The legal team has further assured Trump that even if he were [sent to jail for violating the judge's orders], they would likely be able to deploy a variety of legal tactics to keep him from spending any time behind bars.
Fucking bullshit that is.
this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2023
239 points (97.2% liked)
politics
19097 readers
4808 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
People think trump has shit attorneys because no one good will work for him
A more likely reason is that Trump won't hire an attorney that won't tell him what he wants to hear. So of course his attorneys will tell him he won't go to jail no matter what. If they told him what was going to happen, they wouldn't be his attorneys anymore. And some other group of greedy idiots would be sitting at the table.
So yeah, it's bullshit. But trump and maybe some of his kids are the only ones who don't know it. His lawyers 100% know it's bullshit.
It's a little of both.
Some attorneys won't work for him because tying their reputation to him is a toxic move.
Some won't work for him because he's notorious for not paying and, as much as they are lawyers and so must enjoy being in court, they don't want to have to sue to get paid.
Some won't work for him because he's notorious for not listening to his attorneys. If your lawyer tells you to stop with the public statements because they are hurting your case and your response is to INCREASE the frequency and intensity of your statements, your attorney might quit.
And some Trump won't work with because they tell him the truth instead of what Trump wants to hear.
Combine all this and Trump's selection of lawyers is extremely thin. He's got one or two that might be somewhat decent, but the rest are a mixture of bottom of the barrel lawyers who see Trump as a quick way of rocketing their careers. Of course, to quote Woody from Toy Story, "rockets explode!" They could just as easily find their careers blown to bits, but they are willing to take the risk.
I said this before, but I watched the Minnesota Supreme Court case and his lawyer was fantastic. He was very young, so that might be why he took the case, IDK. Still troubling after seeing the smug asshole he has for the Colorado trial.
"Some of those lawyers have preemptively turned Team Trump down"
I'm not sure if being thrown in jail would be good politically for Trump or not. However, I see no reason not to find out.
Mein Kampf was dictated to Rudolph Hess in Landsberg Prison.
Hitler was in his mid-30s even he was in prison, though. Trump seems to be modeling his political career after him, 40 years too late.
He's going a little out of order, and moving a lot faster than Hitler did. I'd say he's averaging about 25 years behind. Which means his eventual suicide should be in about 4 years.
If he eats enough adderall and McDonalds that his heart stops, does that count?
I mean, I’ll take it.
Back then war(and dictatorship) was a matter of young. Now it is a matter of old.
The problem is that Trump will never be thrown in jail as we know it. He'll go to jail and he'll look tougher for it even though his stay would have been like a Motel 6.
This explains a lot. They also don't think he'll actually go to jail.
The ex-president’s legal advisers had long ago told Trump that his chances of winning at trial are close to zero — hence, their scorched-earth, “Fyre Festival”-style courtroom performances. According to the three sources, several Trump attorneys and other key allies have advised him that the more the New York judge supposedly “overreacts” — including perhaps remanding Trump — the better their case for an appeal will be.
The funnier version would be if they do think he'll be arrested and are intentionally trying to get him remanded to custody.
The liability is what else comes out of happens as a function of this trial. It can materially impact his other trials.
Don't threaten me with a good time
Monday's going to be fun... But keep in mind, it's not televised, so we'll have to wait for breaks and EOD for the full story.
"Celebrity Lawyer" Dershowitz? Dafuq. That's like towing the line of journalistic malpractice. He defended Epstein, Weinstein, OJ Simpson and the subject of the fucking article Trump. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. Can't wait for Rolling Stones Humanitarian edition for Kissinger
More like "Celebrity" Lawyer Dershowitz. As in: everybody knows his name, he's a celebrity - for defending the most deplorable people who have ever faced trial.
Contempt of court that arises during a trial has zero effect on the outcome. A judge can throw you in jail for violating decorum, much less violating an order.
Trump’s legal team needs to watch My Cousin Vinny again.
Yeah id love to see the shocked Pikachu face on the attorney who told him he wouldn't sit in jail at all as the bailiffs haul Trump's ass out of court.
It is the liberal democracy’s attack on the ideologue that clinches his victory. But we also have no choice but to try to hold him to account. It’s an ancient dance and we’re locked into it. I see no way out.
times are about to get a whole lot darker.
What are you going to do, throw me in jail?
- jailed man
And courts of appeal often reverse convictions or verdicts when the judge has made serious errors.
That is a gross simplification of what happened. Title X of the 1968 Civil Rights Act was found to be a violation of the First Amendment's protection to free speech. Given that the Government's main backing for bring about the charges on the Chicago 7 was no longer valid, the Government sought to not retry the charges that were remanded by the appeals court. The Court did not toss out some of the criminal charges, just simply indicated the Government needed to redo the trail and the Government declined because their core argument was gone. I cannot see the State of New York's core argument that Trump took money not his, suddenly evaporating any time soon. But deadly virus in 2019 was not on my Bingo card so, who knows at this point?!
Additionally, the parts that were tossed out or remanded were of criminal nature for the Chicago 7. Trump in this case faces civil penalties, there's hardly the incentive to undo a wrong that's just moving money around as to freeing someone who has been wrongly jailed. And finally, Trump's case has the State of New York seeking equitable remedy, not legal remedy.
There are so many facets of Trump's case that are so wildly different than the Chicago 7. That's not to say that there's no parallel, obviously a Judge must behave and prudently deal with mischief within their courtroom. So there is a concern about the gag order that the Judge has issued, but at the same time there's been a deluge of threats sent into the office of the Judge. What those threats entail, who knows, but the Judge has shown a massive amount of restraint because if this was literally ANYONE else, that person's ass would be in jail for contempt at light speed. So the threats might be shown to be serious enough to justify the Judge's near exasperated sentiment with Trump.
So Alan Dershowitz does have a point and Dershowitz is not some idiot lawyer, so him saying this indicates that someone has a very good idea of the path that they would navigate. Would Alan Dershowitz step in if Trump got hauled off for contempt and blaze the path forward? (Because Alan Dershowitz is not currently Trump's lawyer, he was his lawyer during the first impeachment trail. Which interestingly, Alan Dershowitz was repaid for his time as Trump's impeachment lawyer by the then President pardoning ten of Alan Dershowitz's previous clients. One of them being George Nader who plead guilty to child pornography. So it's actually a good question if Dershowitz would get involved since Trump no longer has the power to pardon anymore of Dershowitz's clients.)
That's not to say that Chris Kise cannot hold his own. Chris Kise being Trump's lead lawyer on the New York case. Chris Kise is not an idiot either, he's not exactly the best lawyer but his experience as Florida's solicitor general has given him some experience at having a cool composure in pretty stressful situations in a courtroom. And he's not exactly one to seek out limelight for sake of being popular. So I wouldn't put it pass Chris Kise to have some idea about how to do this strategy that Dershowitz is indicating. But that said, them being open about trying their hand at this does also hurt their case. Additionally, Judge Hoffman who presided over the Chicago Seven case compared to Judge Engoron who presides over this case, the difference to how they've handled the respective cases thus far is pretty stark. Judge Engoron has gotten upset but it has been way less of the "YOU DAMN YUPPIES!!" that Judge Hoffman exuded.
So, if this is indeed the plan by Chris Kise, Kise is smart enough to likely pull it off. But that said, the details of their example case and this case are so vastly different, it's really hard to see the parallel and indicate that they could absolutely pull this off.
Isn't Kise the lawyer in Colorado? IMO, and I'm not a lawyer, he leans very far into the shitty layer category. He said "they're far right or conservative" and didn't correct himself. He says, "Uuuuuuuuuum, let me ask you this,..." so many times I want to punch him. He keeps trying for a gotcha moment when he's cross examining for a judge trial. This judge is smart as a whip and catches everything too, I doubt that would work. I could be wrong though, maybe I don't understand how it works since I'm not a lawyer. If I was on a jury, I haven't seen any great evidence because the petitioners tear his witnesses apart.
Edit for an example and the one that cracks me up the most: The petitioners lawyer asked the defense witness if he really thought that the crowd was filled with happy and joyful people just enjoying the speeches and he said yes. "In the picture you provided, is that guy holding a pitchfork?" The witness said yes and the layer asked if that is a happy and joyful weapon.
Plus, wasn't the Chicago Seven case famous for literally jailing everyone for contempt, including all the lawyers and all of the defendants, multiple times each, some before the trial even started or after it ended?
He's shooting for a mistrial. Regardless, we can try the jail thing. No cell phone while he's in either.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
As Donald Trump prepares to take the stand in the civil fraud trial that could destroy his business empire, the ex-president and his attorneys have settled on a strategy built on spite and unbridled antagonism.
The ex-president’s legal advisers had long ago told Trump that his chances of winning at trial are close to zero — hence, their scorched-earth, “Fyre Festival”-style courtroom performances.
In recent weeks, the former president and some of his lawyers in the New York civil fraud trial have discussed the likelihood of Judge Arthur Engoron very aggressively responding to Trump team’s strategy of relentless hostility and defiance.
The tactics have included attacks on Engoron’s court clerk, filibustering the prosecution’s witnesses with repetitive questions, and raising legal arguments the judge had already specifically prohibited.
On Friday, Chris Kise, Trump’s lead attorney in the case, appeared to test the judge’s patience by once again by attacking his court clerk, Allison Greenfield, with claims about her “excessive political donations” from a Wisconsin man who describes himself as “Applying the 69th Amendment to the Internet!” in his Twitter bio.
Fredin’s attacks had previously helped to land Trump in trouble with Judge Engoron when he posted a screenshot from the man’s Twitter’ account insulting Greenfield on his Truth Social platform.
The original article contains 1,132 words, the summary contains 209 words. Saved 82%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!