How Trump's deny-everything strategy could hurt him at sentencing
How Trump's deny-everything strategy could hurt him at sentencing
Donald Trump has had plenty to say since his hush money trial conviction last week. What he hasn’t done is utter any variation of the words that might benefit him most come sentencing time next month: “I’m sorry.”
You're viewing a single thread.
He probably would have won the trial if he his defense had just said: "Yes a crime was committed, but it wasn't Trump. He just signs the checks. Sure he fucked the porn-star, but thats not a crime."
That's literally what they said. They were trying to convince the jury that Cohen did the whole thing all on his own. It didn't work.
I followed everyday of the trial. Denying literally everything was central to the defenses strategy.
Here is a good NYT breakdown of it, but also, like everyday it was the same thing in the trial.
and the key quote:
The defense lost a winnable case by adopting an ill-advised strategy that was right out of Mr. Trump’s playbook. For years, he denied everything and attacked anyone who dared to take him on. It worked — until this case.
I mean they denied the affair with Stormy Daniels. They denied several, easily provable things. If they would have just 'admitted' a few of those things, but strongly denied any Trump knowledge of wrongdoing, they probably could have won: It was a criminal who objectively hates Trump that was needed to make that connection.
Instead the defense denied everything. Even the provable stuff. After that it was just personal attacks. I mean look how the defense took on cross with Cohen. They made it about them. It was a disastrous approach.
...no it wasn't?
They tried to deny almost all of what happened.
For those passing by, keep in mind that @TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world is someone who thinks Democrats are fascists.
Yes, Nougat is correct, thank you for pointing this out. Its not relevant to this conversation, but I take it as a point of pride.
I oppose fascism if its coming from Republicans, and I also oppose it if its coming from Democrats too.
If you do not oppose fascist policies because its a Democrat proposing or supporting it, you do not stand against fascism.
Saying that US citizens are no longer allowed to criticize an ethno-state that is engaged in the active genocide of a people, funded by US taxpayer, is absolutely a component of setting up a fascist authoritarian state. Criminalizing dissent is one of first steps towards fascism & authoritarianism that happens when people fail to recognize of holding their own political agents to account. Likewise, we have an extremely authoritarian border bill, that it looks like Biden will sign.
If you only oppose fascism and authoritarianism when it comes from Republicans, you are not an anti-fascist. If you only oppose racist policies when they come from Republicans, you aren't an anti-racist.
Brave of you to rebuke with your personal justifications for your opinions.
People here are deliberately trying their hardest to build their own echo chambers and do not appreciate hearing opposing views such as yours.
Nor do many care to read your thoughts, and would rather read shit that makes them feel things as if everything and everyone needs to fall into a fucking category.
Beware the fascists in lemmy.
Once into context, Nougat isn't make the point they think they are.
To be perfectly clear, you are a person who is disconnected from reality.
I mean, if you can't oppose fascist policies because they came from within the party you support, that says much more about you than it does me.
The irony is so thick with this one.
The consequences of not paying your lawyers, you only get shitty lawyers in the end
Yeah, from what I've seen of other trial lawyer defense & prosecutorial analysis, Trumps lawyer was just not good/ rusty.
I also think the defense strategy was just not good.
You can't deny 'everything' in a case like this, you have to be really strategic about intent etc. Like if Trump had allowed themseves to be thrown under an bus and made some kind of argument like "Look I was campaigning, I had no idea what was going on, the books are ALL BS, I dont pay that much attention, and then I was president and I couldn't pay attention".
But I really think Trump couldnt' suffer that slight against his pride..
Read an article by a lawyer; they said the same thing you did.
The writer said that the side with the simpler case is the one that usually wins. The defense never created a story to explain what happened; they just denied everything.
Trumps lawyer was just not good/ rusty.
From what was said on Meidas Touch, a defense lawyer should be fairly independent. They should direct the best strategy. In this case the "strategy" seemed to be directed by Trump. It's not just the quality of the lawyer, it's also that the lawyer let the client dictate most of the defense.
