Posted on 07/20/2023 3:02:28 PM PDT by Reno89519
Donald Trump faced a deadline of midnight on Thursday to say if he would appear before a Washington grand jury convened by the special counsel Jack Smith to consider federal charges over his election subversion and incitement of the attack on Congress on 6 January 2021.
trump and docs Donald Trump’s legal problems: where does each case stand? Read more Late on Wednesday, citing two people familiar with the matter, the Guardian reported that prosecutors had assembled evidence to charge Trump with three crimes.
They were: obstruction of an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the United States, and an unusual statute that makes it unlawful to conspire to violate civil rights.
Obstruction of an official proceeding is punishable by up to 20 years in prison. Conspiracy to defraud the United States carries a maximum five-year sentence. The civil rights charge is punishable by up to 10 years in prison.
By Thursday afternoon, all indications were that Trump would not agree to testify.
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
Show up at 11:59
I still think he missed the opportunity at previous arraignments to have supporters walk with him to the court, offer remarks to the public before going in.
Say he will testify when Joe Biden testifies under oath about Burisma and his sons “business dealings”. He will testify when Hillary Clinton testifies under oath about the Russia collusion hoax and how she incited riots for 4 years by telling college students to “resist”.
Kinda like there are 1000’s of woke prosecutors, and only one Trump.
The problem is that if refuses, then they finally have something they can get him with - obstruction.
Our legal system is insane. 20 years for disrupting a meeting? That’s cruel and unusual punishment
He should not attend. He is too undisciplined and impulsive to be questioned in that setting.
Why would he want to testify? They’ll charge him no matter what he chooses to do, and if he does say anything, they will try to use it against him in the trial.
Prodded by the judge, a lawyer revealed that a grand jury witness faced questions implicating “executive privilege” — the latest sign of Smith’s probe into Donald Trump’s conduct after the 2020 election.
A federal judge on Thursday upbraided special counsel Jack Smith’s prosecutors — who may be on the verge of indicting former President Donald Trump — for causing a delay in an unrelated hearing in a Jan. 6 criminal case.
U.S. District Court Judge Trevor McFadden sent a U.S. marshal to summon Smith’s prosecutors from the grand jury room — where they were grilling a Trump-connected witness — to his courtroom Thursday afternoon.
That led to a bizarre scene in which Thomas Windom, a leading prosecutor on Smith’s team investigating Trump’s effort to subvert the 2020 election, marched down the courthouse hallway and filed into McFadden’s courtroom during the ongoing Jan. 6 proceeding, a lengthy bench trial verdict for Federico Klein and Steven Cappuccio, who stand accused of violence toward Capitol Police.
...
The dispute centered on the role of Klein’s attorney, Stanley Woodward, who also represents a constellation of Trump associates involved in Smith’s probes. Woodward arrived 25 minutes late for the 2 p.m. verdict, prompting a frustrated McFadden to demand an explanation.
Woodward initially asked to speak to the judge in private, citing grand jury secrecy rules, but McFadden made clear he absolved Woodward of his secrecy obligations and asked for an explanation in open court.
Woodward revealed that he had a client before the grand jury who was being asked questions that implicate “executive privilege.” He said prosecutors had assured him they would halt their questioning in time for Woodward to appear at the verdict, but when they did not, he felt obligated to remain by the grand jury room.
...
Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/20/trump-grand-jury-witness-executive-privilege-00107442
No, they can’t charge him with anything for refusing to appear before a grand jury that is trying to indict him. 5th amendment.
No attorney with him. No cross of prior witnesses. Only need 50% to indict. Thanks but shove you request smith up your nether region.
The Name of the Rose
❌
Grand jury
Any names?
I sure haven’t seen any mentioned. That Politico article gave some insight but not a list of names. Not sure if there is public list of who the respective lawyers represent. This is all where we suffer from not have real journalists anymore.
Yes it’s very dangerous times the tipping point is nearing.
Oh that would be fun. He would face a grand jury under oath. The GJ could ask him anything. And his lawyer would not have any input.
That would be cool.
On the one hand you want to face the jury, but unlike a court trial you cannot ask questions, you are not represented by counsel, you cannot put up witnesses of your own, and you cannot cross examine witnesses or present counter-evidence. A grand jury proceeding is a prsoecutor show trial, period.
Yes of course he can decline to talk to the grand kangaroo jury.
“Defraud”
Pence as a politician whose very job was at stake was fully aware of the status of the election counts in the states concerned.
The electoral submissions were simply petitioning Pence and the Congress under Amendment I to keep the disputed election counts as an actionable legal issue.
Every person charged was cheated, it was only a question of how much.
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.