this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2023
321 points (99.1% liked)

politics

19143 readers
3499 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

That the significant cooperation under discussion involves four of Trump’s attorneys underscores the reality that the former president’s regularly touted defense that he was relying on the good-faith guidance of his attorneys during the attempted coup was, and is, nothing more than self-serving fantasy. In the courtroom—as compared with on television or in social media—he has never had the ability to offer that defense.

In court, the advice of counsel “affirmative defense” requires a defendant to prove two things: First, that he relied in good faith on his lawyer’s advice that the conduct in question at trial was legal, and second, that he made a full disclosure of all relevant facts to the attorney before receiving that advice.

Based on my four decades in the courtroom as both federal prosecutor and defense attorney, I can report that the assertion of the attorney-client privilege by a criminal defendant at trial is a black swan event—effective only with the consistent, overlapping trial testimony of both the attorney and the defendant, and the admission into evidence of any documents reflecting the communications or advice they testified about.

all 35 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 99 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In short, you can’t claim “lawyers told me to do crimes” when those same lawyers say “you asked us to plan crimes”.

[–] [email protected] 48 points 1 year ago

Also, attorneys who have pleaded guilty necessarily break attorney-client privilege in the context of their crimes. As of now, Trump can't prevent Chesebro and Powell from testifying against him in this case on that basis. Neither can Guiliani or Eastman or anyone.

[–] cabron_offsets 72 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There’s a certain irony in that orange turd being laid out by a guy named cheese bro.

[–] [email protected] 41 points 1 year ago (2 children)

If only the guy that ultimately drives the bus that takes Trump to jail is named Brandon

[–] kescusay 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm an atheist, but if that happens I'll take it as evidence that if there does happen to be a god, whoever it is has a grand sense of irony.

[–] FuglyDuck 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So.

If the bus driver happens to get his name changed to Brandon….

Does that make him god?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In that moment? Yes. He can be God for a day.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Maybe just a King for a Day?

🎶It is not a good day, if you are not lookin' good

This is the best party that I've ever been to

Today I asked for a god to pour some wine in my eyes

Today I asked for someone to shake some salt on my life🎶

https://youtu.be/vCktbM5Uqk4

[–] Mamertine 3 points 1 year ago

I somehow doubt that most of the prisoners would be chanting "let's go Brandon" though. I suspect being transported to prison is a somber event.

[–] [email protected] 33 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I have no doubt that Trump will stand up in the courtroom and claim that he was incompetent to make proper choices in 2020 AND go to the GOP convention and say that he's the best person to be President

[–] TallonMetroid 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Doncha know, he's only pretending to be mentally deficient to own dem libs.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

There actually was a New York Mafia boss who avoided jail for years by wandering around the neighborhood in pajamas and pretending to be crazy.

[–] ChunkMcHorkle 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Unfortunately he's not an idiot, he's a malignant narcissist, with diagnosable narcissistic personality disorder. He's quite adept at keeping attention on himself and deflecting negative narratives, which is what his entire personality has been cultivated around.

[–] ChunkMcHorkle 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

deleted by creator

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

He has been caught on tape admitting to mishandling classified information. His current defense? That he was just lying to look cool. And he's the leading contender on the Republican side, by a long shot. It's fucking mind-boggling.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Pretty much every day from election Night 2016 until mid 2020 I was saying 'this is unbelievable.'

[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] FuglyDuck 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Let’s dump some water on that grease fire. You know. For science.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] FuglyDuck 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

I am perfectly well aware of what a grease fire is, still would prefer gasoline.

[–] pasci_lei 22 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

The rat from Wisconsin

Sometimes, the simulation gives a little back with its humor

[–] billwashere 6 points 1 year ago

I cannot not read his name as Cheesebro. I’ve tried.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why the hell does that one guy has to be named Che(e)sebro? I always take sentences with his name in them as sarcastic.

[–] FuglyDuck 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Imagine if his parents named him “Mack”…

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

The law firm of Mack and Chesebro. We specialize in circus related injuries.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

Chesebro needed to take the deal, his case was fucked after that last dismissal was denied.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

One thing that I think people are underestimating is that Willis's team really didn't want to try these two chuckleheads separately and months before everyone else.

Leverage can flow both ways, I'm sure part of the reason they got off easy was because the DA really wanted this trial not to happen.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

The court itself really didn't want to try the case. They were on defense about offering a plea.

[–] asg101 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I will be shocked to hear anything other than a steady litany of I cannot recall at the trials.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

From Trump, maybe. From anyone taking a plee deal, you will not. Their deal is only valid as long as they cooperate. They will also have written records regardless. If they don't cooperate, they get the full weight of the law upon them again.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago