Jan. 6 defendant seeks to subpoena Trump as witness at trial

[pnwmom]

Source: NYTimes

Almost from the moment that the first rioters were arrested in connection with the violent attack on the Capitol last January, defendants have tried in various ways to blame former President Donald J. Trump for their behavior.

Some have attempted to get out of jail on bail by claiming that they stormed the building because Mr. Trump said they should. Others have sought reduced sentences by arguing that they only joined the riot because they believed Mr. Trump had authorized them to do so.

On Friday, however, one Jan. 6 defendant took a different and much bolder step in seeking to pull Mr. Trump into the center of his case: He and his lawyer asked a federal judge for permission to subpoena the former president and several of his allies to testify as witnesses at his trial.

“It is anticipated that, when called as a witness, Donald J. Trump will testify that he and others orchestrated a carefully crafted plot to call into question the integrity of the 2020 presidential election and the validity of President Biden’s victory,” the lawyer, Samuel H. Shamansky, said in court papers filed on behalf of his client, Dustin Thompson.


Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/04/us/politics/jan-6-defendant-trump-subpoena.html

[dem4decades]

1. Hasn't a judge already blocked this?

[former9thward]

17. They have blocked it in other cases, I don't know if a ruling has been made on this one.

[ificandream]

22. Why would a judge block this? Because he was President? I don't see why they would

[former9thward]

23. It would be blocked if the testimony is not relevant to the defendant's case.

The defendant has a theory of the case just like a prosecutor does. Witnesses that are called are only allowed if they have testimony that support's the theory of the case by the side that is calling them. Testimony by public figures has to be testimony that is not otherwise available by public media.

[ificandream]

24. Maybe they assume he wouldn't say anything ...

... but at least they have to try.

[reACTIONary]

25. Couldn't form the bases for an appeal ? nt

[Turbineguy]

2. Trump under oath.

[msfiddlestix]

3. This one promises to be quite the circus

It will be interesting to see how this one will roll.

[Srkdqltr]

4. Wouldn't that be interesting?

[Cha]

5. Good Luck with that, Dustin

Sucker Thompson.

[usonian]

6. Does anyone remember ...

the previous time he swore an oath? As in "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States"?

Unfortunately, he found a loophole:

"to the best of my Ability"

And who can forget

“The mob takes the Fifth", or

“If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?"

Some of his pals just did.

It would be interesting, but don't count on it.

[Grokenstein]

9. He has opinions about pleading the Fifth...

Link to tweet

[jmowreader]

7. Here's what I predict...

&t=60s

[SergeStorms]

8. Good luck with that.

Although Trump doesn't believe in god (except with himself assuming the position) he'll never be sworn in to testify. He could never keep a straight face when asked if he "swore to tell the truth ". He's deathly allergic to truth of all kinds.

[twodogsbarking]

10. Truth is meaningless to Trump.

He could swear on anything and keep a straight face. He doesn't have human qualities at all.
If it benefits him he will tell the truth; or lie. To most there is a difference. To Trump neither truth or lies
are in his limited vocabulary. Never expect him to act, well, human. He is a cold blooded creature.

[Emile]

11. I want to see that pos under oath, so why are they not making him testify?

[ancianita]

12. Trump won't show up. He's got SS to stave off subpoena enforcement sent by any court.

[former9thward]

16. Not true.

No judge or court has said Trump must appear. The SS will not block subpoenas.

[ancianita]

18. I stand corrected. Thanks for the info about the Secret Service.

[3Hotdogs]

13. There was a Supreme Court decision about 10 years ago. It affirmed, you are entitled to

subpoena witnesses, no matter how insignificant the case or important the person being served.

Acting presidents have been exempt. Former presidents... I don't know of any cases.


If Trump doesn't show, does the defendant get to walk?

I recall that Alex Jones lost a civil case because he failed to honor a subpoena.

[former9thward]

15. That is simply not true.

No, you can't subpoena anyone "no matter how insignificant the case". No courts have said Trump must appear.

[bluestarone]

19. Just curious

What would br TFG's defense as to NOT being subpoenaed? Does he have one, in your opinion?

[former9thward]

20. The court would want to know the relevance of any testimony to the case.

Someone saying "I believe Trump wanted me to take over the Capitol building" is not going to do it. They would have to show that Trump specifically directed the defendant(s) in illegal actions. They would also have to show that whatever Trump said was said in some sort of private communication to them and not in a public media which is available to anyone. If they can't pass these bars then a court would not compel testimony.

[bluestarone]

21. Gotcha!

Thanks.

[70sEraVet]

14. Sounds like SOMEBODY got a damn good lawyer!

And SOMEBODY ELSE can't seem to get one!