Special Counsel January 6 conspiracy case against Trump in DC (Update: Trial set for March 4, 2024) (2 Viewers)

[superchuck500]

Trump and Eastman appear to be preparing to be indicted. It’s probably better to have a new, separate thread for this case.

 

[DaveXA]

Eastman (though far from innocent) about to be thrown under the bus

"I just did what my lawyer and trusted adviser told me to do. I had no reason to think he wasn't giving me good advice"
===============================================

Barely hours after Donald Trump was indicted Tuesday for engaging in a wide-ranging criminal conspiracy to overturn U.S. democracy, his defense lawyer, John Lauro, went on Fox News and telegraphed his coming strategy. Lauro said prosecutors cannot prove Trump truly “believed” he’d lost his 2020 presidential reelection, ensuring a not-guilty verdict.

That’s gotten lots of attention, most of it appropriately dismissive. But Lauro also slipped another assertion into his appearance that merits more worry: He declared that Trump merely acted on what he thought was reasonable advice from his lawyer, John Eastman.

“He had advice of counsel, a very detailed memorandum from a constitutional expert,” Lauro said of Trump and Eastman. Lauro argued this convinced Trump that he could reasonably ask Vice President Mike Pence to halt Congress’s count of presidential electors to allow states to revisit voting irregularities.

“That’s the only thing that President Trump suggested,” Lauro said, adding that everything Trump attempted “was done with lawyers giving him advice.” Lauro repeated this on NBC’s “Today” show, insisting Trump is “entitled” to “trust advice of counsel.”

This suggests that an “advice of counsel” argument will be central to Trump’s defense. Two of the indictment’s charges are that Trump obstructed the official proceeding of the electoral count and entered into a conspiracy to do so. But the obstruction charge requires proving “corrupt intent,” which could be undermined by the claim that he acted on his lawyers’ advice.

“I’ve always thought this might be his strongest argument,” New York University law professor Ryan Goodman, who has written extensively about the case, told me. Though Goodman believes this “won’t work,” he said it deserves more attention.

Eastman’s theory that Pence had the power to halt the electoral count was utterly baseless. But Matthew Seligman, an election law expert at the Stris and Maher firm, points out that Trump’s lawyers can argue that Trump, who isn’t exactly a legal mastermind, had no reason to doubt what he was being told.

“Prosecutors will need to argue that Trump could not have relied on Eastman’s advice in good faith, because his theories were so outlandish,” Seligman told me.

Trump’s argument could open the door to one juror concluding that, even if those theories were crazy, Trump grasped at them in desperation but in good faith. “If there’s a way for Trump to defeat these charges, this is the way,” Seligman said. “On the law, the prosecution can and should prevail on this point. But they will have to show that Trump adopted these theories in bad faith.”..........

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/08/02/trump-indictment-jack-smith-defense-john-lauro-jan-6/?utm_campaign=wp_post_most&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_most

I don't buy it. Eastman knew what he was doing. He's toast.

 

[UriUT]

Eastman (though far from innocent) about to be thrown under the bus

"I just did what my lawyer and trusted adviser told me to do. I had no reason to think he wasn't giving me good advice"
===============================================

Barely hours after Donald Trump was indicted Tuesday for engaging in a wide-ranging criminal conspiracy to overturn U.S. democracy, his defense lawyer, John Lauro, went on Fox News and telegraphed his coming strategy. Lauro said prosecutors cannot prove Trump truly “believed” he’d lost his 2020 presidential reelection, ensuring a not-guilty verdict.

That’s gotten lots of attention, most of it appropriately dismissive. But Lauro also slipped another assertion into his appearance that merits more worry: He declared that Trump merely acted on what he thought was reasonable advice from his lawyer, John Eastman.

“He had advice of counsel, a very detailed memorandum from a constitutional expert,” Lauro said of Trump and Eastman. Lauro argued this convinced Trump that he could reasonably ask Vice President Mike Pence to halt Congress’s count of presidential electors to allow states to revisit voting irregularities.

“That’s the only thing that President Trump suggested,” Lauro said, adding that everything Trump attempted “was done with lawyers giving him advice.” Lauro repeated this on NBC’s “Today” show, insisting Trump is “entitled” to “trust advice of counsel.”

This suggests that an “advice of counsel” argument will be central to Trump’s defense. Two of the indictment’s charges are that Trump obstructed the official proceeding of the electoral count and entered into a conspiracy to do so. But the obstruction charge requires proving “corrupt intent,” which could be undermined by the claim that he acted on his lawyers’ advice.

“I’ve always thought this might be his strongest argument,” New York University law professor Ryan Goodman, who has written extensively about the case, told me. Though Goodman believes this “won’t work,” he said it deserves more attention.

Eastman’s theory that Pence had the power to halt the electoral count was utterly baseless. But Matthew Seligman, an election law expert at the Stris and Maher firm, points out that Trump’s lawyers can argue that Trump, who isn’t exactly a legal mastermind, had no reason to doubt what he was being told.

“Prosecutors will need to argue that Trump could not have relied on Eastman’s advice in good faith, because his theories were so outlandish,” Seligman told me.

Trump’s argument could open the door to one juror concluding that, even if those theories were crazy, Trump grasped at them in desperation but in good faith. “If there’s a way for Trump to defeat these charges, this is the way,” Seligman said. “On the law, the prosecution can and should prevail on this point. But they will have to show that Trump adopted these theories in bad faith.”..........

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/08/02/trump-indictment-jack-smith-defense-john-lauro-jan-6/?utm_campaign=wp_post_most&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_most

I can't remember if it was Eastman or Clark that proclaimed he will not turn against trump and assert his undying loyalty. This defense that trump was following counsel surely will test that loyalty? These coconspirators are nuts.

On a broader note, why can't these idiots see that trump has zero, absolutely zero loyalty towards them? Nauta is toast as there are supposedly video and audio evidence in addition to testimony from witnesses. How does he not plead out? Damn fools

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Trump is already attacking the judge and the venue.

Truth Social

Truth Social is America's "Big Tent" social media platform that encourages an open, free, and honest global conversation without discriminating on the basis of political ideology.

truthsocial.com

 

[MT15]

LOL

 

[superchuck500]

 

[SFIDC3]

I’m grateful he’s saying what he is saying now, but he’s had a large role to play in why we are where we are. He lied about the Mueller Report, the Durham Report, etc. to keep Trump in power.

What I get from Barr is that he is at least smart enough to know when to cover his own arse, he is still a despicable human being....

 

[bdb13]

What I get from Barr is that he is at least smart enough to know when to cover his own arse, he is still a despicable human being....

I draw a red line with the post-election stuff and I give credit to the ones like Barr and Christie who were not willing to go along. There's a self-serving aspect to it sure, but I really do think Barr looked at what Trump was doing and said "this is all wrong and bad and I'm not going to be a part of it."

 

[SFIDC3]

I draw a red line with the post-election stuff and I give credit to the ones like Trump and Christie who were not willing to go along. There's a self-serving aspect to it sure, but I really do think Barr looked at what Trump was doing and said "this is all wrong and bad and I'm not going to be a part of it."

I get that (and by Trump you mean Barr, correct?)....but what Barr did with the Mueller report was criminal IMO, he clearly acted as Trumps personal lawyer instead of the AG of the US....if he would have done what was right in the first place there is a good chance we wouldn't be here....IMO

 

[bdb13]

I get that (and by Trump you mean Barr, correct?)....but what Barr did with the Mueller report was criminal IMO, he clearly acted as Trumps personal lawyer instead of the AG of the US....if he would have done what was right in the first place there is a good chance we wouldn't be here....IMO

(Yes, corrected.)

And I understand that too and don't really disagree there.. but the post-election stuff is just so egregious and different from anything else that happened imo that it allows for me to at least respect the ones around Trump who were ultimately willing to put the country first when it really, really mattered.

 

[superchuck500]

This guy is such a piece of shirt. From DCA to the federal district courthouse, you see very little of DC, most of which is the area around the 14th street bridge (large federal buildings and the Mandarin Oriental hotel) then around Maine Ave and through a tunnel that takes you out right at the Mall.

Such a constant liar

 

[FullMonte]

I had an interesting thought today.

We’ve heard the GOP almost unanimously claiming that this indictment is clearly flawed, since you can’t criminalize lying.

This DOES mean that those individuals will stop claiming that Hunter got a sweetheart deal with the gun charge, right? Isn’t that lying being criminalized?

 

[MT15]

Or this poor woman, being arrested for exercising her free speech. I mean, she just talked about it, right?

Georgia woman charged in plot to kill her ex-Auburn football player husband, reports say

Lindsay Shiver was charged along with her alleged lover Terrance Bethel, a Bahamas native, in a plot to kill her husband, Robert Shiver.

www.usatoday.com

 

[Optimus Prime]

Or this poor woman, being arrested for exercising her free speech.

Georgia woman charged in plot to kill her ex-Auburn football player husband, reports say

Lindsay Shiver was charged along with her alleged lover Terrance Bethel, a Bahamas native, in a plot to kill her husband, Robert Shiver.

www.usatoday.com

 

[MT15]

I hadn’t seen this little bit of ridiculousness:

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

I hadn’t seen this little bit of ridiculousness:

I see that trump sure loves to surround himself with the "best" legal minds.

 

[MT15]

Just out in the open with the corruption. Not even trying to hide it.

 

[MT15]

I agree with her - this needs to be reported more prominently

 

[UriUT]

I hadn’t seen this little bit of ridiculousness:

Duh….in cold cases where evidence reveals the perp 25 years later, they obviously need 25 years to prepare.