189
submitted 1 year ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

Highlights:

As prosecutors and lawyers for Donald Trump spar over the former president’s public statements, Trump the candidate keeps saying things that could hurt Trump the defendant’s chances in court.

Some of Trump’s public statements have already gotten him in legal hot water, with a partial gag order issued in a civil business fraud trial that is underway in New York, and a hearing Monday on a broader possible gag order in Trump’s D.C. criminal case.

Lawyers said such public declarations are deeply damaging to his defense, as he regularly appears to admit, on video, to particular elements of the crimes he is accused of committing.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 3 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Yet at a Wednesday night rally in Florida, Trump boasted anew about information that he suggested might be classified, and he repeated past claims that he was justified in keeping sensitive documents at his Mar-a-Lago home and private club.

Asked for comment, Trump spokesman Steven Cheung said he and his lawyers “are fighting together — in the courtroom and in the court of public opinion” against what they charge are leaks by the Biden administration and politically motivated prosecutions.

In an interview with NBC’s “Meet The Press” last month, Trump kneecapped a key defense strategy his lawyers have raised in that case — that he was fighting the election results based on advice from attorneys.

On Monday, U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan — who is overseeing Trump’s pending D.C. election-obstruction trial — will consider a broader gag order to prevent him from intimidating witnesses or tainting the jury pool in that case.

One adviser, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal strategy, said that the indictments had helped Trump with a political problem: Small-dollar donors were not giving at levels like they had in the past, and some data showed sagging enthusiasm for his candidacy.

One former Trump lawyer said that during the investigation of potential Russian interference in the 2016 election, the president’s attorneys urged him in an Oval Office meeting not to tweet about special counsel Robert S. Mueller III or the probe itself.


The original article contains 1,834 words, the summary contains 242 words. Saved 87%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2023
189 points (97.5% liked)

politics

19244 readers
2245 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS