Trump plans to assert an “advice of counsel” defense, claiming he was just following the legal advice of his attorneys. However, this defense comes with conditions that could undermine Trump’s case. By asserting this defense, Trump would waive attorney-client privilege, meaning communications with his attorneys would become available to prosecutors. His attorneys would also likely have to testify in court. Furthermore, prosecutors could argue that Trump’s attorneys were actually co-conspirators, not just legal advisors, and that Trump’s reliance on their advice was unreasonable. Special Counsel Jack Smith appears to have capitalized on this by naming Trump’s attorney co-conspirators in the indictment, which could allow him to crack open communications between Trump and his attorneys.
- BrooklynMan ( @BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml ) English71•11 months ago
yeah, it’s called a “trial”.
the “trap” is that he knows Trump will “lie” because Smith has “mountains of evidence” that Trump and his co-conspirators are “incredibly fucking guilty."
Thank you! It’s always interesting to listen to professionals in a field use technical language. 😃
Just repeat that with Mike Myers physically making the air quotes.
Jack Smith lured Trump into committing crimes 3+ years ago, in what legal experts are calling “1D checkers.”
This is an idiotic article picture. Everybody knows Trump is too stupid for chess.
Right, that’s why he’s only got one checker piece on his side.
Now if you said he’s also too stupid for checkers…well I’d probably agree with that too.
Ah yes just like the “perjury trap” we heard about so many aeons ago… The kind of trap where you just get called on your bullshit and then… then that’s it. That’s the trap.
I’m shocked that we still allow armed bank robbery traps to be built all across the country, even good Real American towns. All that money just sitting there, but if you even once pull out a gun and try to take just a bit of it, they’ll put you away! It’s entrapment is what it is. So much for the land of the free.
This could’ve been a Frank Gallagher rant. I love it
Huh i wasnt aware of the advice of counsel defense. Seems like the conditions are effective in blocking misuse of said defense. I do wonder if there has been a big case where this has been used succesfully, bc it doesnt really sound like a good strategy, even if we consider a less crazy context than this one.
- BrooklynMan ( @BrooklynMan@lemmy.ml ) English12•11 months ago
well… it’s not a good strategy if you’re lying your ass off, it happens to be true, AND you conspired with your lawyers to commit the crime you’re accused of.
now, Jack Smith (and every reasonable person on earth, the more clever dolphins, cetaceans, chimps, corvidae, octopods, and a couple of transdimentional mice) knows this is the case, so this is definitely a terrible strategy. It’s also patently Trump to blame anyone else for his own actions but himself. Predictable, even.
a couple of transdimentional mice
Frankie and Benjy?
An “advice of counsel” defense would likely require Trump to testify on the stand and be open to cross examination.
An “advice of counsel” defense requires that the documented advice given align with actions taken. It seems that he was given advice to not do what he did, often.
Damn! Legal Jesus layin’ the smack down!