IANAL, but it doesn't seem like this is a big deal. DOJ wanted to know if the defense was going to use a particular defense. The judge didn't compel the defense to disclose their defensive strategy. Maybe a lawyer can provide some insight but this seems like a non story.
this post was submitted on 14 Jan 2024
15 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10167 readers
120 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
An Advice of Counsel defense is basically saying "I'm not responsible for my actions because my lawyer said it was legal for me to do." If that's the case, Attorney Client Privilege is waved and all communication between trump and his lawyers (that said "it was OK", not the current lawyers) should be provided as evidence. Basically provide the evidence to support the AoC defense.
It's basic discovery. trump is stalling for time, and cannon is helping. If trump goes with the AoC defense, day one of the trial is going to be him claiming AoC and the prosecutors asking for the relevant evidence to review which will stall the case because they'll 'need at least a month to get all the records together' and then the prosecutors will need to review them, and I'm certain it will be the most unorganized mess handed off. Like shitty scans of faxes of the emails all off center and slightly rotated..... So OCR will be a nightmare.
Same, IANAL, but of all the things I see wrong with this specific judge, particularly in being involved in any Trump and/or political case, considering the blatant bias shown in past cases that a non-partisan judge would not make, I don't see, or get why this would be a particularly big deal.
I get knowing in advance what the defense will be arguing helps prepares, but I feel if something unexpected is argued, and requires more research, a request to continue the trial on another date should be submitted.
In this case, permitting such a delay would be to Trumps benefit, and it would be best to be prepared for any such strategy, and not need to submit any such delaying requests.
It'd be great for the DOJ if they could get the judge to disallow arguing distracting, time wasting, unrelated strategies, but this particular judge is such Trump groupie I doubt that would happen.
Won't someone rid us of this meddlesome judge?