Trump Changes Track, Signaling He May Not Testify at Trial

Former President Donald Trump gave a substantially different answer when asked on May 2 whether he would testify in his own defense at trial.

“Well I’m not allowed to testify, I’m under a gag order,” he told reporters before leaving court on Thursday afternoon.

On several previous occasions, President Trump’s response was an emphatic “yes” when asked the same question.

This change came the same day New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan held a second hearing over whether President Trump violated his gag order.

“We’re going to be appealing the gag order. I'd love to answer that question, it’s a very easy question, the easiest question, but I’m not allowed to testify because this judge, who’s totally conflicted, has me under an unconstitutional gag order,” President Trump told reporters.

“Other people are allowed to do whatever they want and I’m not allowed, as a presidential candidate, the leading candidate, the Republican candidate nominee and the one who’s leading Biden by a lot, and I’m not allowed to talk,” he said.

President Trump has been on trial since mid-April for allegedly falsifying business records in what the Manhattan District Attorney claims was a scheme to influence the 2016 election.

“Well I’m not allowed to testify, I’m under a gag order."

Oh I see. Trump actually means he's not allowed to answer the question about testifying. Of course he can testify in his own defense, but I'm guessing the judge - in his infinite lawfare - has ordered Trump not to even answer a question about testifying.

I don’t even know exactly how this is falsifying business records. They put it as an expense, as attorney fees. But even if it was “hush money” it is still an expense. I’m not sure how you put “hush money” on the profit and loss statement. Say he paid it off to settle a dispute, or to protect his business from slander or something like that. It’s still an expense. Maybe advertising expense. Or misc expense. Doesn’t really matter, it’s an expense.

Even if they claim it was done for campaign reasons, it’s still an expense. I know they tied this to a federal campaign violation; which every other prosecutor looked at and said it’s not a crime or not a crime worth pursuing. Gary Hart did the same thing.

So you have maybe one minor campaign finance thing - maybe - because this is not the first time a politician bought silence. And it’s arguably not a campaign thing as the witnesses said this happens all the time with non politicians. And it all went between the corporate lawyer and the extortionist’s lawyer not even the campaign. And it’s arguably a payment to protect his name or his family from the nuisance and embarrassment unrelated to the campaign.

Now, supposedly it was an asset purchase and not an expense. I read that it was structured such that he bought the story rights, which means she can’t talk about it. Didn’t she even have to give the money back? I seem to recall something about that. Any way Say technically it’s an asset not an expense. Maybe that exposes him to a tax audit thing ( or since it’s trump, a criminal tax fraud case lol). The witness today said something to the effect that the story had ongoing value. So if this is this case then yes it is a false business record. It was an asset purchase investment, not an expense. But the statutes of limitations is expired on that claim in New York unless it is also tied to the other allegation. So if it was an asset purchase and the story had value - then in no way is it a campaign violation and there is no “second misdemeanor” that makes the first one a felony. He bought the story rights and can choose to produce a book or movie or do nothing at all with it. Many stories get bought but never turned into films or published books. So if it’s an asset purchase then there is no campaign issue, and thus no crime to piggy back onto, and the case should be dismissed because the statutes of limitations have run out.

This entire case is ridiculous. I know Trump can’t say too much - not because of the gag order as much as he has to reserve all his possible defenses. But he’s right the case is a sham political persecution run from the White House. The White House and the DNC have been after him for 9 years with every batcrap crazy theory they can muster.

Excellent play here.

He is saying he can’t reply to the simple question; “will you testify?”, because it could be used against him according to the “gag” order. HOWEVER, I suspect that he is also intimatng that if he testifies, his responses and testimony could be considered by the judge as commenting ABOUT the judge, the ABOUT the DA and ABOUT the entire witch hunt and the violations of his rights. A potential violation of the gag order, which is suffocating his own ability to defend himself in court, therefore a potential violation of his lawful right to defend himself upon the stand.

If the latter is also in play, his attorneys should file a motion to dismiss on the grounds that he is unable to defend himself on the stand due to court imposed threats due to what he may say AGAINST the court and the DA in his responses to questions while on the stand, according to the wording of the “gag” order.

IF this is so, then this case should be thrown out, or might be overturned very quickly.

...but I’m not a lawyer

I have also been trying to find a crime. Then it occurred to me. They are not interested in following the rule of law. They want to use the law to obtain their desired end. In this case, it means getting a conviction on Trump before the election, even if it means abusing the rule of law.

I believe that the underlying crime will not be identified. Rather, the prosecutors are repeatedly stating that there was a conspiracy to commit election fraud. This is being done to convince the prosecution-friendly jury that there is no doubt that Trump et al conspired to commit election fraud.

When it goes to jury, Merchan will instruct the jurors to determine whether they believe that the evidence presented by the prosecutors demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump committed election fraud. It doesn’t matter that no specific charge was presented. It doesn’t matter that Trump was never indicted, brought to trial, or convicted for election fraud. If the jury presumes that it is true that Trump committed election fraud, they can use it as the underlying crime to bring about a felony charge.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.