Legal analysts say Trump admitted that the intent in financial representations he made was to convince lenders to loan him money.
Legal analysts say Trump admitted that the intent in financial representations he made was to convince lenders to loan him money.
Imagine being this genius’ lawyer
A plausible sounding article I read stated that his lawyers knew from the start that they didn’t have a chance of winning anyway. This whole thing is just theater to try and stall as long as possible to buy time until the election.
I’m sure they’ve already got plans to cheat their way to a “victory” on that front as well.
But also taking time to give him a proper trial ensures that the final ruling is constitutional and can’t risk being declared a mistrial later on.
His own lawyers declined to question him lmao Knew he’d just make things even worse.
Isn’t it pretty typical for defendents to not take the stand?
This is a civil, not criminal trial. Can’t self incriminate if it’s not a criminal trial, so the 5th amendment doesn’t apply (not sure how it works if there’s other trials ongoing with cross interest in testimony).
The fifth Amendment would not apply to the allegations in the civil complaint. It’s still applies to his testimony with regard to uncharged criminal conduct. In other words, he cannot be required to testify in the civil case to something that would incriminate him in an uncharged criminal matter. At least that’s my understanding as an attorney, however, I admit I never have to deal with this issue and the one time it almost came up, the other lawyer never asked my witness the right questions.
That’s not uncommon. In fact it’s probably more common than questioning client.
Hope they got paid up front…
Narrator: “they didn’t.”
(Which really goes to show how incompetent they are.)
Only people Trump ever paid on time, or at all, was businesses connected to the Russian Mob.
exactly. which is why competent lawyers are staying away. Even moderately incompetent ones would demand payment upfront.
Only lawyers willing to take up trumps case, are people who think the fame of being associated with him will benefit them in the future.
Which says all you need to know about their intellectual capacity.
It’s reached a point where now I’m instantly skeptical of any lawyer who starts going on the news circuit while a case is on-going - they’re looking for fame, not to talk about the case.
They’ll capitalize on their 15 minutes of MAGA fame and write a book or run for office or whatever.
Nah, they got paid in “exposure” (to ridicule, sanctions, and indictments!)
exposure doesn’t pay the bills.
On only fans it does
People keep saying this but honesty if you dont have anything going for you… Why not do it for free?
I know bugger all about law but surely everyone will know you in the profession, and if you mange to do anything close to a good job, then you get some kind of credibility from it?
Seems like a yolo opportunity for anyone wanting to make a name for themselves.
Ahh the good old “exposure “ argument.
It’s refreshing seeing it applied to lawyers instead of artists.
At this level there is much more to lose than gain. Trump can literally threaten your law license. The exposure isn’t worth the risk.
your client can do this?
I’m beginning to think MAGA stands for make attorneys get aneurisms.
Make Attorneys Get Attorneys
Sure, that’s already happened. Watching Trump jeopardize Chris Kise’s legal career with games on the stand tho… This may be the first time a defense attorney just pops a blood vessel wanting to scream “SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU’RE MAKING IT WORSE YOU RIDICULOUS FUCKNUT”
His lawyer went to a law school that doesn’t require LSAT scores 😆
Yale or Harvard?
She’s been auditioning for a spot on Fox the entire time.