• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Jack Smith: Trump Must Formally Declare Legal Strategy His Lawyers Keep Talking About on TV

j brown's body

"A Soros-backed animal"
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2018
Messages
79,827
Reaction score
84,379
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
"Special Counsel Jack Smith on Tuesday asked a federal judge to order Donald Trump and his lawyers to make official whether they really plan to rely on a key legal strategy during the former president's March 2024 criminal trial, they could end up "sandbagging" prosecutors and forcing a delay in the proceedings.

At issue is whether Trump intends to lean on a defense strategy during his trial that states he was relying on the advice of counsel when committing the alleged crimes. Should Trump take that route, which he has spoken about publicly for several months, Smith's team said he would waive attorney-client privilege for all of his communications and open the door for federal prosecutors to see a bevy of evidence it hasn't yet gotten to review via discovery.

That also could possibly open up additional lines of criminal investigation, Smith's team said in its 15-page filing to U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan that seeks a declaration from Trump by Dec. 18. That's when his lawyers are already required to turn over various exhibit lists to prosecutors before the trial."

Link

Smith is trying to back Trump into a corner here because he doesn't want Trump to spring this line of defense on the trial because it would apparently lead to delays.

He is arguing that since Trump has already announced publicly that he is using this defense, there is no reason for him to not declare it officially.

If he does decide to declare this strategy, it eliminates the lawyer-client privilege provision. And that would mean Smuth would then gave access to this:

At least 25 Trump election case witnesses withheld information based on attorney-client privilege, prosecutors say

The special counsel wants a judge to make Trump's team formally say whether he'll rely upon an advice-of-counsel defense at his federal trial in March.
www.nbcnews.com
 
Do you suppose P01135809 knows his legal team is inferior to the governments yet?
 
No Trump fan-boy, but is this proper to request a defense reveal how they plan to defend, pre-trial?
 
Rexedgar said:
No Trump fan-boy, but is this proper to request a defense reveal how they plan to defend, pre-trial?
Click to expand...
If Trump is accurately blaming his lawyers for his illegal activity then the lawyers also potentially committed crimes.
 
MrNiceGuy said:
Everyone's legal team is inferior to the government's legal team in federal criminal prosecutions. The government has unlimited resources.
Click to expand...
The government pays it's attorneys a fraction of what defense attorneys at a prominent firm.

Now granted, unlike Trump, the government actually pays it's attorneys.
 
Rexedgar said:
No Trump fan-boy, but is this proper to request a defense reveal how they plan to defend, pre-trial?
Click to expand...
It's totally legit. In all cases involving Trump the defense must first present their case to the prosecution for approval before the case can go to court. It's the only way we have to preserve democracy and stave off an insurrection!
 
Rexedgar said:
No Trump fan-boy, but is this proper to request a defense reveal how they plan to defend, pre-trial?
Click to expand...
I think he'll be ordered to disclose by the December 18 discovery deadline whether he will be relyng on the affirmative defense of advice of counsel. If he raises that defense, he has to provide the government with any documents that support his defense, AND any documents which might undermine that defense.

That's because he's not claiming "I didn't do it" when he raises an affirmative defense. An affirmative defense is a defense which admits the allegations in the complaint, but raises something that means he shouldn't have to suffer the consequences. So, he'd be saying - yeah, I did X, Y and Z, but I did it based on my reasonable reliance on advice of counsel.
 
Slartibartfast said:
If Trump is accurately blaming his lawyers for his illegal activity then the lawyers also potentially committed crimes.
Click to expand...
If he changes his mind I wonder if the prosecution can get to them to prosecute him somehow, that it shows evidence he did not take advice.
 
ALiberalModerate said:
The government pays it's attorneys a fraction of what defense attorneys at a prominent firm.

Now granted, unlike Trump, the government actually pays it's attorneys.
Click to expand...
The government has unlimited resources, and myriad attorneys. If you get a federal indictment, 99% of the time you are f#cked royally - innocent or guilty - the odds of your coming out of it unscathed are near zero, and they bury you under legal and other costs. The government goes after you like a rabid dog, and they will take your house, car and other property, if they can find a way to get them in a forfeiture proceeding. They try to find ways to undercut your attorneys and they try to find ways to spy on attorney client privileged info. It's a real problem.
 
zincwarrior said:
If he changes his mind I wonder if the prosecution can get to them to prosecute him somehow, that it shows evidence he did not take advice.
Click to expand...
It'd be a crime not to take advice?

You want the government to lean on his former attorneys to drop a dime on their former client, to get Trump for a violation of the law by not listening to an attorney's opinion on a topic?

My god.... y'all really are Ropers from A Man for All Season. There is nothing you won't do to get Trump, ay?
 
Lutherf said:
It's totally legit. In all cases involving Trump the defense must first present their case to the prosecution for approval before the case can go to court. It's the only way we have to preserve democracy and stave off an insurrection!
Click to expand...
There’s that old NY snark, guess what? It’s still rank…….
 
MrNiceGuy said:
It'd be a crime not to take advice?

You want the government to lean on his former attorneys to drop a dime on their former client, to get Trump for a violation of the law by not listening to an attorney's opinion on a topic?
Click to expand...
If they gave advice and stated his planned course of action was illegal, could that be evidence against him?
MrNiceGuy said:
My god.... y'all really are Ropers from A Man for All Season. There is nothing you won't do to get Trump, ay?
Click to expand...
I have yet to see that. Did watch 12 Angry Men recently. loved it.
 
Lutherf said:
It's totally legit. In all cases involving Trump the defense must first present their case to the prosecution for approval before the case can go to court. It's the only way we have to preserve democracy and stave off an insurrection!
Click to expand...
Derp.
 
It is because the federal government only issues an indictment if they have a very solid case and evidence. You are operating under the false premise that the federal government routinely falsely convicts people when in fact, they only bring a case when it's extremely strong to begin with.

Moreover, they don't have unlimited resources. The justice department has a budget just like other government agencies.
 
MrNiceGuy said:
Everyone's legal team is inferior to the government's legal team in federal criminal prosecutions. The government has unlimited resources.
Click to expand...
Except when prosecuting OJ.
 
MrNiceGuy said:
Everyone's legal team is inferior to the government's legal team in federal criminal prosecutions. The government has unlimited resources.
Click to expand...
Not true. But in Trump's case, he is limited because high quality attorneys would not consider him a client. A nightmare defendant, Trump has already admitted guilt in several of the cases against him, has a track record of talking way too much, has a history of not paying his bills, and is well known for ignoring advice of counsel. His previous lawyers have gone to prison and/or are going broke. What lawyers do you imagine are wiling to take that on as a client? He doesn't have the top their to choose from, surely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…