Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   The Trump legal defense team has a problem. An oversized, bloated, orange-hued, tiny-handed, narcissistic loudmouth of a problem, to be specific   (slate.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, Criminal law, former president Donald Trump, risk of testifying, criminal investigation of Trump, civil investigation, civil case, own defense, Donald Trump  
•       •       •

3489 clicks; posted to Politics » and Main » on 18 Aug 2022 at 5:36 PM (6 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



65 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2022-08-18 2:10:36 PM  
He's still everyone's problem.
 
2022-08-18 2:16:46 PM  
Lol. I love the idea of pleading the 5th in the civil case not only makes himself look guilty there but also can be used as evidence against him in criminal trials.  It really would be nice if something were to happen based on this logic.
 
2022-08-18 2:18:56 PM  

harleyquinnical: Lol. I love the idea of pleading the 5th in the civil case not only makes himself look guilty there but also can be used as evidence against him in criminal trials.  It really would be nice if something were to happen based on this logic.


In a civil trial it can be used to assume guilt, so the only thing worse is to actually admit guilt.
 
2022-08-18 5:40:05 PM  
Done in 1.
 
2022-08-18 5:41:20 PM  
Have they tried, perhaps, working for someone other than Donald Trump?  Seems like a pretty easy problem to solve.
 
2022-08-18 5:41:44 PM  
Ain't nothin' gonna happen in 5.
 
2022-08-18 5:41:59 PM  
dammit... 6
 
2022-08-18 5:44:37 PM  
If he had won the 2020 election... hoo boy.
 
2022-08-18 5:44:52 PM  
From the No Shiate Sherlock legal files, per this article:

"It is important to understand that in a criminal case, once a defendant takes the stand, his or her credibility is placed directly at issue, potentially opening the door to relative events and circumstances beyond the four corners of an indictment. The list of questions Donald Trump would be unable to answer is so long that the hardest task for whomever would cross-examine him would be to whittle it down to the best three days' worth of material. Which is why, as in the civil suit, he is unlikely testify in a criminal trial."
 
2022-08-18 5:45:22 PM  

harleyquinnical: Lol. I love the idea of pleading the 5th in the civil case not only makes himself look guilty there but also can be used as evidence against him in criminal trials.  It really would be nice if something were to happen based on this logic.


His invoking his 5th amendment rights helps make him liable in a civil suit (say for example civil fraud or a civil RICO action) but it may not be used as evidence against him in a criminal trial.
 
2022-08-18 5:45:37 PM  
He'll just settle out of court or drag it out until there's nothing worth continuing it over.
 
2022-08-18 5:46:34 PM  
Gosh! who knew a lifelong legacy of not paying your bills combined with a overstated inability to tell the truth, and a insatiable compulsion to blab to the media, would frighten away good attorneys?

sounds like a dreamy client to me.
 
2022-08-18 5:48:49 PM  
The only retainer some lawyers will accept, re: Trump

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-08-18 5:51:49 PM  
If he gets off the hook using his dollar store lawyers, then the justice system isn't broken... it never existed.
 
2022-08-18 5:52:38 PM  
I imagine his pleading the fifth over 400 times was a decision from his lawyers. They might have had a mock deposition beforehand, with him trying to answer the questions with his trademark "honesty," and it unsurprisingly turned into an unmitigated disaster. Or maybe they didn't even bother with that, as I'm sure they had a fair idea already just how badly his testimony would go if they didn't tell him to stick a cork in it.

So right before going in to the real thing they probably were saying to him "now remember, the only thing I want to hear out of you in there is the phrase 'plead the fifth.' If they ask if you want a diet Coke you plead the fifth. If I hear you saying anything else, you'll have to start looking for new legal representation (again), you got that?"
 
2022-08-18 5:53:51 PM  
FTA "...every criminal case requires proof of criminal intent..." isn't this complete hogwash?  Ignorance of the law yadda yadda?
 
2022-08-18 5:55:27 PM  
GIS for "bloated, orange-hued, tiny-handed, narcissistic loudmouth"

encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.comView Full Size
 
2022-08-18 5:57:49 PM  

Cinedelic: Have they tried, perhaps, working for someone other than Donald Trump?  Seems like a pretty easy problem to solve.


#45 pays too good
 
2022-08-18 5:57:53 PM  
Which is why, as in the civil suit, he is unlikely testify in a criminal trial.

Does anyone, except the BBC, employ copy editors?
 
2022-08-18 5:59:34 PM  
Play stupid games...hopefully they win stupid prizes. Finally. At least once is that miserable man's life.
 
2022-08-18 6:00:36 PM  
My advice for any lawyer undertaking to work for Trump would be to get your fee in advance and to wait to start work until the check clears.
 
2022-08-18 6:01:19 PM  
Trump is a pathological liar. Of course his lawyers won't let him testify, it's their only viable option. He'll get destroyed on the stand if they let him talk. Look how well that worked out for Alex Jones.
 
2022-08-18 6:01:25 PM  

2wolves: Which is why, as in the civil suit, he is unlikely testify in a criminal trial.

Does anyone, except the BBC, employ copy editors?


Nope. Not anymore.
 
2022-08-18 6:02:10 PM  
Aren't willful stupidity and reckless disregard of the law valid defenses against criminal intent?
 
2022-08-18 6:02:56 PM  
Trump can't retain top-tier representation from any of the reputable white-shoe firms because he's a terrible client and defending him is, to put it mildly, really fookin' bad for business. So Trump is leaning heavily on a floundering pod of featherweight attorneys who are A.) desperate for attention and B.) eager to get in on the grift. But it's now being reported that he's secretly shopping for "better attorneys," which his current attorneys probably won't appreciate.

Where is Trump's crackerjack legal brain trust of John Eastman, Rudy Giuliani, Jenna Ellis, Pat Cipollone, Alan Dershowitz, Ken Starr, Jay Sekulow, Abbe Lowell, John Dowd, Ty Cobb, and Sidney Powell?

Boy, that's weird, huh?
 
2022-08-18 6:11:03 PM  
That is, Trump's need to invoke the Fifth Amendment in lieu of providing information in his own defense in a civil case tells us much about his future ability, or lack of same, to present a "lack of criminal intent" or "state of mind" defense to potential criminal charges.

Let's at least wait for Trump to be criminally charged before commencing the speculation about whether he's going to take the stand at trial.
 
2022-08-18 6:11:29 PM  

Rage Against the Thorazine: Trump is a pathological liar. Of course his lawyers won't let him testify, it's their only viable option. He'll get destroyed on the stand if they let him talk. Look how well that worked out for Alex Jones.


FTA:
"...all Trump had to do is what both witnesses and defendants do regularly in tax and financial cases-claim to have relied on highly paid accountants ... and admit (with deep embarrassment) not to have paid close enough attention..."

They couldn't even trust him to lie right.
 
2022-08-18 6:12:05 PM  
Other people are breaking the law and acting on DJT's behalf.

They are hiding behind his name.

Get THOSE people or else they'll be running the DeSantis' admin in 2025 or 2029
 
2022-08-18 6:12:06 PM  

LurkerSupreme: I imagine his pleading the fifth over 400 times was a decision from his lawyers. They might have had a mock deposition beforehand, with him trying to answer the questions with his trademark "honesty," and it unsurprisingly turned into an unmitigated disaster. Or maybe they didn't even bother with that, as I'm sure they had a fair idea already just how badly his testimony would go if they didn't tell him to stick a cork in it.

So right before going in to the real thing they probably were saying to him "now remember, the only thing I want to hear out of you in there is the phrase 'plead the fifth.' If they ask if you want a diet Coke you plead the fifth. If I hear you saying anything else, you'll have to start looking for new legal representation (again), you got that?"


Yep.

If you can't clearly answer five of ten pointed questions at a deposition, and need to plead the fifth on the other half, a smart attorney will advise their client to plead the fifth on them all.

Lying in a sworn deposition, no matter how big or how small the lie, believe it or not, is still lying in a sworn deposition and will earn you like... Super-duper low marks in the credibility category from a judge and/or jury.
 
2022-08-18 6:18:07 PM  
"A lawyer who represents himself (or TFG) has a fool for a client."
 
2022-08-18 6:19:00 PM  

Cinedelic: Have they tried, perhaps, working for someone other than Donald Trump?  Seems like a pretty easy problem to solve.


They might even get paid!
 
2022-08-18 6:24:34 PM  
Expect Donnie and Rudy to both come down with mob boss disease any day now.  "Unable" to go to trial for health reasons.  Rudy has seen enough of them in his day to know exactly how the game is played.
 
2022-08-18 6:26:45 PM  
Subby forgot the tiny stemless mushroom.
 
2022-08-18 6:26:49 PM  

lilbjorn: Expect Donnie and Rudy to both come down with mob boss disease any day now.  "Unable" to go to trial for health reasons.  Rudy has seen enough of them in his day to know exactly how the game is played.


If religion is the last refuge of a scoundrel, faking infirmity is second-to-last.
 
2022-08-18 6:27:58 PM  

lilbjorn: Expect Donnie and Rudy to both come down with mob boss disease any day now.  "Unable" to go to trial for health reasons.  Rudy has seen enough of them in his day to know exactly how the game is played.


I've been saying that all along.  The closer they get to jail, the "sicker" they'll be.
 
2022-08-18 6:29:14 PM  
Stupid. You forgot "stupid." He's stupid.
 
2022-08-18 6:29:55 PM  

LurkerSupreme: I imagine his pleading the fifth over 400 times was a decision from his lawyers. They might have had a mock deposition beforehand, with him trying to answer the questions with his trademark "honesty," and it unsurprisingly turned into an unmitigated disaster. Or maybe they didn't even bother with that, as I'm sure they had a fair idea already just how badly his testimony would go if they didn't tell him to stick a cork in it.

So right before going in to the real thing they probably were saying to him "now remember, the only thing I want to hear out of you in there is the phrase 'plead the fifth.' If they ask if you want a diet Coke you plead the fifth. If I hear you saying anything else, you'll have to start looking for new legal representation (again), you got that?"


Trump would never sit for a mock trial.
 
2022-08-18 6:32:57 PM  
Can someone be too guilty to mount a reasonable defense?
 
2022-08-18 6:39:26 PM  

LarryDan43: LurkerSupreme: I imagine his pleading the fifth over 400 times was a decision from his lawyers. They might have had a mock deposition beforehand, with him trying to answer the questions with his trademark "honesty," and it unsurprisingly turned into an unmitigated disaster. Or maybe they didn't even bother with that, as I'm sure they had a fair idea already just how badly his testimony would go if they didn't tell him to stick a cork in it.

So right before going in to the real thing they probably were saying to him "now remember, the only thing I want to hear out of you in there is the phrase 'plead the fifth.' If they ask if you want a diet Coke you plead the fifth. If I hear you saying anything else, you'll have to start looking for new legal representation (again), you got that?"

Trump would never sit for a mock trial.


hard for that fat sack of shyte to sit still for anything with all the blow and ephedrine he does.
 
2022-08-18 6:40:03 PM  

Smelly Pirate Hooker: Stupid. You forgot "stupid." He's stupid.


i.redd.itView Full Size
 
2022-08-18 6:48:06 PM  

Flappyhead: He'll just settle out of court or drag it out until there's nothing worth continuing it over.


Settling requires the other party to agree. If that's what happens, it's on that other party for giving up.
 
2022-08-18 6:55:02 PM  

harleyquinnical: Lol. I love the idea of pleading the 5th in the civil case not only makes himself look guilty there but also can be used as evidence against him in criminal trials.  It really would be nice if something were to happen based on this logic.


I know, but we don't live in the world where we can have nice things.
 
2022-08-18 6:58:47 PM  

Ophaelin: FTA "...every criminal case requires proof of criminal intent..." isn't this complete hogwash?  Ignorance of the law yadda yadda?


I'm not a law-talkin' person, and I hope one can clarify for us, but I think the defendant has to know they were doing something wrong for there to be a criminal case.

Certain things, a reasonable person knows they are wrong, even if they don't know they are illegal. So in that case, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

But what if they didn't know it was wrong? Well, they might be mentally incompetent. Or it might be a crime that a reasonable person might commit by mistake, and they should be let go.

Some laws, like tax crimes, specifically are written to say they do not require proof of intent. Others, like aggravated battery, hinge entirely on proving intent (the intent to do serious bodily harm).
 
2022-08-18 7:03:39 PM  
Every time I see Trump entering or exiting a motor vehicle, the Secret Service agent holding the car door open is always clutching it like they're about to fall off a cliff.  Very theatrical, which makes me think that Trump encourages it.  But it looks stupid, imho.
 
2022-08-18 7:16:35 PM  

Ophaelin: FTA "...every criminal case requires proof of criminal intent..." isn't this complete hogwash?  Ignorance of the law yadda yadda?


I was thinking the same thing, but I'm no lawyer. I believe ignorance of the law isn't a defense, unless the law in question specifically mentions intent. I think a lot of TFG's crimes, like obstruction of justice and conspiracy, do require proof of intent, but it's certainly not every criminal case. Anyway, I don't think proving it is gonna be much of a problem for the Justice Dept. 'cause he's the walking incarnation of criminal intent.
 
2022-08-18 7:28:44 PM  

ReaverZ: Can someone be too guilty to mount a reasonable defense?


That reminds me of the Alex Jones trial, where the judge rejected all of Jones's arguments, and his attorney said something along the lines of "Judge, your leaving is without a defense here!"
 
2022-08-18 7:29:28 PM  

LurkerSupreme: I imagine his pleading the fifth over 400 times was a decision from his lawyers. They might have had a mock deposition beforehand, with him trying to answer the questions with his trademark "honesty," and it unsurprisingly turned into an unmitigated disaster. Or maybe they didn't even bother with that, as I'm sure they had a fair idea already just how badly his testimony would go if they didn't tell him to stick a cork in it.

So right before going in to the real thing they probably were saying to him "now remember, the only thing I want to hear out of you in there is the phrase 'plead the fifth.' If they ask if you want a diet Coke you plead the fifth. If I hear you saying anything else, you'll have to start looking for new legal representation (again), you got that?"


Trump says "if you're innocent why are you taking the 5th amendment ?"
Youtube GMJn4ezFoe4
 
2022-08-18 7:32:52 PM  

Puglio: Ophaelin: FTA "...every criminal case requires proof of criminal intent..." isn't this complete hogwash?  Ignorance of the law yadda yadda?

I'm not a law-talkin' person, and I hope one can clarify for us, but I think the defendant has to know they were doing something wrong for there to be a criminal case.

Certain things, a reasonable person knows they are wrong, even if they don't know they are illegal. So in that case, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

But what if they didn't know it was wrong? Well, they might be mentally incompetent. Or it might be a crime that a reasonable person might commit by mistake, and they should be let go.

Some laws, like tax crimes, specifically are written to say they do not require proof of intent. Others, like aggravated battery, hinge entirely on proving intent (the intent to do serious bodily harm).


Strict liability crimes require no intent whatsoever.
 
2022-08-18 7:38:56 PM  

Todorojo: Trump can't retain top-tier representation from any of the reputable white-shoe firms because he's a terrible client and defending him is, to put it mildly, really fookin' bad for business. So Trump is leaning heavily on a floundering pod of featherweight attorneys who are A.) desperate for attention and B.) eager to get in on the grift. But it's now being reported that he's secretly shopping for "better attorneys," which his current attorneys probably won't appreciate.

Where is Trump's crackerjack legal brain trust of John Eastman, Rudy Giuliani, Jenna Ellis, Pat Cipollone, Alan Dershowitz, Ken Starr, Jay Sekulow, Abbe Lowell, John Dowd, Ty Cobb, and Sidney Powell?

Boy, that's weird, huh?


You forgot one other reason the top-tier law firms won't defend Trump... he's got a long history of not paying his lawyers. Even when he wins, he finds an excuse about how they weren't good enough, and doesn't pay. Just like any other contractor working for Trump, he's gonna stiff em on the bill, and they know it.
 
2022-08-18 7:44:57 PM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: Puglio: Ophaelin: FTA "...every criminal case requires proof of criminal intent..." isn't this complete hogwash?  Ignorance of the law yadda yadda?

I'm not a law-talkin' person, and I hope one can clarify for us, but I think the defendant has to know they were doing something wrong for there to be a criminal case.

Certain things, a reasonable person knows they are wrong, even if they don't know they are illegal. So in that case, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

But what if they didn't know it was wrong? Well, they might be mentally incompetent. Or it might be a crime that a reasonable person might commit by mistake, and they should be let go.

Some laws, like tax crimes, specifically are written to say they do not require proof of intent. Others, like aggravated battery, hinge entirely on proving intent (the intent to do serious bodily harm).

Strict liability crimes require no intent whatsoever.


Which is sort of the issue with the concealment accusation... the government doesn't need to argue that his intention was to conceal them, or that he knew they belonged to the government, or that he understood the difference between national defense documents and not... all they need to prove is that he had national defense documents, and that he refused to return them when asked by an authorized recipient of the documents. It doesn't really matter what his motives were, it doesn't matter what he believed, it doesn't particularly matter what he knew or didn't know.

The elements there are just kind of... did he have them, and did he either hide that he had them, or refuse to return them, and it's sort of a done deal. He can argue nuance at sentencing, but he's pretty screwed in terms of likelihood to be found guilty.
 
Displayed 50 of 65 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.