That's brutal. Some will conclude that its bc he wont pay them, and they'll wind up getting disbarred and/or prosecuted for their involvement. Others will suggest it's bc his lawyers will be targeted by the feds for taking the case. Some will argue a combo. Personally, i think the deal breaker is in the indictment itself. Keeping his own attorneys in the dark, baiting them to go to bat for him very publicly....only to have the rug pulled out from under them, to publicly face plant... But we're a pragmatic lot, and Trump is a stingy son of a bitch. Hence i conclude he just wont pay up the million dollar non-refundable retainer fee any attorney he calls, would surely demand, at this point.
This is news to me. Do you believe that America currently has an existential systemic racism problem?
Special counsel was appointed to investigate the charges. One would have to question the motives of any prosecutor that did NOT seek to indict Trump based on the Mar-a-Lago evidence. The fact government officials might not like someone does not give that person a pass to violate the law or render any prosecution of that individual politically motivated.
I don't understand. You said I do something, I asked where I've done it. So what's news to you? I think there's certainly racism, and sometimes it surprises me where it pops up. Do I think it controls everything? No, I don't. Now, let me ask again: You said: "You accept racism as the "god of inequitable gaps" I asked where I've done that. I assume you have no answer?
I find this whole line of argument very bizarre, I think the DOJ and FBI would love nothing more than not to do any of this given their reluctance to bring charges against anyone with any kind of power, except their hand was basically forced by a guy that was just flaunting doing crime and spiking the football right in front of them. Its really not unlike Elizabeth Holmes, like if you are rich and end up in prison or even being prosecuted with a trial, you know you were basically just brazen about it. This whole country was designed to make it easy for people in that position to not be bound by the law, but the system cant abide by flagrant lawbreaking either, it would give up the game.
Marcy brought up a point that I should have thought of. On top of all the other issues representing him in normal cases, this representation will require to already have or obtain clearances to see the material and be individually liable for how you handle the evidence, all with a client like him that expects you to break the law for him and doesn’t care what happens to you if you do
I actually doubt very much it’s about $$$ or not paying bills. Trump isn’t paying out of is own pocket on his legal battles. He uses political/donor money to pay the lawyers. That hefty retainer can be paid up front out of that political money. I think it’s much more the “nightmare client” thing. I mean hell, on this matter he already got his own lawyers in potential hot water because he lied to them. Part of the charges here is that he actively moved the documents to deceive his own lawyers… which caused his lawyers to sign false affidavits. Unsurprisingly those lawyers quit. How can they work in those circumstances? I’d assume most lawyers would look at the facts of this case and also not see much of a defense. Obviously he will be represented, but at this point it should be obvious reputable firms don’t want to touch him with a 10’ poll. Kind of like how no reputable bank will do business with him (only foreign entities and money laundering banks).
Garland was appointed well before anyone knew Trump took secret documents and lied about it and tried to cover it up and refused to comply with a subpoena, but sure - that’s why Biden appointed him and then got out of his way. Biden is not just a mastermind, he can see into the future!
I take back what I said and I apologize. Sometimes I make the mistake in thinking all of you think the same way on that issue. And though I think that is the clear majority progressive opinion on this forum, after reading some of your posts, that is not a fair reflection of your opinion.
My point is that the two guys at the top, and a majority of influential figures within the FBI have a prejudice against Trump.
I sent my office home and told everyone to work remotely today. There’s going to be crazy traffic and closed roads, amongst other things. It’s going to be crazy downtown.
May be true. But have you read the indictment? After reading it, regardless of how you feel about Trump, how do you not indict? Smith was appointed by Garland, who was appointed by Biden. Any evidence Smith was prejudice against Trump? Any evidence Garland and/or Biden interfered with the investigation? If both answers are no, then you are arguing no Rs can ever be investigated with a D POTUS and visa versa, because it could be political. And again, read the indictment. And tell me with a straight face this is not serious and only a political plot to get Trump.
I think we can all agree that lawyers have massive egos. You’ve hit the nail on the head as to why a good defense lawyer would turn this case down— they would be concerned about representing a client that would mercilessly flush them down the toilet. Many lawyers would even risk payment to work a case like this. But the risk of Trump doing what he always does — burn those who work for him — might be too great a risk.
For a long time the rap on Garland was that he was too wimpy and pro-institutional to prosecute Trump
I didn’t say he appointed Garland specifically to go after Trump. If you guys can’t see any motive from Biden and Garland to hate and target Trump, and you’re not willing to cede any ground on that front, you will never see a politician targeting political opponents until it is one of your boys. And when that happens, you will deserve no sympathy.
You don’t need to impute arguments on me, I’ve made my position clear on this thread. If Clinton was indicted in 2016, I would still be concerned about the direction we’re heading as a country (I thought neither should be indicted under the circumstances), but at least it would be consistent.
