"I created the Leahy Law. It should be applied to Israel."
International by Donna     January 14, 2025 10:33 am (Rating: 5.0) Last comment by: Indy! (25 comments) [269 views]

Israel and Hamas Agree to Gaza Cease-Fire Deal
International by Curt_Anderson     January 15, 2025 9:52 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (1 comments) [19 views]

Fascist America.
Politics by meagain     January 14, 2025 3:04 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (8 comments) [58 views]

Pam Bondi Hearing
Law by HatetheSwamp     January 15, 2025 7:49 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: (0 comments) [10 views]

California jumped 10 points toward GOPs in 024... BEFORE the LA fires brouhaha
Politics by HatetheSwamp     January 15, 2025 4:19 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: (0 comments) [28 views]

Pete Hegseth
Government by HatetheSwamp     January 14, 2025 7:17 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (4 comments) [56 views]

Oregon sends fire fighters to Los Angeles; Ashland sent a crew and equipment
Government by Curt_Anderson     January 13, 2025 10:09 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: meagain (5 comments) [128 views]

Jill Biden Prepares For Final Week As President
President by HatetheSwamp     January 14, 2025 8:37 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (5 comments) [75 views]

CA MAGA politicians flee CA to hang out with Trump at Maralago as L.A. burns
Travel by Donna     January 13, 2025 7:43 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (7 comments) [85 views]

pb's Legal Goober #1: "Smith's one sided screed is lawfare at its worst"
Media by HatetheSwamp     January 14, 2025 3:26 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: (0 comments) [13 views]

I asked my nephew, a lawyer, about Trump’s defense. By Curt_Anderson August 6, 2023 12:01 pm Category: Law (0.0 from 0 votes) Rules of the Post Write A New Article How To Post Here

He is a lawyer with the department of transportation in Washington DC. He supervises lawyers, he works with lawyers and many of his friends are lawyers. I asked him if any of those lawyers say that Donald Trump has a plausible defense against the federal charges he’s facing. None of the lawyers he knows think that Trump has a decent defense. The consensus is that any variation of a First Amendment defense won’t fly legally, but they think that it might be difficult to convince 12 people to convict in either of the cases. It takes just one hold out juror to save Trump from a guilty verdict.

My nephew also expressed his personal opinion that Merrick Garland was not eager to pursue a January 6 investigation and prosecution of Trump. But when the documents case came up that forced Merrick Garland‘s hand. At that point he was obliged to name a prosecutor so then it became natural to include the January 6 case too.

Comments Start Below

by oldedude on August 7, 2023 3:46 am I find it strange that all of a sudden, you "know" lots of "lawyers." jussayin. by HatetheSwamp on August 7, 2023 4:10 am OD, Curt's nephew doesn't seem to understand how the law works. Garland hasn't brought charges against Trump. The special counsel has. by Curt_Anderson on August 7, 2023 4:49 am OD, For the past two weeks we’ve been on the East Coast visiting family and friends. Between my wife’s family and her friends who we have visited there are at least four people with law degrees. HtS, without Merrick Garland’s say-so there would have been no special counsels looking at Donald Trump or Joe Biden. by Ponderer on August 7, 2023 7:17 am But you're forgetting, Curt, that if they are part of your family, they are obviously woke lawyers. So they don't count. by HatetheSwamp on August 8, 2023 3:23 am Clearly, po, this DC bureaucrat lawyer is a Swamp lawyer. by Indy! on August 8, 2023 10:15 am Just a hunch, but I think the ONLY people who will want to be on that Trump jury will be MAGA. by Ponderer on August 8, 2023 5:53 pm "Just a hunch, but I think the ONLY people who will want to be on that Trump jury will be MAGA." -Indy! Probably a good thing that the jury pool isn't taken from Trump's Truth Social followers. Wait, I think Trump's lawyers actually filed a motion about wanting to do that... by oldedude on August 8, 2023 7:39 pm Isn't that like taking a federal trial to DC to judge hunt and find a dim jury in his case? by oldedude on August 8, 2023 7:47 pm Curt- regarding the lead post to the thread, and your 'splaining your nephew, sone of a nephew, distant cousin of a cousin, whatever. In my thought, you need to learn by learning from someone who disagrees with you in order to learn. You need a whole whoop of self confirmation ergo confidence from my read. I could make you my asset in about two days. I'm just sayin' that you need lots of pats on the back to "think" you're doin' the right thing. If I make you think it's a liberal cause, you'll adhere to what I ask you to do. Even though you're arresting your wife. by Indy! on August 8, 2023 8:06 pm What they need to do is find 12 people who don't care about politics. by Curt_Anderson on August 8, 2023 11:21 pm OD, On the matters of Trump’s apparent intentions to use a first amendment defense in this trial, those who think it’s a good defense are just simply wrong. You can’t learn much from people who are purveyors of falsehoods and mistaken notions. The first amendment defense seems to be more political than legal. That is, it’s meant for the MAGA section of the court of public opinion not for the actual trial court. But to your point, generally you can learn from those who hold opposing opinions by challenging them in their challenging, your opinion. Occasionally those people with opposing opinions sometimes learn too. Indy, A person would have to be comatose not to have formed an opinion about Donald Trump. Jurors don’t have to be nitwits, ignorant and/or apolitical. They just have to agree to and commit to putting aside their biases. What my nephew said about the consensus opinions of the attorneys that he knows is that it just takes one hold out to have a hung jury. They don’t even need to be a secret MAGA supporter; the person could be simply a contrarian. by HatetheSwamp on August 9, 2023 3:37 am BTW, I caught a Harry Hurley interview of Andy McCarthy, member of pb's Legal Advisory Council, yesterday in which the former federal prosecutor detailed several very serious strategic issues for Jack Smith with the documents indictment. McCarthy continues to maintain that the documents thing is the one legitimate indictment of Trump but...and this is why people like po, who read an indictment as porn, are foolish...the journey from evidence to conviction is, as the Beatles sang, a "Long and Winding Road." View Video by Curt_Anderson on August 9, 2023 4:44 am HtS, So even your preferred conservative lawyers say the documents case is legit. Nobody disagrees that these Trump cases will be protracted and often delayed. by HatetheSwamp on August 9, 2023 5:47 am Curt, That's why I found the McCarthy interview so enlightening. I've cited McCarthy himself as saying that the document charges are "legit." Hurley and he were talking about the journey from investigation through indictment to, ultimately, "We find the defendant guilty." And, based on McCarthy's experience as a prosecutor, McCarthy sees some reasonably serious issues Jack Smith has created for himself...some of which have to do with the possibility that the judge may exclude some of the very convincing evidence. Bill of Rights, baby! As I've said, I'm not a constitutional scholar, as is po, and the source I blindly consult ain't inerrant as is isle's. But, I know some stuff. I nearly did my dissertation on Supreme Court Establishment Clause opinions. Back in the day, I did know a few things. Getting that evidence through the judge to the jury ain't, according to McCarthy, a dun deal... ...among other problems. by Ponderer on August 9, 2023 6:26 am Bill, I've never claimed to be anything close to a constitutional scholar. All I've ever claimed is that I seem to know more than you do about the details of these cases and the evidence in them is all. "McCarthy sees some reasonably serious issues Jack Smith has created for himself...some of which have to do with the possibility that the judge may exclude some of the very convincing evidence." -Hate No doubt. Under the "There's No Way That Evidence Could Possibly Be That Damning" statute I imagine. Seriously though Bill, I am afraid as Curt says, you and the rest of the MAGA Republicans are setting yourselves up for a letdown. You're all focusing on stretched logic and spun interpretations of laws and statutes and hanging your MAGA hats on certain loopholes and "legal" work-arounds to save your cult's leader from paying for his crimes. Well it's gonna be a sad day in Orange Town when the judge disregards those things you are so desperately hoping will save Trump. So of course you and the rest of the GOP will predictably get all huffy and start screaming and gnashing your teeth about what an activist judge she is because didn't do whatever lame brained, flailing nonsense you believed she should have. See, the problem that the right wing media has right now is that it's trying to find ways to give MAGA Hats hope by interpreting the laws whichever way they think helps Trump while excluding anything bad that damns him. The rest of the media is simply presenting the facts of the case along with the text of the laws, which clearly need no fancy interpretations or spin for anyone to understand just how totally screwed Trump is. by HatetheSwamp on August 9, 2023 6:54 am Seriously though Bill, I am afraid as Curt says, you and the rest of the MAGA Republicans... Translation? I HAVE TDS! I HAVE TDS! I HAVE TDS! I HAVE TDS! I HAVE TDS! I HAVE TDS! I HAVE TDS! I HAVE TDS! I HAVE TDS! I HAVE TDS! Bahahahahahahahahahaha baha baha baha. ...setting yourselves up for a letdown.>/b> I support Ron DeSantis for President. ...hanging your MAGA hats on certain loopholes and "legal" work-arounds to save your cult's leader from paying for his crimes. Translation? I HAVE TDS! I HAVE TDS! I HAVE TDS! I HAVE TDS! I HAVE TDS! I HAVE TDS! I HAVE TDS! I HAVE TDS! I HAVE TDS! I HAVE TDS! Baha baha bahahahahahahahahahaha baha. Actually, since you didn't hear the interview, I think that this is yet another example of ol po leaning into those preferences and prejudices that po takes along to every life moment. Keeheeheeheeheeheeheehee. But, keep a good thought. Baha baha baha! by Donna on August 9, 2023 8:31 am DJT's lawyers are appealing to the Court of Public Opinion because they can control the messaging. In a televised trial they wouldn't be able to do that, at least not to those who watch the trial. by Ponderer on August 9, 2023 8:40 am "I support Ron DeSantis for President." -Hate Well then you've got two things that you've set yourself up to be disappointed about. by HatetheSwamp on August 9, 2023 8:47 am Donna, I think that a televised trial would give the Orange One more opportunity to fiddle with public perception, not less. by Ponderer on August 9, 2023 10:51 am "I think that a televised trial would give the Orange One more opportunity to fiddle with public perception, not less." -Hate Could you please explain how that could possibly be the case...? I only ask because what you are asserting goes against all sane and rational logic. by Curt_Anderson on August 9, 2023 11:09 am Donald Trump’s federal trials will not be televised. Unless the supreme court changes the law, federal trials are not allowed to be televised. Electronic media coverage of criminal proceedings in federal courts has been expressly prohibited under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 53 since the criminal rules were adopted in 1946. Trump will not be able to “fiddle with public perception” even if the proceedings were televised. As much as the prosecution may want it it’s highly unlikely that Donald Trump himself would ever take the stand. Trump’s own legal team would tackle him by the ankles before allowing him to testify. by oldedude on August 9, 2023 6:44 pm curt- One thing I know from working in Treasury is that lawyers are more specific than doctors. "Banking" lawyers is actually a genre, NOT a specialty. In a meeting I told a banking lawyer that if he expected us to do what he wanted, I wanted him to do Philippine divorce law. My point is that if he's a "DOT" lawyer, he knows an assload about how interstate agreements work and how the OSHA rules change many states laws, but you can file under both laws. He's one of "those guys" that is fucking people on the train accident out of care they deserve because his agency was paid to "not see" the issues with that company. So I'd rather ask a second year law student about this. Go To Top

Find old posts & articles

Show Most Recent Articles Articles by category: Politics+ Religion+ Law & Crime Military News Media History Health Sports+ Humor Entertainment Misc.

Report spam & abuse SelectSmart.com home page