EX-PRESIDENT INDICTED

lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
No, I’m not.
I've seen others refer to it that way, but mostly just my personal experience/observation over the years, but could just be my own term to an extent I suppose. I think it started to come in with the move to FM radio for a lot of music in the 70s, but AM had broadcast advantages (distance) as well as a lot of vehicles even with a basic option set had an am radio. So maybe mid 70s when some gaps would be filled on am radio with bombastic talk shows....oriented to the right side politically (the usual fear mongering about communism, lots of tough guy talk, racism, odd takes on Christianity, etc..), often full of rage and hate....then with Faux News a lot became video oriented....
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Samurai
Trump's lawyer (Lauro) also floated the advice of counsel defense . . . The advice of counsel defense strikes me as being somewhat more likely to get traction in court, but I'm skeptical that this would be successful. For one thing, it would more than likely waive attorney-client privilege . . .

If all of the communications between Trump and Eastman were to be entered as evidence, I'm willing to bet it would include statements by Eastman to the effect that his legal theory was weak, untested, etc. which would undermine Trump's defense.
The prosecutor just filed a motion asking the court to require Trump to state whether or not he will be relying on the advice of counsel defense. The motion referenced the statements by Lauro mentioned in my prior post.

Basically, the prosecutor wants access to all of the waived attorney-client privileged material well before the trial so they can scour it for incriminating statements. As I mentioned in my prior post, I'm willing to bet that waving A-C privilege would reveal incriminating evidence.

Thus, I'm guessing that the advice of counsel defense was just a TV talking point, and Trump will not assert it in court.

>>>Both Mr. Trump and his current team of lawyers have “repeatedly and publicly announced” that they were going to use such arguments as “a central component of his defense,” prosecutors told Judge Chutkan in their filing. They said they wanted a formal order forcing Mr. Trump to tell them his plans by mid-December “to prevent disruption of the pretrial schedule and delay of the trial.”

The early notification could also give prosecutors a tactical edge in the case. Defendants who pursue advice of counsel arguments waive the shield of attorney-client privilege that would normally protect their dealings with their lawyers. And, as prosecutors reminded Judge Chutkan, if Mr. Trump heads in this direction, he would have to give them not only all of the “communications or evidence” concerning the lawyers he plans to use as part of his defense, but also any “otherwise-privileged communications” that might be used to undermine his claims. . . .

The prosecutors pointed out that three days after Mr. Trump was arraigned in the case, one of his lawyers, John F. Lauro, made the rounds of the Sunday TV news shows, describing how Mr. Trump had been charged for “following legal advice” from Mr. Eastman, whom he described as “an esteemed [ha ha ha] scholar.” <<< (emphasis and snide comments added)


As noted in the NYT article, it's not entirely clear that Trump could successfully assert an advice of counsel defense in this case. As noted by Bill Barr previously, one of the main problems for Trump is that he didn't rely on the advice of lawyers with experience in this area, but rather sought out lawyers who told him the fairy tales he wanted to hear:

>>>Barr was also asked about whether the “advice of counsel” defense might work, and he built upon Short’s point.
“I don’t think that dog is going to hunt,” Barr said on CNN.
“He wouldn’t listen to all the lawyers in the [Justice] Department who — in various departments or the White House that had those responsibilities, or his campaign,” Barr said. “He would search for a lawyer who would give him the advice he wanted.”<<<


The judge's response to the motion concerning the advice of counsel defense might (emphasis on "might") provide some insight into the judge's view of the intent requirement in this case.

Judges do not always allow advice of counsel instructions to go to a jury.

>>>[W]here there is no requirement that the defendant intended to violate the statute criminalizing an offense, the advice of counsel instruction is not warranted. See United States v. Remini, 967 F.2d 754, 757 (2d Cir. 1992). It is presumed that “every citizen knows the law,” Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184, 193 (1988); a lawyer cannot waive a magic wand and by his or her say-so relieve a defendant from criminal liability. See United States v. Ansaldi, 372 F.3d 118, 128 (2d Cir. 2004).<<<

 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
Defendants who pursue advice of counsel arguments waive the shield of attorney-client privilege that would normally protect their dealings with their lawyers.
Thank you for your posts regarding this. It's something I never knew or thought about before.

It's looks like the advice of counsel arguments vs. attorney-client privilege is the conflict that Trump faces in these trials. He can't have it both ways.

If there is a slip-up in any of his four trials, the barn door swings wide open and all the horses will run out. Does that hold true for only one trial, without affecting the others? Or, if it happens in one trial, all the others also become affected? I know … this is law not science. The answer is likely to be "it depends".
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Samurai
If there is a slip-up in any of his four trials, the barn door swings wide open and all the horses will run out. Does that hold true for only one trial, without affecting the others? Or, if it happens in one trial, all the others also become affected? I know … this is law not science. The answer is likely to be "it depends".
Interesting question.

Roughly speaking, based on the facts and law involved, there are four cases or groups of cases. 1) the New York cases (these involve Trump's businesses/state law), 2) The Florida documents case (Trump's actions as a private citizen/federal law), 3) the federal January 6 case (Trump's actions as president/federal law), and the Georgia cases ((Trump's actions as president/state law)

Waivers are typically limited to communications involving specific facts and legal issues between a client and specific attorneys. Thus, in a sense, the short answer to the question "if it happens in one trial, all the others also become affected?" is probably not for the NY cases and the Florida documents case. I have a hard time seeing how an A-C communication, if waved, in either of these cases could be relevant to any of the other cases. It also seems unlikely that a waver in any of the other cases could be relevant in either of these two cases.

However, there is a great deal of overlap in the facts of the Georgia case and the federal January 6 case, and Eastman is a defendant in the Georgia case. His communications with Trump concerning federal law appear to be the primary issue in the January 6 case right now. Although the January 6 case involves federal law, it's conceivable that some of the communications might be relevant to the Georgia cases.

Having said that, we don't know what Eastman communicated to Trump in connection with the January 6 case, so it's not possible to know what effect a waiver in the federal January 6 case with regards to Eastman's communications might have on the Georgia case.

Conceivably, Trump might assert advice of counsel defense in the January 6 case based on communications from other lawyers in addition to Eastman, but it's hard to know if this is likely because we don't know what the other lawyers might have communicated to Trump.

Trump would undoubtedly try to limit the waiver to communications with lawyers (e.g. Eastman) that advised him the January 6 plan was legal, while asserting that A-C privilege applies to communications with Cipollone and others who apparently told him "you're out of your Vulcan mind!" In other words, Trump would try to limit the waiver to communications that would help him, while keeping out communications that contradict the waived communications. My gut instinct is that a defendant can't selectively waive A-C privilege to filter out damning communications in this situation, but I really don't know.

There has already been an issue concerning whether or not Cipollone's waiver during grand jury testimony will carry over to the trial itself (in theory the grand jury testimony might not be admissible in the trial because different standards apply). I'm not sure if the court has ruled on this issue yet.

That's a very long way of saying . . . drum roll . . . it depends.
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
Interesting question.

Roughly speaking, based on the facts and law involved, there are four cases or groups of cases. 1) the New York cases (these involve Trump's businesses/state law), 2) The Florida documents case (Trump's actions as a private citizen/federal law), 3) the federal January 6 case (Trump's actions as president/federal law), and the Georgia cases ((Trump's actions as president/state law)

Waivers are typically limited to communications involving specific facts and legal issues between a client and specific attorneys. Thus, in a sense, the short answer to the question "if it happens in one trial, all the others also become affected?" is probably not for the NY cases and the Florida documents case. I have a hard time seeing how an A-C communication, if waved, in either of these cases could be relevant to any of the other cases. It also seems unlikely that a waver in any of the other cases could be relevant in either of these two cases.

However, there is a great deal of overlap in the facts of the Georgia case and the federal January 6 case, and Eastman is a defendant in the Georgia case. His communications with Trump concerning federal law appear to be the primary issue in the January 6 case right now. Although the January 6 case involves federal law, it's conceivable that some of the communications might be relevant to the Georgia cases.

Having said that, we don't know what Eastman communicated to Trump in connection with the January 6 case, so it's not possible to know what effect a waiver in the federal January 6 case with regards to Eastman's communications might have on the Georgia case.

Conceivably, Trump might assert advice of counsel defense in the January 6 case based on communications from other lawyers in addition to Eastman, but it's hard to know if this is likely because we don't know what the other lawyers might have communicated to Trump.

Trump would undoubtedly try to limit the waiver to communications with lawyers (e.g. Eastman) that advised him the January 6 plan was legal, while asserting that A-C privilege applies to communications with Cipollone and others who apparently told him "you're out of your Vulcan mind!" In other words, Trump would try to limit the waiver to communications that would help him, while keeping out communications that contradict the waived communications. My gut instinct is that a defendant can't selectively waive A-C privilege to filter out damning communications in this situation, but I really don't know.

There has already been an issue concerning whether or not Cipollone's waiver during grand jury testimony will carry over to the trial itself (in theory the grand jury testimony might not be admissible in the trial because different standards apply). I'm not sure if the court has ruled on this issue yet.

That's a very long way of saying . . . drum roll . . . it depends.
Thank you for your insight.
1697209912075.png

I think I like this one better
1697209943859.png
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
I've seen others refer to it that way, but mostly just my personal experience/observation over the years, but could just be my own term to an extent I suppose. I think it started to come in with the move to FM radio for a lot of music in the 70s, but AM had broadcast advantages (distance) as well as a lot of vehicles even with a basic option set had an am radio. So maybe mid 70s when some gaps would be filled on am radio with bombastic talk shows....oriented to the right side politically (the usual fear mongering about communism, lots of tough guy talk, racism, odd takes on Christianity, etc..), often full of rage and hate....then with Faux News a lot became video oriented....
AM can't have the fidelity of FM and before the conglomerates bought stations like gum balls, most FM stations could do their own thing and now, it's just bought & paid for playlist crap.

To balance the right-wing radio, NPR and public radio in various states had their own programming- it hasn't always been Conservative BS. I worked with someone who would listen to Rush Limbaugh every day and people would ask why I was in a bad mood.......
 
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Spartan
AM can't have the fidelity of FM and before the conglomerates bought stations like gum balls, most FM stations could do their own thing and now, it's just bought & paid for playlist crap.

To balance the right-wing radio, NPR and public radio in various states had their own programming- it hasn't always been Conservative BS. I worked with someone who would listen to Rush Limbaugh every day and people would ask why I was in a bad mood.......
Rush's ego was too big for my taste, and it always felt like he was promoting himself. Even his 30th celebration felt like he was patting himself on the back. However, I still think Hannity radio was worse. He'd say to callers, You big fat jerk! Plus he sort of coined the term tabloid journalism LOL.
 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
Rush's ego was too big for my taste, and it always felt like he was promoting himself. Even his 30th celebration felt like he was patting himself on the back. However, I still think Hannity radio was worse. He'd say to callers, You big fat jerk! Plus he sort of coined the term tabloid journalism LOL.
Tabloid journalism far predates Hannity/Limbaugh/Faux News, altho they are all extensions of it....
 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Spartan
Tabloid journalism far predates Hannity/Limbaugh/Faux News, altho they are all extensions of it....
And tabloid journalism refers to the compact paper format used by the sensationalist newspapers at that time.
 
isolar8001

isolar8001

Audioholic General
In the late 90's, I had a job where i drove all over this country....coast to coast.
Many, many times going into radio range of a new region, one of the first things to come across loud and clear were call signs like..

"This is WGUN Conservative Radio !!"

Never once did i drive into a region with a call sign like..

"This is WHUG Liberal Radio !!"

Just reminds me of the old saying that those who yell the loudest and the longest are the ones that think they are right.
 
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Spartan
Tabloid journalism far predates Hannity/Limbaugh/Faux News, altho they are all extensions of it....
For sure. I'd say though Hannity was kind of the guy at the time. I always LOL at his radical liberal media signature.
 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
For sure. I'd say though Hannity was kind of the guy at the time. I always LOL at his radical liberal media signature.
I know who he is, the few times I've tried to listen to him I just get disgusted and do something else. I thought the only time he was "the guy" was when he and the drumph were bedtime phone pals....
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Samurai
According to Tribe, the plaintiffs in the Colorado case have standing under the law in Colorado:

>>>Harvard constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe shared his insights on the power of a Colorado lawsuit seeking to remove former President Donald Trump from the 2024 ballot. . . .<<<

A judge just ruled against Trump and refused to toss the Colorado case:

>>>DENVER (AP) — A Colorado judge has rejected an attempt by former President Donald Trump to dismiss a lawsuit that seeks to keep him off the state ballot, ruling that his objections on free-speech grounds did not apply. . . . The Colorado case will focus in part on the meaning of “insurrection” under the 14th Amendment, whether it applies only to waging war on the U.S. or can apply to Trump’s goading of a mob that attacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, to halt the certification of President Joe Biden’s win. . . . The trial to determine Trump’s eligibility for the Colorado ballot is scheduled to start Oct. 30. <<<


It's really hard to say what the outcome of the various 14th Amendment cases will be.
 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
A judge just ruled against Trump and refused to toss the Colorado case:

>>>DENVER (AP) — A Colorado judge has rejected an attempt by former President Donald Trump to dismiss a lawsuit that seeks to keep him off the state ballot, ruling that his objections on free-speech grounds did not apply. . . . The Colorado case will focus in part on the meaning of “insurrection” under the 14th Amendment, whether it applies only to waging war on the U.S. or can apply to Trump’s goading of a mob that attacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, to halt the certification of President Joe Biden’s win. . . . The trial to determine Trump’s eligibility for the Colorado ballot is scheduled to start Oct. 30. <<<


It's really hard to say what the outcome of the various 14th Amendment cases will be.
I liked the part where drumphy's claim said as US President he didn't take an oath to uphold the Constitution....
 
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Spartan
I know who he is, the few times I've tried to listen to him I just get disgusted and do something else. I thought the only time he was "the guy" was when he and the drumph were bedtime phone pals....
I meant "the guy" regarding tabloid journalism. I'm fairly sure he spearheaded the Obama birther stuff.
 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
I meant "the guy" regarding tabloid journalism. I'm fairly sure he spearheaded the Obama birther stuff.
Meh, he just tried to make the term turn around from what he himself was doing.....like a lot of the maga crap.
 
isolar8001

isolar8001

Audioholic General
Well, super scumbag Jim Jordan got nominated for speaker...nothing like having an election denier, and Trump ass kisser potentially third in line.
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top