What does the future hold for Donald Trump? - threadbans in OP

A good thread (unrolled below the link) from Renato Mariotti...

"THREAD: What should we make of news that DOJ sought testimony from former Trump official Kash Patel and Trump employee Walt Nauta in the Mar-a-Lago criminal investigation? 

1/ Today the New York Times reported that former Trump official Kash Patel, who has said publicly that he supposedly personally witnessed Trump verbally declassified documents, took the Fifth before a D.C. federal grand jury.

2/ Patel reportedly took the Fifth "many" times in response to questions from federal prosecutors.

In addition, the Times reported that Walt Nauta, who worked in the White House as a military valet and cook and now works for Trump personally at Mar-a-Lago, has been interviewed. 

3/ Apparently Nauta's initial statement to prosecutors conflicted with evidence, leading them to be "skeptical" of his "initial account."

DOJ has security camera footage showing Nauta "moving boxes out of a storage area at Mar-a-Lago" and has interviewed him twice about that. 

4/ The Times reported Nauta indicated that Trump directed him to move boxes, which would be important evidence that Trump was trying to obstruct the DOJ's investigation.

But that conflicts with his initial account to the DOJ, and now they're threatening him with charges. 

5/ As for Patel, federal prosecutors have now asked a judge to force him to testify, presumably by granting him immunity for his testimony. If he is granted immunity, he would be forced to testify because you can't assert the Fifth if you have no potential criminal liability. 

6/ So what does all of this mean?

It is common for witnesses like Nauta to have conflicting accounts that evolve over time. Initially, a witness can be reluctant to be truthful and then open up more during subsequent interviews.

This makes them challenging witnesses at trial. 

7/ Defense counsel (in this case, Trump's lawyers) could use Nauta's conflicting stories to suggest that his testimony at trial is unreliable.

Prosecutors aren't looking to actually charge Nauta and are likely using potential charges to motivate him to be forthcoming. 

8/ It's apparent that prosecutors are trying to develop Nauta as a potential witness against Trump. You don't put this much effort into developing a witness like him unless you're considering criminal charges.

At trial, his eventual testimony would be backed up by the video. 

9/ As for Patel, his story that he was in a room with Trump while he was President when he supposedly verbally declassified documents is very difficult to believe.

Prosecutors are right to try to lock that down, and Patel was right to avoid repeating that lie under oath. 

10/ Patel's decision to take the Fifth is a rare savvy move by him. The fact that DOJ is trying to compel his testimony suggests that he isn't their target.

Compelling his testimony makes sense if the goal is to get him to admit that he lied, undercutting Trump's defense. 

11/ All of this suggests that DOJ is pressing forward with a criminal investigation and that Trump is their target. That's significant news that suggests that they won't be satisfied by a deal in which Trump gives them any remaining documents. 

12/ Also, the fact that this testimony occurred in the District of Columbia suggests that it will be indicted in D.C.

The Constitution requires that crimes be charged in the place where they occurred. But here, the crime occurred in multiple places. 

13/ D.C. is a wise choice. Among other things, the DOJ is based there and there is strong case law in D.C. federal courts that the need for grand jury testimony outweighs executive privilege and even attorney-client privilege between government attorneys and the president. /end "

that is shocking watching, you have 10 voters there who have been completely sucked in by Trump disinformation on the election and Jan 6th and are now parroting it verbatim. As the tweet says it just goes to show the depth of the penetration of the right wing social media eco system that has done this to them and there are literally millions of these people who vote. When the truth is discarded for these people where do you even start.

I'd love to hear the reasoning behind such a statement.

Other than "because Donald Trump said so".

Help me out here @MisterAnarchy

Trump testifying in a live hearing would be a sh*tshow not just for him, but for everyone.It wouldn't matter what questions he was asked, he'd deflect and just shout about other things, dragging the whole thing down tangential rabbitholes like so many of his supporters do on forums, social media etc. He might commit perjury, but at what cost? He and his most ardent supporters in the GOP have already helped do monumental damage to political discourse and the roles of hearings and committees once they know they're in front of cameras. Trump testifying live would just make it worse.

I'd also worry that some of the Dems on the Committee would try take their shot at Trump because it was live and end up f*cking it up in their questioning, rather than letting experienced prosecutors/investigators handle the majority of the questioning.

Cheney is right (God I still hate the fact I occassionally think that....), Pelosi is probably taunting Trump to get him to testify, but it shouldn't be live or televised. The best course of action might be that if he agrees to a closed-door testimony and questioning, then the Committee will have a live hearing and allow him to speak at that. Then play back clips of his testimony right to his face, showing how he doesn't believe what he's saying enough to have said it under oath, pointing out contradictions in his statements etc. Let him justify that live on TV rather than give his actual testimony live on TV.

It'd be easy to ridicule this but maybe a little friendly advice instead. If you think Liz Cheney is a RINO, you definitely don't know a single thing about Liz Cheney or the Cheney family. They are as traditional Republican as they come.

If you're looking for an insult for Cheney, maybe "Never Trumper" would be closer to accurate - although, Cheney voted with Trump over 90% of the time when he was in office, so that's not really true either, is it?

The actual fact of the matter is that Cheney is a Republican, but in contrast to the majority of the party these days, she has a conscience and some human decency, and has the best interests of the United States at heart. That's what sets her apart from the rest. And please don't forget that it's down to Trump and McCarthy that the January 6th Committee is in its present form. They destroyed any chance of a properly bi-partisan investigation, so you can call it a kangaroo court all you like, but the people to blame for that are the people you're worshipping. I'm sure this has been a waste of time but hey, such is the world that we live in these days.

Do you think that's a good thing? Do you think that it's good that either political party should be able to use their power to stop on-going investigations into people in their own political party, even when numerous criminal charges have been brought or are in the process of being investigated?

The Republicans led an investigation into Benghazi, which Hilary Clinton testified at under oath for several hours and no evidence warranting any legal or criminal charges to be brought against her could be found. If the GOP had started the investigation, but Clinton and others stonewalled it for several months until the Dems took control, and the Dems then decided "the committee will then be dissolved and assigned to the dustbin", would you think that was a good thing?

Regardless of anyone's thoughts about why the Committee started this investigation into Jan 6th and attempts to overturn the election results, significant evidence has been found. Numerous people have plead the fifth during their testimony (which isn't refusing to cooperate with the investigation, but protecting themselves from self-incrimination). People have started to be imprisoned for refusing legal subpoenas. Actual criminal investigations are on-going.

Do you think it's a good thing that a political party can dissolve on-going investigations into members of that same political party? Because if you do, then you can't claim to care about truth or justice or the law. You only care about political power, and you should really think long and hard about the state of politics you're willing to accept.

Here comes Clarence..

Unfortunately Trump won't be testifying at a live hearing, if you look at the actual subpeona here, the third box indicating the request for live testimony isn't ticked

Subpoena accepted

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/oct/27/trump-lawyers-subpoena-capitol-attack-january-6

Was expecting quite the influx of trump supporters, revelling in the return of 45, which apparently was to be imminent upon Musk taking over.

Frankly, I sincerely hope he does. Everyone knows that the one thing that trump can do well is open his mouth and make things invariably worse for himself

He seems to have really stepped in it.

Graham seems oblivious though. He took to Facebook after this and strutted over Whoopi how her outrage proved he’s not literally a racist or something.

Yes he is. My fiancés step-side of the family uses the word N* like a verb in otherwise polite conversation