And it’s based on his “advice of counsel” defense

  • OldWoodFrame
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    137
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    I hate the terminology of ‘prosecutor set a trap’ or ‘perjury trap’ if you remember when Mueller wanted to get Trump to testify under oath. It might be a trap in the sense of catching someone, but it gives off this sense of plotting and scheming to unjustly nab an unknowing innocent being that was just going about its business, like when you trap a rabbit or something.

    It’s not a trap. Trump doesn’t have a good defense because he did do the thing he is accused of. A horseback cavalry charge against a machine gun isn’t “a clever trap by the machine gunner” one side just has the tools to win, and the other side doesn’t.

    • khepri@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      11 months ago

      Yeah, it’s much more like a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” thing than a trap. Or a “backed yourself in to a corner” you might say, or, “completely fucked yourself and the prosecutor knows it and is going to use it”. But it’s only setting a trap in the sense that any airtight prosecution tactic based on rules and evidence that leaves the defendant no way out could be called a ‘trap’

      • stringere@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        I’d put just a bit more distance in there. Trap, to me, implies bait or deception being used to lure something or someone into a place or situation of your design.

        Jack Smith did not design the situation that the defense team placed themselves in. I am reasonable sure he’s overjoyed that they did.

        The OP article does make a good case for exactly how that defense will fail in multiple ways, from a legal standpoint.