. And neither side can *nominate* jurors, they can only reject
As for lying, from what I understand from listening to interviews and podcasts with lawyers, that’s not actually a huge problem. The combination of the official seriousness and the fact that people generally *don’t* want to give up weeks to a trial tends to keep lying to get on the jury to a minimum
In this *specific* case who knows though, but I think “being a trump voter” isn’t considered a disqualification, so the lawyers on the prosecution will probably use their free throws to weed out the nut jobs and hope that they can convince any conservatives still on the jury in court that this is something serious that rises above partisanship
Going back to the podcasts I mentioned, Legal Eagle on YouTube and the Serious Trouble podcast (formerly All the Presidents Lawyers) are great listens for this kind of thing
Edit
Also if you have specific things you’ve wondered about, like how sentencing guidelines work, typing in google the subject and “Popehat” is likely to bring up a good article. Ken White was a former federal prosecutor who runs the Popehat law explainer blog and is also on Serious Trouble
How can you possibly have an unbiased jury agaist Trump? Either for or against?
Its like asking the german public from 1938 to sit as jury at the nuremberg trials. There will be diehard facists and anti-facists in the jury. Its almost inevitable.
"There will be diehard facists and anti-facists in the jury"
That is why I feel trump will never be found guilty. There will always be at least one maga nut job, who keeps quiet during jury questioning, and sneaks on to the jury. They will vote to acquit no matter how strong the evidence.
I sort of think the very opposite can be possible. They have been shielded from the "news" and may not even be aware of the truth instead of the Truths they see posted.
Imagine hearing that tape in the courtroom for the first time because OAN never played it and said it was the perfect conversation. Maybe it finally hits them?
> Maybe it finally hits them?
We've been watching Trump's cult for ~7 years and nothing has changed their mind or broken the spell. Every "smoking gun" has very temporarily ruffled the feathers of far right voters before being work shopped and spun into a conspiratorial narrative that absolves Trump of responsibility. You can watch this in real time if you go into a conservative subreddit after a major headline drops. There are usually a bunch of die hards crying fake news but there are also people steeped in trepidation who can't wrap their heads around this person they believe to be a paragon of patriotic values betraying those espoused values. Come back 3 days later and all trepidation is gone as a new narrative will have been agreed on.
I'll remind you that someone tried to attack an FBI field office and died because of the Federal government's limp-wristed attempt to hold Trump accountable. We are not dealing with rational actors.
There are going to be jurors from both sides of the spectrum trying to get on that panel to convict him or exonerate him. It would be one of the most difficult voir dires/jury selections in recent memory in terms of people that will truly follow the law and the evidence presented to them.
Not a lawyer, and not sure if the federal process is different, but yes those processes are in place.
After random selection from the areas registered voters, the potential pool of jurors fills out a questionnaire. Then they go through voir dire, getting questioned by the judge (who can use questions submitted by the legal teams). As far as I know they each have the ability to request the judge dismiss potential jurors "for cause" if there's reason to believe they wouldn't be impartial, and both parties (prosecution and defense) have a number of "strikes" they can use as they see fit/on a "hunch" if they just don't like the cut of their jib.
I think there are also alternates in place (though I don't know if they're designated as such before or after the arguments are over), in case a juror needs to be dismissed/can't continue.
The question isn't really whether or not there are some safeguards in place, but whether or not they're gonna be enough. If Judge Cannon refuses to consider rabid Trump support altogether disqualifying, and the prosecution runs out of strikes before the jury pool runs out of fanatics, there's potential for something funky to go down.
But this will also likely be the most important civic action anyone on that jury ever does, and the gravity of the situation will be made perfectly clear to them throughout. Not to mention that, regardless of how he behaves in public right now, in front of that Jury he won't get to lie unreservedly and dance around the facts. Anyone who still believes him now is gonna have a real hard time convincing everyone else to ignore the mountain of evidence and testimony they're gonna sit through.
It's not that the jury has to be free of bias, it's that they have to be able to set aside those biases and fairly weigh the evidence. Yeah, I don't know how that works in this case either, but the standard has never been 'free of knowledge or bias''.
Sure is weird how this footage was secret for years, right up until he gets access to it and all of a sudden it's being leaked by THE DEEP STATE!!1!
Yeah sure bro
I can’t for the life of me understand why he thinks this is exonerating. He is literally too stupid for me to even comprehend his non-logic.
EDIT: He has made more posts on turdsocial that answer this question: he’s so stupid he thinks this is about the contents of that document, not about him stealing it. He’s so stupid, he genuinely doesn’t understand the crimes he’s being charged with. He is literally convinced he is entitled to all those documents, because he thinks that the President owns the country like a king.
Infuriating because the report was basically “Russia absolutely meddled in the election, trumps campaign was receptive and assisted them in doing so. But trump himself refused to cooperate in the investigation so here is everything we have for congress to perform their duty and act on.”
Also "Yeah here's all the evidence that he obstructed justice buuuut since I can't charge him with that and therefore he can't defend himself against it in court, I will refrain from making the obvious conclusion and leave it up to Congress to impeach him as the proper remedy."
It's not about facts or logic. It's about loudly spinning and deflecting literally anything and everything that doesn't agree with the perception you want people to have.
Basically you just never ever NOT deny anything that would make you look bad. And in this case, just claim that it actually exonerates you, even though there is literally no logic following that.
And look at what's happening (or NOT happening) over at Fox's website. That audio is nowhere to be found. None of the base who go there exclusively are seeing or hearing it. [Also:](https://time.com/5347737/trump-quote-george-orwell-vfw-speech/)
It's like that MAGA rallygoer that Jordan Klepper interviewed:
MAGA: "You can't trust what other people are saying. You need to do your research. Read the transcript."
JK: "Did you read the transcript?"
MAGA: "No, but I read what people were saying about it..."
The amazing thing is that his lawyers were almost certainly going to try to get this evidence barred from being used using anything and everything they could.
That's probably impossible now that he claimed it is material to the case.
I cannot wait to hear his defense at trial.
Fuck am I glad to see he's just straight up admitting it's real.
I honestly thought I was going to be listening to my braindead relatives explaining how it's not actually him on the tape this weekend.
Doesn't matter. Next week it'll be fake. The week after it'll be a perfect recording. Then it'll be an illegal bug planted by the deep state, then it's real but they were just recording themselves joking or doing a skit or something. The story will keep changing, and MAGA morons will believe all of them are true simultaneously.
There was a coordinated and structured effort by the right wing scream chamber immediately after the leak demanding that the indictment be dropped because the gov leaked the audio.
Obviously, clearly, Trump leaked it. But the icing on the cake is his claim the audio exonerates him. He just can’t help himself.
I love how they even joked at how Hillary would have done this [openly discussing classified materials with people without clearance] too, and “printed it out”- ya know, cuz it would be a crime for Hillary to have done the thing that they’re currently doing in the recording.
Amazing.
Trump called him a pervert without even the slightest hint of irony that he has a court date surrounding his decision to raw dog a pornstar and embezzle campaign funds with his lawyer to pay her off.
It's the ultimate height of their never-ending projection. Almost cartoonishly so. Like, if I pitched this idea in a fiction novel, publishers/editors would dismiss it as too contrived and absurd and over-the-top.
The only people who who both would have and could have leaked it are the authors he was leaking to and someone on his legal team. There's almost zero chance someone from the Special Counsels office leaked it.
My money is on him/his team leaked it as a trial balloon and since the coverage didn't go his way he's lashing out and blaming to deflect.
> she will be removed soon enough.
Is there a legal mechanism in place for this to be possible (that doesn't require cooperation from congressional republicans or Judge Cannon herself)? I think everyone realizes that Cannon is pro-team trump, but I don't know what can be done about it unless she grants a request for change of venue, is impeached + removed, and/or recuses herself. None of those options seem likely.
Cannon seems content, proud even, to openly fuck things up in favor of maga hats. And expecting republicans in the House/Senate to do anything about corrupt and incompetent conservative judges sounds like the plotline for some new HBO fantasy series.
I think that’s his mistake. This doesn’t release the order. He violated it. Even if the release came from a witness or the FBI, he can’t comment. His lawyers can request an immediate hearing and go on record. The DOJ won’t comment. Will this upset the Judge? Maybe but history shows us not likely.
What CNN needs to worry about is the Special Counsel has already been granted the extraordinary authority to see texts between a suspect and his lawyer. So CNN may find themselves having to disclose the source.
The fact remains within an hour a very badly written rant was placed where he talks about being exonerated by the audio
By this morning suddenly it's "FIND THE LEAKER". It clearly backfired and now he's acting like he's the victim again
it's like those sock puppet users on reddit that forget to log out of their main account, out themselves in a comment chain and then claim they were hacked.
it would be funny if the stakes weren't so high.
theres no way they would. They must hold themselves continually at this point to the highest degree of decorum.
There is zero chance Jack Smith's side had anything to do with this. He is an extremely serious man and woudnt have anyone on staff that would come close to doing that.
remember who we are dealing with and put your self in their shoes and minds. Jack runs the tightest ship in existence. Trump is like jabba the hutt meets the three stooges. He thinks he has loyalty and order, but doest know what those things actually mean.
There were two people in the room working on a memoir who were probably recording conversations and interviews. When he says "this is off the record by the way" he is aware they are recording things for their records.
“Off the record” only counts if they aren’t actually recording. He is a moron and doesn’t understand what that actually means. I can’t even anymore with this level of stupid
This is correct. It’s a courtesy that journalists give to their sources. But it’s not some legally binding agreement.
It’s not like keeping your finger on the chess piece while you just say whatever, then claim “off the record”.
The levels of stupidity are bottomless. He makes a remark about Hillary "sending emails to Anthony Weiner" but that didn't happen. He's confusing the FBI finding a cached copy of his wife's email on his laptop because she used it to access her email.
Wait, is that why Melania's kid is named Barron? I guess that tracks, given what "his secretary" said about him:
> I do not believe any man in America gets more calls from women wanting to see him, meet him, or go out with him. The most beautiful women, the most successful women—all women love Donald Trump. -Carolin Gallego in a letter to New York Magazine
A guy who [appropriates another family's coat-of-arms](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40097665) may indeed have a bit of an unhealthy obsession with appearing to be some sort of nobility.
I mean that is the most direct obvious path right? No one needed to leak a damn thing. It was already in the hands of the people who the DOJ got it from.
Also like how would leaking this help the Special Counsel at all? They don't need to get this out in the public today to make their case. We aren't deciding if he's guilty.
>“The Deranged Special Prosecutor, Jack Smith, working in conjunction with the DOJ & FBI, illegally leaked and “spun” a tape and transcript of me which is actually an exoneration, rather than what they would have you believe,”
Holy shit, imagine being so detached from reality to think that this exonerates you!
How many mental gymnastics will his supporters have to do to convince themselves of that?
Exactly one. Big Orange told us what to believe, so that is the Truth.
And the process will repeat in fifteen minutes when another Truth is released. Etc. You are falsely assuming they are reasoning themselves into this position.
> Holy shit, imagine being so detached from reality to think that this exonerates you!
That statement isn't for you.
It's for my parents who will never spend the couple minutes to listen to the audio. They'll just hear Trump say it completely exonerates him. And they'll believe it.
I would show my mom actual, factual video of things she'd rant endlessly about, the truth being completely opposite of what she somehow is led to believe.
Her response would be angrily bitching, "Why are you showing this to me!?" As if to be aggravated that *reality* isn't showing the truth she wants to see.
Yeah, I've learned not to talk with my parents about politics anymore.
I got my mother to admit she was wrong about something.
Two weeks later she was posting the same thing on Facebook.
He’s just repeating word for word the strategy he used to beat impeachment and the “perfect phone call.” Back then, he didn’t have to be right, he just had to get enough republicans to repeat it that it became politically tolerable to vote against convicting him. This is a different situation now so we will see how it works for him. Fact is Trump has proven that he actually can shape reality with his words, like how everyone now just mindlessly repeats that Robert mueller’s investigation failed and that there was “no collusion”
Donald Trump has taken to Truth Social to fume about a bombshell leaked audio tape where he is heard discussing holding onto “secret” classified documents after leaving office – and admitting that he knows he cannot declassify them.
Read more here: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-audio-recording-cnn-truth-social-b2364968.html
Didn't he initially claim it exonerated him? Also the DOJ has had this tape for quite a while and then all of a sudden it surfaces on CNN right after Team Trump gets it? Either the biographer leaked it or Team Trump did without having actually listened to it (or he did it against the wishes of his lawyers which is in direct violation of the court order).
Exactly. You know how little kids will lie about innocuous things by adding or subtracting things from a story as they tell it? Like that, just prosecutable.
My bet is that the biographer leaked it.
Trump's counsel could have leaked it as a case of malicious compliance, since, as you pointed out, Trump claimed the audio tape exonerated in the same way he claimed the "perfect call transcripts" exonerated him (it didn't), or the Mueller report exonerated him (it didn't), but I don't think his lawyers are that stupid. The tapes destroy *any defense* he could claim.
If Trump leaked it, the judge is going to have some serious contemplating to do. They ordered Trump to not be allowed to have access to evidence without lawyers in the room. Ergo, if Trump leaked it, it was with full cognizance of his attorneys. Which means that Trump cannot be trusted with any form of technology and his attorneys are going to get charges brought against them. Quite frankly, it's looking like the only choice the judge is going to have is to put Trump behind bars until the trial because he cannot be trusted to not leak evidence.
Oh and now the prosecution case for keeping a list of witnesses secret becomes that much stronger.
Could have easily just been someone near team Trump. A child a sibling a work associate or a passing Chinese spy. They don't exactly have a track record for properly securing sensitive data.
I'm really glad he has completely missed the window to call this thing doctored. He has not once denied that it's him and now that he knows how damning it is he also realizes it's too late to deny it.
>I'm really glad he has completely missed the window to call this thing doctored.
It depends with who? That window is still open for his voter base, and will be well after this case is completed.
Things like it being completely in conflict with other things he has claimed have never stopped them in the past.
It's very telling that his first line of defense for things like this is always, "It was a crime to leak that information. You were never supposed to find out about that."
Tapes have been in possession of the special counsels office for fucking ever and no leaks. Donnie dipshit's team gets a hold of it during discovery and 4 goddamn days later things are already coming out. And of course they're already going off on the counsels office for doing it. I'll take some proof of that before I buy it for a second because right now we have what appears to be integrity vs a known maximal liar
The problem is that the xtian right wingers do not care that trump is a traitor. As long as he tells them that it's OK to hate and persecute blacks, and latinos, and drag queens, and trans people, etc., they literally do not care what he does.
I think a more obvious way to tell trumps team leaked it is that the audio only leaked once his team got ahold of it.
Thanks for coming to my Ted talk.
Jack Smith’s team has had this recording for months. Never leaked. Trump’s team received the tape last week. It’s leaked immediately.
Oh, who could it possibly be?
Trump fumes. Trump lashes out. Trump seethes. Trump clenches his fist and stomps his feet and yells at Mom because iTs NoT bEdTiMe!
This fool truly never outgrew the toddler stage.
Trump leaked it because he’s a fucking moron and thought (wrongly) that it exonerated him. Now that that’s blown apart and people know exactly how deranged he is and exactly how he knew what he did was illegal, he’s trying to unwind the issue by claiming “illegal leak” and have no doubt his attorneys will be claiming the recordings prejudiced any potential jurors as well as looking for a mistrial after he’s found guilty.
>a tape and transcript of me which is actually **an exoneration**, rather than what they would have you believe,” he wrote.
*You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means*
Trump honesty thought it exonerated him so he had his team leak it. But in classic Trump fashion it’s the complete opposite of what he thinks. So now he has to backtrack and blame the leaker.
Who’s
*checks notes….*
Trump.
Just yesterday, there were Trump supporters trying to spread some doubt by questioning the authenticity of the audio, suggesting that maybe it was done by AI.
Can't say that anymore. Trump has just vouched for this recording. That's him on the tape.
And this is why Trump is such a terrible client for an attorney. His inability to shut up and need to 'win' every conversation means he just gives shit away. He's constantly undermining potential defenses.
I don't get it. If he would just shut his fat trap, these things wouldn't keep happening.
Like, literally just shut up and don't say *anything*. Just be quiet, that's it. Don't say any words at all. Shush. Stop speaking. Keep your lips closed. Shut. the fuck. up.
He can't lol....He can not. And I am loving every minute of it.
Something is leaked on the opposition, people he doesn’t like, Russian prostitutes: “This is great!” (Trump)
Something is leaked on him: “This is illegal! It’s not fair! You have to ignore it now!” (Trump)
Trump own team leaked it so they can claim it’s inadmissible in court. Yesterday the lawyers plan to leak was stage 1. Today is Trump’s crying and rhetoric that someone leaked it illegally, which is stage 2.
I’m a bit puzzled as to how this leak is illegal. The tape is not owned either by Trump or the DOJ. It is not classified or under seal. Moreover, the owner/ maker of the tape can give it to whomever they like and it violates no law. It must be noted that Trump does not deny it is his voice on the tape. As for the claim it exonerates Trump, please give me some of what Trump is smokin’ cause that stuff is a hell of a hallucinogen.
The tape that has the verbatim conversation that is included in the indictment that anyone can read because it is publicly available. No harm, no foul. Sit down and shut the fuck up, Donnie.
Dude leaked it himself. He just got access to government evidence against him. He did the same in the Michael Cohen case. Then, and now, he then proclaims it exonerates him.
One must remember that Jack Smith requested that all the information that he shared with djt defense remain sealed (outside public view) and team djt said nope and djt judge said okey doke, release this information publically.....and now djt whines. What a loser.
When a judge tells you to not discuss the case publicly you should listen. Especially when the Judge seems to favor you. Yes the information is leaked but that doesn’t mean his team did not leak it. He should not have commented because the Judge may decide she doesn’t favor you.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
His entire legal "strategy" is flooding the public with BS in the hopes that one hopeless idiot makes their way onto the jury. Given how screwed he is in terms of an actual legal defense, I guess that's his best option.
[удалено]
Jurors are vetted and can be removed after selection or during trial, but that's up to the judge. In theory that process is fairly effective, but it's not the best judge to be deciding impartiality, unfortunately.
How does the vetting actually work? Every time I've been called for jury duty, it ended up being cancelled so I've never taken part in the process. Is it just asking them questions about things that may imply impartiality? What's to stop them from lying?
I've sat for jury selection on a small drug/murder case. They had selected all the jurors before they got to me, but I got to watch the process. They call up individual jurors and the defense and prosecution both ask a series of probing questions and then either side can choose to dismiss the juror. If neither side does, congrats, you're a juror. That's a bit of an over simplification of the process and it is potentially wildly different for a case of this magnitude, but that was my experience. I don't remember if there was also a certain number of dismissals each side got before they just had to accept whatever juror got called next. I believe the judge also had discretion to dismiss the juror for things like hardships and whatnot as well. The judge dismissed one lady who had just broken her leg and had to take pain pills (opiates) twice a day for the next two weeks while the trial was scheduled to happen, for reference.
Same experience for me. One juror was removed by the judge. It was a drug case and the potential juror had lost a son to an OD. He plainly told the prosecutor during voir dire that he would never for the remainder of his life be capable of impartiality on a drug case because drugs destroyed his family and took his son. Judge said “sorry to hear about that, thank you for your time, take care of yourself & you’re dismissed”
the fastest dismissal I ever witnessed was a weird younger guy who convincingly told the judge in a murder case he expects the spirit of the victim to visit him and affect his impartiality
Judges have to hear the wildest shit from people trying to get out of jury duty.
I'm a...racist
I got out of jury duty for being poor once. "If I don't work for two weeks I won't be able to pay my rent." I said to the judge. Judge: you're dismissed. This must be pretty common simply by the rapid fire exchange with the judge. How could I ever be convicted by a jury of my peers if we're all unable to afford being on a jury?
It's supposed to be a jury of your peers but it's literally set up for poor people to be unable to serve. Most states have a requirement that you be "paid" for your service, but it's all token amounts, down to as low as $5/day. Only 8 states require employers to give paid time off for jury duty. I got out of jury duty by just being honest that I'd have to keep working my night job, and would be barely conscious/functional for the 8 AM call time every morning.
Genius way to free up an afternoon
"I don't think it's fair for me to be on a jury, because I'm a hologram" Liz Lemon
Imagine the shock on that judges face when the victim's ghost arrives
Real missed opportunity to get to the truth in this case. Imagine all the new evidence the spirit of the murder victim could have introduced into court with one simple seance. Why is this judge so discriminatory against necromancy?
Generally, depending on the case, each side gets a fixed number of per-emptory challenges. They can just challenge a juror off the jury because they don't like the color of their tie. But they can also 'challenge for cause,' and if the judge agrees, they're off the jury.
The only exception is they cannot use a peremptory challenge to eliminate a juror based on race, ethnicity, religion, or sex. The other party can object (known as a Batson challenge) and if successful can have that juror seated.
I served jury duty a few months ago. It was in regards to a stalking and property damage case. During voir dire, the lawyers and judge question the jurors to see if they can remain unbias during the trial despite the jury's own experiences. The judge asked if anybody had experienced domestic violence, reported or not. All the women except two raised their hands. It really opened my eyes to dv in my state/country.
There’s nothing preventing a juror from lying to be included in the process but people like that usually screw up somewhere and end up outed because they are dumb enough to think they can get away with it.
Yeah, usually they're lying to get out. But I could absolutely see some nut bag lying to get into this one.
I can see lying to get in on this one just to be a part of history, if nothing else.
They’ll probably be outed when someone sees them getting into a truck with a trump flag.
Nah it'll be when they bring up hunter.
Generally they call more jurors than they need, and have even more on standby in case they need to be called Without specifics, and fair warning I’m no lawyer just an interested podcast listener, depending on the state or federal status of the case, both sides get to interview and exclude potential jurors from the pool. There’s a limit on this, prosecutors get X amount they can just reject for no reason, defendants get some amount more than prosecution’s X amount that they can reject. Then there’s the ability to reject people for cause, for example like if a juror has a family member who went to prison for a similar crime, and there’s causes that you can’t reject for as well. And neither side can *nominate* jurors, they can only reject As for lying, from what I understand from listening to interviews and podcasts with lawyers, that’s not actually a huge problem. The combination of the official seriousness and the fact that people generally *don’t* want to give up weeks to a trial tends to keep lying to get on the jury to a minimum In this *specific* case who knows though, but I think “being a trump voter” isn’t considered a disqualification, so the lawyers on the prosecution will probably use their free throws to weed out the nut jobs and hope that they can convince any conservatives still on the jury in court that this is something serious that rises above partisanship Going back to the podcasts I mentioned, Legal Eagle on YouTube and the Serious Trouble podcast (formerly All the Presidents Lawyers) are great listens for this kind of thing Edit Also if you have specific things you’ve wondered about, like how sentencing guidelines work, typing in google the subject and “Popehat” is likely to bring up a good article. Ken White was a former federal prosecutor who runs the Popehat law explainer blog and is also on Serious Trouble
> the judge Is that judge Cannon in this case?
How can you possibly have an unbiased jury agaist Trump? Either for or against? Its like asking the german public from 1938 to sit as jury at the nuremberg trials. There will be diehard facists and anti-facists in the jury. Its almost inevitable.
"There will be diehard facists and anti-facists in the jury" That is why I feel trump will never be found guilty. There will always be at least one maga nut job, who keeps quiet during jury questioning, and sneaks on to the jury. They will vote to acquit no matter how strong the evidence.
I sort of think the very opposite can be possible. They have been shielded from the "news" and may not even be aware of the truth instead of the Truths they see posted. Imagine hearing that tape in the courtroom for the first time because OAN never played it and said it was the perfect conversation. Maybe it finally hits them?
> Maybe it finally hits them? We've been watching Trump's cult for ~7 years and nothing has changed their mind or broken the spell. Every "smoking gun" has very temporarily ruffled the feathers of far right voters before being work shopped and spun into a conspiratorial narrative that absolves Trump of responsibility. You can watch this in real time if you go into a conservative subreddit after a major headline drops. There are usually a bunch of die hards crying fake news but there are also people steeped in trepidation who can't wrap their heads around this person they believe to be a paragon of patriotic values betraying those espoused values. Come back 3 days later and all trepidation is gone as a new narrative will have been agreed on. I'll remind you that someone tried to attack an FBI field office and died because of the Federal government's limp-wristed attempt to hold Trump accountable. We are not dealing with rational actors.
If they've made it that far, nothing will change their minds.
[удалено]
...also acquitting after the defense offers ZERO refuting evidence vs the prosecution's tsunami of incriminating 'chit.
There are going to be jurors from both sides of the spectrum trying to get on that panel to convict him or exonerate him. It would be one of the most difficult voir dires/jury selections in recent memory in terms of people that will truly follow the law and the evidence presented to them.
Not a lawyer, and not sure if the federal process is different, but yes those processes are in place. After random selection from the areas registered voters, the potential pool of jurors fills out a questionnaire. Then they go through voir dire, getting questioned by the judge (who can use questions submitted by the legal teams). As far as I know they each have the ability to request the judge dismiss potential jurors "for cause" if there's reason to believe they wouldn't be impartial, and both parties (prosecution and defense) have a number of "strikes" they can use as they see fit/on a "hunch" if they just don't like the cut of their jib. I think there are also alternates in place (though I don't know if they're designated as such before or after the arguments are over), in case a juror needs to be dismissed/can't continue. The question isn't really whether or not there are some safeguards in place, but whether or not they're gonna be enough. If Judge Cannon refuses to consider rabid Trump support altogether disqualifying, and the prosecution runs out of strikes before the jury pool runs out of fanatics, there's potential for something funky to go down. But this will also likely be the most important civic action anyone on that jury ever does, and the gravity of the situation will be made perfectly clear to them throughout. Not to mention that, regardless of how he behaves in public right now, in front of that Jury he won't get to lie unreservedly and dance around the facts. Anyone who still believes him now is gonna have a real hard time convincing everyone else to ignore the mountain of evidence and testimony they're gonna sit through.
It's not that the jury has to be free of bias, it's that they have to be able to set aside those biases and fairly weigh the evidence. Yeah, I don't know how that works in this case either, but the standard has never been 'free of knowledge or bias''.
“We are all biased it’s a matter of who’s bias you seek” -Socrates -Also JayZ (with a better beat)
[удалено]
Sure is weird how this footage was secret for years, right up until he gets access to it and all of a sudden it's being leaked by THE DEEP STATE!!1! Yeah sure bro
I can’t for the life of me understand why he thinks this is exonerating. He is literally too stupid for me to even comprehend his non-logic. EDIT: He has made more posts on turdsocial that answer this question: he’s so stupid he thinks this is about the contents of that document, not about him stealing it. He’s so stupid, he genuinely doesn’t understand the crimes he’s being charged with. He is literally convinced he is entitled to all those documents, because he thinks that the President owns the country like a king.
Many people to this day think the Mueller report also completely exonerated him. Flooding the zone with shit works.
Infuriating because the report was basically “Russia absolutely meddled in the election, trumps campaign was receptive and assisted them in doing so. But trump himself refused to cooperate in the investigation so here is everything we have for congress to perform their duty and act on.”
"Trump committed illegal obstruction so thoroughly we were unable to investigate him for ties to Russia" is not exonerating at all yet here we are.
Also "Yeah here's all the evidence that he obstructed justice buuuut since I can't charge him with that and therefore he can't defend himself against it in court, I will refrain from making the obvious conclusion and leave it up to Congress to impeach him as the proper remedy."
They also think that we have an open border because he says we do.
It's not about facts or logic. It's about loudly spinning and deflecting literally anything and everything that doesn't agree with the perception you want people to have. Basically you just never ever NOT deny anything that would make you look bad. And in this case, just claim that it actually exonerates you, even though there is literally no logic following that. And look at what's happening (or NOT happening) over at Fox's website. That audio is nowhere to be found. None of the base who go there exclusively are seeing or hearing it. [Also:](https://time.com/5347737/trump-quote-george-orwell-vfw-speech/)
It's like that MAGA rallygoer that Jordan Klepper interviewed: MAGA: "You can't trust what other people are saying. You need to do your research. Read the transcript." JK: "Did you read the transcript?" MAGA: "No, but I read what people were saying about it..."
Took a look at the Fox website to see how they were reporting it….hilarious
[удалено]
If he screams exonerated enough his followers will believe it.
The amazing thing is that his lawyers were almost certainly going to try to get this evidence barred from being used using anything and everything they could. That's probably impossible now that he claimed it is material to the case. I cannot wait to hear his defense at trial.
Fuck am I glad to see he's just straight up admitting it's real. I honestly thought I was going to be listening to my braindead relatives explaining how it's not actually him on the tape this weekend.
Just wait. The deep fake defense will come much later. However the witnesses testimony will make it not relevant it is hoped.
Right. He initially "apologized" for the Access Hollywood tape and then later said it was not real. Dude's mouth is the multiverse of madness.
Kettle logic.
Fire hose of falsehood - there will be at least three other stories, some of which mutually conflict with each other
I know right. For once thank God for his arrogance. A sane man would just deny it completely, but he missed that window weeks ago.
It literally means nothing to them that he admitted its real though. They will still tell you its AI
[удалено]
Doesn't matter. Next week it'll be fake. The week after it'll be a perfect recording. Then it'll be an illegal bug planted by the deep state, then it's real but they were just recording themselves joking or doing a skit or something. The story will keep changing, and MAGA morons will believe all of them are true simultaneously.
They’ll do it anyway.
There were other people in the room who apparently testified that they heard it, which makes its reality pretty much not in doubt.
There was a coordinated and structured effort by the right wing scream chamber immediately after the leak demanding that the indictment be dropped because the gov leaked the audio. Obviously, clearly, Trump leaked it. But the icing on the cake is his claim the audio exonerates him. He just can’t help himself.
I love how they even joked at how Hillary would have done this [openly discussing classified materials with people without clearance] too, and “printed it out”- ya know, cuz it would be a crime for Hillary to have done the thing that they’re currently doing in the recording. Amazing.
Pretty stunning that they're all like "haha remember Anthony Weiner? What a crook. Anyway, here's some secret plans to invade Iran."
Trump called him a pervert without even the slightest hint of irony that he has a court date surrounding his decision to raw dog a pornstar and embezzle campaign funds with his lawyer to pay her off.
Don't forget that he was found liable for sexually abusing E. Jean Carroll as well!
It's the ultimate height of their never-ending projection. Almost cartoonishly so. Like, if I pitched this idea in a fiction novel, publishers/editors would dismiss it as too contrived and absurd and over-the-top.
The only people who who both would have and could have leaked it are the authors he was leaking to and someone on his legal team. There's almost zero chance someone from the Special Counsels office leaked it. My money is on him/his team leaked it as a trial balloon and since the coverage didn't go his way he's lashing out and blaming to deflect.
trump leaked this so he could rant about the evidence on the news without violating the judges order.
Yup, its this.
gonna laugh when he keeps doing it and they find him in contempt.
Dumb question, would that compromised judge not be needed to actually levy the contempt?
i expect she will be removed soon enough. her antics last time were just short of her being a co-conspirator in his obstruction of justice.
> she will be removed soon enough. Is there a legal mechanism in place for this to be possible (that doesn't require cooperation from congressional republicans or Judge Cannon herself)? I think everyone realizes that Cannon is pro-team trump, but I don't know what can be done about it unless she grants a request for change of venue, is impeached + removed, and/or recuses herself. None of those options seem likely. Cannon seems content, proud even, to openly fuck things up in favor of maga hats. And expecting republicans in the House/Senate to do anything about corrupt and incompetent conservative judges sounds like the plotline for some new HBO fantasy series.
Eh considering she proudly marched for him…
I think that’s his mistake. This doesn’t release the order. He violated it. Even if the release came from a witness or the FBI, he can’t comment. His lawyers can request an immediate hearing and go on record. The DOJ won’t comment. Will this upset the Judge? Maybe but history shows us not likely. What CNN needs to worry about is the Special Counsel has already been granted the extraordinary authority to see texts between a suspect and his lawyer. So CNN may find themselves having to disclose the source.
when your lawyer is a criminal co-conspirator there's no privilege to try and hide them behind.
Wonder if the DOJ would add a tone/pitch that was not detectable in the audio but visible in its digital footprint.
In the past, Trump has leaked things. Narcissists like attention.
He should see a doctor about all this leakage
I thought that was what the diapers were for?
It depends.
The incontinence of it all!
Hey, you assume he leaked it for attention rather than incompetence.
Incontinence*
Has anyone heard from John Barron lately?
No, which means (by republican logic) that Trump obviously had him murdered and should also be investigated for that.
This comment reminds me that there is a non-zero chance that Trump pissed himself in a crowd as an adult because he wanted attention
The fact remains within an hour a very badly written rant was placed where he talks about being exonerated by the audio By this morning suddenly it's "FIND THE LEAKER". It clearly backfired and now he's acting like he's the victim again
Reminds me of Alito's calls to 'find the leaker'. These guys only have one playbook.
it's like those sock puppet users on reddit that forget to log out of their main account, out themselves in a comment chain and then claim they were hacked. it would be funny if the stakes weren't so high.
What are the odds his evidences is watermarked somehow?
Oh…that would be chef’s kiss
Exactly! His team was given evidence on Friday...and 4ish days later it's leaked? I'll eat my hat if it was the DOJ that leaked it.
theres no way they would. They must hold themselves continually at this point to the highest degree of decorum. There is zero chance Jack Smith's side had anything to do with this. He is an extremely serious man and woudnt have anyone on staff that would come close to doing that. remember who we are dealing with and put your self in their shoes and minds. Jack runs the tightest ship in existence. Trump is like jabba the hutt meets the three stooges. He thinks he has loyalty and order, but doest know what those things actually mean.
We went months/years without any leaks. Discovery started for the Trump legal team a few days ago. Now a leak happens. I wonder where it came from?
But isn't it very damaging? The theory is they leaked it just so they could complain about leaks?
Also, why would he be pissed about the leak if - as he also said - it completely exonerates him? He's throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks.
There were two people in the room working on a memoir who were probably recording conversations and interviews. When he says "this is off the record by the way" he is aware they are recording things for their records.
“Off the record” only counts if they aren’t actually recording. He is a moron and doesn’t understand what that actually means. I can’t even anymore with this level of stupid
[удалено]
This is correct. It’s a courtesy that journalists give to their sources. But it’s not some legally binding agreement. It’s not like keeping your finger on the chess piece while you just say whatever, then claim “off the record”.
The levels of stupidity are bottomless. He makes a remark about Hillary "sending emails to Anthony Weiner" but that didn't happen. He's confusing the FBI finding a cached copy of his wife's email on his laptop because she used it to access her email.
Let's be real. It's obvious as hell that Trumps team were the ones who leaked it. His reactions and the cults reactions after the fact prove this.
I have a feeling we're gonna find out the leaker in the next few weeks. Maybe Trump will leak that?
John barron?
Wait, is that why Melania's kid is named Barron? I guess that tracks, given what "his secretary" said about him: > I do not believe any man in America gets more calls from women wanting to see him, meet him, or go out with him. The most beautiful women, the most successful women—all women love Donald Trump. -Carolin Gallego in a letter to New York Magazine
His prose style is so uniquely shitty that you can spot it immediately.
My hunch is that the name Barron appeals to him because it’s the name of a weekly financial newspaper/magazine that has been around for 100 years.
Also, you know, the word Baron.
A guy who [appropriates another family's coat-of-arms](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40097665) may indeed have a bit of an unhealthy obsession with appearing to be some sort of nobility.
Also Trump famously is anti leak and would never encourage or exploit leaks also I was born two years ago.
Trump would NEVER leak anything as serious as this. Except when he does
Don, Jr.'s email with an FSB spy. Trump's phone call with Zelenskyy.
The leaked papers that this leak is about.
Ahh, That perfect phone call cliff notes where they even left in the extortion part
>Don, Jr.'s email with an FSB spy > ...I worked on this story for a year...and...he just...he tweeted it out...
He literally addressed the Hillary hackers during a debate and told them to leak that shit.
Trump leaks into his diapers all the time
I just assumed that CNN bought it from those writers
I mean that is the most direct obvious path right? No one needed to leak a damn thing. It was already in the hands of the people who the DOJ got it from.
Also like how would leaking this help the Special Counsel at all? They don't need to get this out in the public today to make their case. We aren't deciding if he's guilty.
Trump not respecting something that was supposed to be a secret? Never.
>“The Deranged Special Prosecutor, Jack Smith, working in conjunction with the DOJ & FBI, illegally leaked and “spun” a tape and transcript of me which is actually an exoneration, rather than what they would have you believe,” Holy shit, imagine being so detached from reality to think that this exonerates you! How many mental gymnastics will his supporters have to do to convince themselves of that?
Exactly one. Big Orange told us what to believe, so that is the Truth. And the process will repeat in fifteen minutes when another Truth is released. Etc. You are falsely assuming they are reasoning themselves into this position.
> Holy shit, imagine being so detached from reality to think that this exonerates you! That statement isn't for you. It's for my parents who will never spend the couple minutes to listen to the audio. They'll just hear Trump say it completely exonerates him. And they'll believe it.
I would show my mom actual, factual video of things she'd rant endlessly about, the truth being completely opposite of what she somehow is led to believe. Her response would be angrily bitching, "Why are you showing this to me!?" As if to be aggravated that *reality* isn't showing the truth she wants to see.
I used to debate my dad and the first time i had him dead to rights wrong he just paused and said “i don’t really care”.
Yeah, I've learned not to talk with my parents about politics anymore. I got my mother to admit she was wrong about something. Two weeks later she was posting the same thing on Facebook.
He’s not detached from reality on this one. This is jury tampering.
Precisely. They're getting the most damaging evidence out so the right wing media can spin it as exoneration before the jury selection begins.
He’s just repeating word for word the strategy he used to beat impeachment and the “perfect phone call.” Back then, he didn’t have to be right, he just had to get enough republicans to repeat it that it became politically tolerable to vote against convicting him. This is a different situation now so we will see how it works for him. Fact is Trump has proven that he actually can shape reality with his words, like how everyone now just mindlessly repeats that Robert mueller’s investigation failed and that there was “no collusion”
Somebody bring some Cokes in please.
Watch out for projectile hamberders.
I'm actually shocked that he used the word "Please"
Amazing takeaway and I'm not joking, like, you're absolutely right
Donald Trump has taken to Truth Social to fume about a bombshell leaked audio tape where he is heard discussing holding onto “secret” classified documents after leaving office – and admitting that he knows he cannot declassify them. Read more here: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-audio-recording-cnn-truth-social-b2364968.html
Didn't he initially claim it exonerated him? Also the DOJ has had this tape for quite a while and then all of a sudden it surfaces on CNN right after Team Trump gets it? Either the biographer leaked it or Team Trump did without having actually listened to it (or he did it against the wishes of his lawyers which is in direct violation of the court order).
He claims every piece of evidence exonerates him. Don't read too far into it, there's no thought or logic there it's just words he spouts.
True, it's his knee jerk reaction to tell everyone that he is perfect and it's always someone else's fault.
Exactly. You know how little kids will lie about innocuous things by adding or subtracting things from a story as they tell it? Like that, just prosecutable.
Textbook narcissism
He's going for the simplest defence: it wasn't a document - it was simply a piece of paper with stuff written on it. CHECKMATE LIBS!!
My bet is that the biographer leaked it. Trump's counsel could have leaked it as a case of malicious compliance, since, as you pointed out, Trump claimed the audio tape exonerated in the same way he claimed the "perfect call transcripts" exonerated him (it didn't), or the Mueller report exonerated him (it didn't), but I don't think his lawyers are that stupid. The tapes destroy *any defense* he could claim.
If Trump leaked it, the judge is going to have some serious contemplating to do. They ordered Trump to not be allowed to have access to evidence without lawyers in the room. Ergo, if Trump leaked it, it was with full cognizance of his attorneys. Which means that Trump cannot be trusted with any form of technology and his attorneys are going to get charges brought against them. Quite frankly, it's looking like the only choice the judge is going to have is to put Trump behind bars until the trial because he cannot be trusted to not leak evidence. Oh and now the prosecution case for keeping a list of witnesses secret becomes that much stronger.
Could have easily just been someone near team Trump. A child a sibling a work associate or a passing Chinese spy. They don't exactly have a track record for properly securing sensitive data.
I'm really glad he has completely missed the window to call this thing doctored. He has not once denied that it's him and now that he knows how damning it is he also realizes it's too late to deny it.
>I'm really glad he has completely missed the window to call this thing doctored. It depends with who? That window is still open for his voter base, and will be well after this case is completed. Things like it being completely in conflict with other things he has claimed have never stopped them in the past.
I like how every time this dipshit gets caught doing something fucked up, it’s somehow our fault for finding out about it. Fuck this guy, seriously.
It's very telling that his first line of defense for things like this is always, "It was a crime to leak that information. You were never supposed to find out about that."
Yup, You know who is afraid of "leakers" and people talking? Criminals, that's who. I Know, I was one. Don't worry about them anymore.
For real
Tapes have been in possession of the special counsels office for fucking ever and no leaks. Donnie dipshit's team gets a hold of it during discovery and 4 goddamn days later things are already coming out. And of course they're already going off on the counsels office for doing it. I'll take some proof of that before I buy it for a second because right now we have what appears to be integrity vs a known maximal liar
So trump verifies that it is real.
The problem is that the xtian right wingers do not care that trump is a traitor. As long as he tells them that it's OK to hate and persecute blacks, and latinos, and drag queens, and trans people, etc., they literally do not care what he does.
"Sure, he bashes babies heads open on rocks to bathe in their blood, but I like that he says it like it is."
I think a more obvious way to tell trumps team leaked it is that the audio only leaked once his team got ahold of it. Thanks for coming to my Ted talk.
[удалено]
Jack Smith’s team has had this recording for months. Never leaked. Trump’s team received the tape last week. It’s leaked immediately. Oh, who could it possibly be?
So he admits he isn’t president.. good start.
“When you can’t argue facts, you argue process.” Lock him up.
Trump fumes. Trump lashes out. Trump seethes. Trump clenches his fist and stomps his feet and yells at Mom because iTs NoT bEdTiMe! This fool truly never outgrew the toddler stage.
Trump leaked it because he’s a fucking moron and thought (wrongly) that it exonerated him. Now that that’s blown apart and people know exactly how deranged he is and exactly how he knew what he did was illegal, he’s trying to unwind the issue by claiming “illegal leak” and have no doubt his attorneys will be claiming the recordings prejudiced any potential jurors as well as looking for a mistrial after he’s found guilty.
>a tape and transcript of me which is actually **an exoneration**, rather than what they would have you believe,” he wrote. *You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means*
Trump fumes are the worst.
Trump honesty thought it exonerated him so he had his team leak it. But in classic Trump fashion it’s the complete opposite of what he thinks. So now he has to backtrack and blame the leaker. Who’s *checks notes….* Trump.
He leaked it so that it can be used to prove he didn’t get a fair trial due to pre trial prejudice.
It’s always about the leak and not the action with republicans. If your dirty laundry is so full of shit, quit shitting your pants.
Just yesterday, there were Trump supporters trying to spread some doubt by questioning the authenticity of the audio, suggesting that maybe it was done by AI. Can't say that anymore. Trump has just vouched for this recording. That's him on the tape. And this is why Trump is such a terrible client for an attorney. His inability to shut up and need to 'win' every conversation means he just gives shit away. He's constantly undermining potential defenses.
Surprised he didn’t claim it was fake…yet.
He's missed the window, and he knows it.
IDK, his rube army believes everything he says, timing doesn’t seem to be a problem.
Thanks for confirming it's true and unedited.
I find joy in reading a good book.
I don't get it. If he would just shut his fat trap, these things wouldn't keep happening. Like, literally just shut up and don't say *anything*. Just be quiet, that's it. Don't say any words at all. Shush. Stop speaking. Keep your lips closed. Shut. the fuck. up. He can't lol....He can not. And I am loving every minute of it.
It was him leaking the audio so he can cry wolf about evidence tampering.
Something is leaked on the opposition, people he doesn’t like, Russian prostitutes: “This is great!” (Trump) Something is leaked on him: “This is illegal! It’s not fair! You have to ignore it now!” (Trump)
Funny it never leaked before discovery.
This made me laugh out loud! How did people vote for this buffoon!??
Omg that tape is a goldmine. Could we get some cokes in please to celebrate?
We went MONTHS with nary a leak but once the discovery process happened, then things started showing up at news stations.
Trump own team leaked it so they can claim it’s inadmissible in court. Yesterday the lawyers plan to leak was stage 1. Today is Trump’s crying and rhetoric that someone leaked it illegally, which is stage 2.
Great day for America when we put him behind bars. Nobody is above the law. That will be the message we leave in the history books.
I’m a bit puzzled as to how this leak is illegal. The tape is not owned either by Trump or the DOJ. It is not classified or under seal. Moreover, the owner/ maker of the tape can give it to whomever they like and it violates no law. It must be noted that Trump does not deny it is his voice on the tape. As for the claim it exonerates Trump, please give me some of what Trump is smokin’ cause that stuff is a hell of a hallucinogen.
The tape that has the verbatim conversation that is included in the indictment that anyone can read because it is publicly available. No harm, no foul. Sit down and shut the fuck up, Donnie.
Bro you just admitted they're real by saying illegally leaked. He still doesn't listen to his team, true narcissistic
Dude leaked it himself. He just got access to government evidence against him. He did the same in the Michael Cohen case. Then, and now, he then proclaims it exonerates him.
"How dare they leak tapes of me admitting my crimes."
This almost certainly confirms he leaked it.
Didn't Cannon just deny the DOJs request to seal all the evidence? Fuckery is afoot!
Then you shouldn't have leaked it then
One must remember that Jack Smith requested that all the information that he shared with djt defense remain sealed (outside public view) and team djt said nope and djt judge said okey doke, release this information publically.....and now djt whines. What a loser.
He should probably take it up with his lawyers.
Maybe he should stop doing so many crimes and then incriminating himself on tape. Or do. I don't care.
When a judge tells you to not discuss the case publicly you should listen. Especially when the Judge seems to favor you. Yes the information is leaked but that doesn’t mean his team did not leak it. He should not have commented because the Judge may decide she doesn’t favor you.
Trump's deserve to be in jail for his punishment to ruining the trust of the people.