Bragg Manhattan DA charges tfg? Hush money. tfg “INDICATED!”

[andersweinstein]

Informative thread on the pseudo advice of counsel defense. Gave me some idea of what he’s *trying* to appeal to (and why it doesn’t work):

[Kendra]

Informative thread on the pseudo advice of counsel defense. Gave me some idea of what he’s *trying* to appeal to (and why it doesn’t work):

https://t witter.com/lawofruby/status/1767700427389247576

TY. Threadreader: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1767 ... 47576.html

[Dave from down under]

Thank you for the thread reader

[Maybenaut]

I think it’s unlikely that the judge is going to allow him to both raise the defense and not raise it. He’s going to have to pick one.

If he can’t meet all of the elements of the defense, what his lawyers advised him probably isn’t relevant. And if it is relevant, then he has to waive the privilege to get it in front of the jury.

That’s why the rules require notice - so the parties can litigate these issues before trial and not while the jury is languishing in the deliberation room.

This is all about burden-shifting, IMO.

The State has the burden to prove every element of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt. But when it comes to “special defenses” or “affirmative defenses” (jurisdictions use different terms), those defenses also have elements, and the burden is on the defense to present “some evidence” of each element. Then the burden shifts to the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense does not exist.

He says he’s not relying on a “formal” advice of counsel defense. By presenting an advice-of-counsel-light defense he’s trying to (a) keep attorney-client information privileged until he can spring it at the opportune time; and (b) avoid taking on an evidentiary burden he clearly can’t carry, leaving the burden with the government.

But since he can’t meet all the elements of the defense, I doubt judge is going to allow him to argue to the jury that he did anything on advice of counsel. I mean, a criminal defendant is entitled to a fair trial, but so is the government.

[Kendra]

Thank you for the thread reader

Glad I was able to find it. I refuse to make an account on X, but I do miss being able to read threads and stuff in my browser without one. Less time suck though

[pipistrelle]

Thank you for the thread reader

Glad I was able to find it. I refuse to make an account on X, but I do miss being able to read threads and stuff in my browser without one. Less time suck though

Twitter bought thread reader a while ago IIRC, which pissed me off.

[Kendra]

Thank you for the thread reader

Glad I was able to find it. I refuse to make an account on X, but I do miss being able to read threads and stuff in my browser without one. Less time suck though

Twitter bought thread reader a while ago IIRC, which pissed me off.

Yeah, I think you're right, but I can read the threads via web without signing up and giving them my damn email and phone #.

[Sam the Centipede]

If [Trump] can’t meet all of the elements of the defense, what his lawyers advised him probably isn’t relevant. And if it is relevant, then he has to waive the privilege to get it in front of the jury.

Suppose Trump gets the advice-of-counsel defense onto the field with the requirement to waive attorney-client privilege, what is the situation for the attorneys impugned by him? They aren't going to feel especially cooperative, are they? If Trump is saying (effectively) "my lawyers were crap and told me to do bad things" they're going to say "no, we're not crap, and we didn't tell you to do bad things, you decided for yourself".

Will they have mud in the well of the courtroom for all the defense (past and present) attorneys to wrestle in?

Because to this not-lawya, this appears to have the makings of an interesting punch-up.

[Maybenaut]

If [Trump] can’t meet all of the elements of the defense, what his lawyers advised him probably isn’t relevant. And if it is relevant, then he has to waive the privilege to get it in front of the jury.

Suppose Trump gets the advice-of-counsel defense onto the field with the requirement to waive attorney-client privilege, what is the situation for the attorneys impugned by him? They aren't going to feel especially cooperative, are they? If Trump is saying (effectively) "my lawyers were crap and told me to do bad things" they're going to say "no, we're not crap, and we didn't tell you to do bad things, you decided for yourself".

Will they have mud in the well of the courtroom for all the defense (past and present) attorneys to wrestle in?

Because to this not-lawya, this appears to have the makings of an interesting punch-up.

It's kind of like an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Just raising the claim waives the privilege. And the lawyers will be permitted an opportunity to defend their actions. A lawyer who wants to keep his license is not going to play fast and loose with the facts, although he would likely use a scalpel in determining whether to turn over privileged communications not relevant to the specific defense (lawyers talk to clients about all sorts of things, not all of which would be relevant to the advice-of-counsel defense). Of course, one of those lawyers is Michael Cohen; we know what he's going to say.

Trump says this advice-of-counsel-light evidence is relevant to his state of mind, but he doesn't really say how. It sounds like he's saying that since counsel were aware of or involved in the crime, he didn't have the requisite intent to break the law. As Lisa Rubin discussed in the thread, that's not really going to fly.

[MN-Skeptic]

I thought of this thread when I saw this tweet today -



From 3/13/2020 - four years ago today, the month that the world shut down because of Covid - Trump is asked "Do you take any responsibility for the lag in testing? Trump's response: "No I don't take responsibility at all."

That is the essence of Trump. He claims credit for the wins of others and denies responsibility for his own bad decisions. It's always someone else's fault. We saw that with his recent financial lawsuit in New York and we're seeing that now in this lawsuit.

I would love to see a video clip of all the times he's denied responsibility for his actions.

[Rolodex]

Just got to read the Rubin thread. I followed the SBF trial pretty closely and remember that. That whole thing was a shitshow bc SBF is both guilty as hell and odd. Judge has been getting a slew of letters from his folks' famous (and legal) friends regarding sentencing which has yet to be set. I have to temper my disgust of him with fairness for sentencing, but my darker angels want him to get the maximum. Of course he tried to fob everything off on "advice of lawyers." Both of his parents are lawyers but hoo boy they are ... unusual.

[raison de arizona]

MacCallum: The first case that is set to go to trial is in New York City on March 25. It deals with the hush money that was paid to Stormy Daniels…

Habba: Do I think it's going to go ahead? Really it shouldn't. We have an immunity defense that is up on The Supreme Court.

[Dave from down under]

So in Trumps mind/sludge-pit Presidential immunity starts from before he was President

Truely America will have Kings again if any part of this is ruled so by SCOTUS.

[raison de arizona]

Bragg is agreeing to a 30-day delay due to the Southern District just getting around to dumping 73k pages on everyone. Bastids.

[p0rtia]

So where's the evidence contradicting the idea that SDNY is riddled with MAGA professionals doing what it can to protect fuckhead? Again.

I'll wait.

[John Thomas8]

There will be no justice for us from the orange shitgibbon.

The delays, lying, intransigent behaviours by courts and judges, and malfeasance by the media are getting worse and worse and will allow the sleezeball to avoid justice.

[Slim Cognito]

So where's the evidence contradicting the idea that SDNY is riddled with MAGA professionals doing what it can to protect fuckhead? Again.

I'll wait.

Which is why the best solution for the OSG is for him to ESAD.

[Rolodex]

I think trump asked for 90 days and Bragg said 30 was ok. Glad I circled that date in pencil.

[sterngard friegen]

Bragg is agreeing to a 30-day delay due to the Southern District just getting around to dumping 73k pages on everyone. Bastids.

The DoJ didn't turn over documents until now?

Sounds like more incompetence by the guy who leads the Department of Justice. The cowardly, dithering, slothlike Merrick Garland. The guy can't do anything right.

[raison de arizona]

[MN-Skeptic]

A couple of tweets with a link to the judge's letter -

erica orden
@eorden

Donald Trump's Manhattan criminal trial will be delayed by 30 days, judge rules:
https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/pre ... -15-24.pdf

Upon further inspection, the ruling is that the trial is delayed 30 days from the date of the letter (today), not 30 days from March 25, when the trial was scheduled to start: "Trial on this matter is adjourned for 30 days from the date of this letter on consent of the People"

Bijan Salehizadeh
@bijans

But judge reserves the right to move it again "The Court will set the new trial date, if necessary, when it rules on Defendant’s motion following the hearing."

[raison de arizona]

Word from da judge: https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/pre ... -15-24.pdf

[raison de arizona]

Word from da judge: https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/pre ... -15-24.pdf

Apparently we're not ready to let go of this yet. Good. Hang those MAGAts at SDNY* out to dry.

The parties are directed to separately furnish this Court, not later than Thursday, March 21,
2024, a detailed timeline of the events surrounding the requests and ultimate production of
documents by the USAO-SDNY that serve as the basis of the People’s March 14, 2024 letter. The
timeline should be accompanied by all correspondence between and among DANY, Defendant and
USAO-SDNY that goes to the subject of Defendant’s motion and which is covered by the People’s
notice of March 14, 2024. The correspondence must include but not be limited to letters,
subpoenas, e-mails, notes, messages, etc. The requested documents are necessary for this Court to
properly assess who, if anyone, is at fault for the late production of the documents, what prejudice,
if any, was suffered by either party and what sanction(s) if any, ate appropriate.

*Yes, I know there may be valid reasons for the delay. Let's hear them.

[AndyinPA]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertai ... cumentary/

AUSTIN — The Stormy Daniels affair that in 2018 consumed Donald Trump’s presidency — after his attorney Michael Cohen violated the law by paying $130,000 to the adult-film star to keep silent — may feel like old news. But it’s far from over. And that was abundantly clear at this month’s South by Southwest premiere of the new documentary “Stormy,” where Daniels arrived as a surprise guest accompanied by two large security guards who surveyed the room at all times.

The guards, along with bomb-sniffing dogs and off-duty police officers, were a reminder of the paranoia that has haunted Daniels for six years, ever since she spoke out about her alleged one-night stand with the former president, then fought back against him in a defamation trial.

She’s still speaking out.

“F--- Trump,” an emotional Daniels said as her final message while exiting the stage. She was shaking with tears throughout the Q&A.

Streaming on Peacock starting today, March 18.

[Rolodex]

Buncha stuff trump wanted excluded won't be excluded. Motions denied! Adam's thread has good info and there are embedded links to the actual rulings for the IAALs among us. Hoo boy ya gotta read the clips Adam posted. It's pretty brutal - like saying nope you tried to argue these evidentiary things already and you're trying to do it again so NOPE. LOL