reo Posted August 2, 2023 Report Share Posted August 2, 2023 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ctm Posted August 2, 2023 Report Share Posted August 2, 2023 NYT is reporting that co-conspirator #6 is Boris Epshteyn. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/02/us/politics/boris-epshteyn-co-conspirator-6.html reo 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starkiller Posted August 2, 2023 Report Share Posted August 2, 2023 1 minute ago, ctm said: NYT is reporting that co-conspirator #6 is Boris Epshteyn. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/02/us/politics/boris-epshteyn-co-conspirator-6.html That’s what the people on the Lawfare podcast were speculating, too Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsntLifeFunny Posted August 2, 2023 Report Share Posted August 2, 2023 1 hour ago, begooode said: The posturing of Team Trump into this bizzarro "first amendment rights" argument is awkward to watch. Yes, it's the only way to link it to everyday Americans who don't coup. But at best they are saying the President has every right to lie like a fucking dog on the world's biggest stage to attack the core concept of election integrity and the very legitimacy of the incoming president. Peaceful transfer of power is pretty high up there in American ideals, and to twist this so blatantly is just wrong and dangerous. If you read the indictment Smith notes early on the 1st Amendment implications involved and openly said Trump had the right to challenge the election and to call into question its integrity. He even had the right to essentially lie about the election. What he did not have the right to do is to openly lie about it for the purpose of coercing people at every level of government to not follow through on the "function of government". Since they didn't charge him with sedition I don't think they're going to use much in terms of the crowd he had descend on the Capitol, but they will use how he used that time to try and do more illegal things with his co-conspirators. The 1st Amendment argument is completely bunk since he isn't being charged with fomenting a riot or sedition. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
begooode Posted August 2, 2023 Report Share Posted August 2, 2023 Agree 100%. But my point was railing about First Amendment rights for a president to lie knowingly (highlighted in the indictment) and dangerously about election results is just a terrible place to be in as a Trump supporter. By pivoting wholeheartedly to that argument they concede the lies straightaway "it's his right!!" , but beforehand it was "Dems stole it, look at all da red counties, Basement Biden, Trump Won" , etc,... IsntLifeFunny, and OILERMAN 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChesterCopperpot1 Posted August 2, 2023 Report Share Posted August 2, 2023 9 hours ago, ctm said: One of the newest members of Donald Trump’s legal team on Tuesday suggested the former president’s new legal strategy will be to throw his former attorneys under the bus. Shortly after Trump was charged with four counts in connection with efforts to overturn the 2020 election on Tuesday, attorney John Lauro in an interview with Fox News’ Bret Baier indicated John Eastman was responsible for the former president’s actions. “But you're missing what Professor Eastman's advice was,” Lauro told Baier. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-s-new-lawyer-signals-plans-to-throw-former-trump-attorneys-under-the-bus/ar-AA1eF7id?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=142fa3f7ecdd437fa42552efd3ce7000&ei=23 If he does that then he essentially waived privilege and his attys can be subpoenaed to testify about conversations they had with him. You can’t rely on advice of counsel and also hide behind the shield of privilege. also, advice of counsel is a defense reserved in civil actions. If your attorney says it’s legal for you to kill someone and you do it, you can’t defend your actions by saying “my atty told me I could do it”. Lol. IsntLifeFunny, and ctm 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ctm Posted August 2, 2023 Report Share Posted August 2, 2023 (edited) 38 minutes ago, ChesterCopperpot1 said: If he does that then he essentially waived privilege and his attys can be subpoenaed to testify about conversations they had with him. You can’t rely on advice of counsel and also hide behind the shield of privilege. also, advice of counsel is a defense reserved in civil actions. If your attorney says it’s legal for you to kill someone and you do it, you can’t defend your actions by saying “my atty told me I could do it”. Lol. Question.... Section 11 of the indictment list 8 separates individuals or government agencies that told Trump that he lost. Including Barr, Pence, his campaign organization, director of national intelligence, etc. If Trump wants to assert that he was listening to others (Rudy, Powell, etc) and about his own state of mind (no criminal intent), then how, if at all, can he do this if he doesn't take the stand? Edited August 2, 2023 by ctm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starkiller Posted August 2, 2023 Report Share Posted August 2, 2023 15 minutes ago, ctm said: Question.... Section 11 of the indictment list 8 separates individuals or government agencies that told Trump that he lost. Including Barr, Pence, his campaign organization, director of national intelligence, etc. If Trump wants to assert that he was listening to others (Rudy, Powell, etc) and his own state of mind (no criminal intent), then how, if at all, can he do this if he doesn't take the stand? I’d assume that’s something they would put in the lawyer's closing statement. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChesterCopperpot1 Posted August 2, 2023 Report Share Posted August 2, 2023 57 minutes ago, ChesterCopperpot1 said: If he does that then he essentially waived privilege and his attys can be subpoenaed to testify about conversations they had with him. You can’t rely on advice of counsel and also hide behind the shield of privilege. also, advice of counsel is a defense reserved in civil actions. If your attorney says it’s legal for you to kill someone and you do it, you can’t defend your actions by saying “my atty told me I could do it”. Lol. Also, when I say “rely on advice of counsel,” what I mean by that is that is a defense commonly used where someone says “I can’t be held liable/responsible; I was merely doing what my attorneys advised me to do.” privilege is waived when this happens bc you can’t say you were doing what your attys advised you to do and then bar them from asking questions about what the attys said and the advice given. That is because only the client can waive privilege. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChesterCopperpot1 Posted August 2, 2023 Report Share Posted August 2, 2023 41 minutes ago, ctm said: Question.... Section 11 of the indictment list 8 separates individuals or government agencies that told Trump that he lost. Including Barr, Pence, his campaign organization, director of national intelligence, etc. If Trump wants to assert that he was listening to others (Rudy, Powell, etc) and about his own state of mind (no criminal intent), then how, if at all, can he do this if he doesn't take the stand? Goood question. Perhaps there are people who will testify who were present and spoke with trump and can say that trump said he was “relying on the advice of his counsel.” he should not take the stand. It would go horribly for him. Frankly, he should figure out a way to take a plea to Avoid federal prison. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChesterCopperpot1 Posted August 2, 2023 Report Share Posted August 2, 2023 25 minutes ago, Starkiller said: I’d assume that’s something they would put in the lawyer's closing statement. Lawyer’s closing statements/arguments aren’t evidence. They can only argue what the evidence shows. ctm 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeFan Posted August 2, 2023 Report Share Posted August 2, 2023 JONATHAN TURLEY: The burden is on the prosecution. And the question is, how do you actually prove this? What the indictment says is lots of people told Trump that the election wasn't stolen and that the challenge, the certification was invalid. Well, fine. I was one of those people saying that. But he had other people saying the opposite. He had attorneys, not a small number saying, ‘No, you can make these challenges. So the election was stolen. There is this evidence.’ Millions of Americans believe that. And so it's a weird indictment. The indictment says at the outset, as it must, that you are constitutionally protected in saying false things, including in an election. The Supreme Court has said that. It said in a case called Alvarez involving a politician who knew he was lying, and the court said this is still protected. But then basically, Smith does a 180 and says, ‘But not here because Trump was told it was a lie.’ Well, that doesn't make any sense. Alvarez knew it was a lie in that case. But also the Democrats challenged prior Republican presidents, including Trump. They knew that there wasn't a basis to challenge the election. Did they also commit crimes? Were they also indicted? Of course they weren't. … What concerns me here is that the implications of this filing for free speech are quite chilling. And those people celebrating this indictment are dismissing that, and they shouldn't. … When is the price too high? You have an indictment in Florida, which I said was a strong one. That's a solid case. Trump could still beat it, but it's a legitimate case based on established evidence and established law. This is neither. Smith is trying to create new law here. And he doesn't cite any new evidence that should disturb people. There's got to be some point where you say enough. When you start to take a hatchet to the First Amendment in this quest to nail Trump, someone's gotta say look, he's not going to be the first president you don't like. We've had this First Amendment around for a long time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pat Posted August 2, 2023 Report Share Posted August 2, 2023 How much of your fortune has Trump wiped his ass with @LongTimeFan? OILERMAN, LongTimeFan, and titanruss 1 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ctm Posted August 2, 2023 Report Share Posted August 2, 2023 (edited) When Trump called the Ga. Sec. of state and pressured him to find 11K votes, does that fall under his 1st ammendment right of free speech? When Trump told Jeffery Rosen at the DOJ to just say there was election fraud and leave the rest to him and the republican congress, was that protected 1st ammendment speech? Edited August 2, 2023 by ctm IsntLifeFunny, OILERMAN, and ChemEngr79 1 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitansPDO Posted August 2, 2023 Report Share Posted August 2, 2023 46 minutes ago, ChesterCopperpot1 said: Goood question. Perhaps there are people who will testify who were present and spoke with trump and can say that trump said he was “relying on the advice of his counsel.” he should not take the stand. It would go horribly for him. Frankly, he should figure out a way to take a plea to Avoid federal prison. Would need for that to get past a hearsay exception for someone to say what Trump said. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.