Trump's Legal Team - The Facts

[Dante Reawakened]

Let's start with facts vs opinions and wild accusations from the peanut gallery.

Here is where it stands going forward. I'd appreciate it if people would resist the temptations to hijack this thread, or try and use it to deflect away from facts.

I believe it's important to have a thread where factual developments regarding Trump's legal team and can be posted and discussed civilly and with respect.

"Let's talk about the judge," Bash pressed.

"Will you ask for a different judge?"

"You know, I have no issue with this judge whatsoever," the attorney replied.

"Your client does," Bash observed.

"Well, my client has a right to have an issue with everything," Tacopina snapped. "He's been politically persecuted. Make no mistake about that, Dana."

"So you don't believe this judge is biased?" Bash asked.

"I have no reason to believe this judge is biased," the attorney stated. "I've not been before him on this matter. So we have to let this process play out."

MSN

www.msn.com

 

[White 6]

Let's start with facts vs opinions and wild accusations from the peanut gallery.

Here is where it stands going forward. I'd appreciate it if people would resist the temptations to hijack this thread, or try and use it to deflect away from facts.

I believe it's important to have a thread where factual developments regarding Trump's legal team and can be posted and discussed civilly and with respect.

"Let's talk about the judge," Bash pressed.

"Will you ask for a different judge?"

"You know, I have no issue with this judge whatsoever," the attorney replied.

MSN

www.msn.com

Sounds like Tacopina gave an even-handed response, not undercutting anybody, and not making prejudicial statements in a foolish attempt to litigate on TV interview when he has to deal with the charges, trial and proceedings in court, possibly in front of the same judge. Maybe team trump learned the public opinion war as was tried after the 2020 election instead of sound legal work based on presentable facts and evidence just does not work, when actual judges and possibly legal proceedings in front of a jury may be involved.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

So, I see a 'thumbs down' thingie. I guess discussions of factual information is not the cup-of-tea for some. But at least it's civil. Take notice.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Sounds like Tacopina gave an even-handed response, not undercutting anybody, and not making prejudicial statements in a foolish attempt to litigate on TV interview when he has to deal with the charges, trial and proceedings in court, possibly in front of the same judge. Maybe team trump learned the public opinion war as was tried after the 2020 election instead of sound legal work based on presentable facts and evidence just does not work, when actual judges and possibly legal proceedings in front of a jury may be involved.

First rule of litigation..Don't piss off the Judge~

Better lawyer than Trump deserves, IMO....wonder how long he'll last?

 

[Dante Reawakened]

Sounds like Tacopina gave an even-handed response, not undercutting anybody, and not making prejudicial statements in a foolish attempt to litigate on TV interview when he has to deal with the charges, trial and proceedings in court, possibly in front of the same judge. Maybe team trump learned the public opinion war as was tried after the 2020 election instead of sound legal work based on presentable facts and evidence just does not work, when actual judges and possibly legal proceedings in front of a jury may be involved.

Hopefully. This is a sad event in America. The legal system says Trump brought it on himself. Trump's team is saying what exactly, it's a witch hunt? That's not a great defense. So I suspect there are seriously credible, arguments they will put forth in court(s). Whether their arguments will win the day, we shall see far down the road. As far as the prosecution stands, I'm expect to be biased - in favor of their arguments going forward.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

First rule of litigation..Don't piss off the Judge~

Better lawyer than Trump deserves, IMO....wonder how long he'll last?

Not about Trump personally, but about his legal team. But on your first rule claim: some defense teams have in the past counted on pissing off a judge, for the aspects of appeals.

 

[White 6]

Hopefully. This is a sad event in America. The legal system says Trump brought it on himself. Trump's team is saying what exactly, it's a witch hunt? That's not a great defense. So I suspect there are seriously credible, arguments they will put forth in court(s). Whether their arguments will win the day, we shall see far down the road. As far as the prosecution stands, I'm expect to be biased - in favor of their arguments going forward.

I expect, I will just watch and if it comes to trial with jury, trust them to get it right. Call it a civics thing.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

I expect, I will just watch and if it comes to trial with jury, trust them to get it right. Call it a civics thing.

I'm with you on this, except I don't always agree with juries getting things right : OJ Simpson. But I do respect the judicial system, flaws and all.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

I'm sure Trump's legal team was advised. Not sure where they all stand on what exactly will be said. Nevertheless, it will be a part of the legal case.

Trump Announces Plans for After Tuesday's Arrest

 

[Rogue AI]

Fact: Liberal hacks have no idea what's in the actual indictment and already declared Trump guilty.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

Good Monday Morning, this April 3, 2023:

One supposed line of defense has been shot down. For quite some time, Trump's legal team has been in the media suggesting DA Bragg's case is unwarranted, because suposedly the former DA (Vance), decided there was not enough evidence (credible or not) to indict Trump.

“Why didn't you charge the hush money case?” asked host Chuck Todd. “Why didn't you ever charge it in 2018, 2019, 2020?”

“[A]s I believe you know, I was asked by the US Attorney's Office in the Southern District to stand down on our investigation, which had commenced involving the Trump Organization,” said Mr Vance. “And as, you know, as someone who respects that office a great deal, and believing that they may have perhaps the best laws to investigate, I did so.”

and to add to this blow:

But Mr Vance went on to say that he was surprised by – and apparently disagreed with – the decision of federal prosecutors not to pursue criminal charges against Mr Trump over the matter at the time. “I was somewhat surprised after Mr Cohen pleaded guilty that the federal government did not proceed on the areas in which it asked me to stand down,” said the former DA.

Former Manhattan DA finally reveals why Trump wasn’t charged earlier in hush money case

 

[Dante Reawakened]

Fact: Liberal hacks have no idea what's in the actual indictment and already declared Trump guilty.

Public opinion is like that. The accused/defendants are 'innocent until proven guilty' in a court of law, not in the court of public opinion, which has no bounds.

Defenders of Trump have no leg to stand on: "Lock her up!" And it is obvious, defenders are claiming no crimes were committed, having no idea what's in the actual indictment.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

After seeing this report: Trump attorney caught flat-footed when grilled on new Mar-a-Lago revelations

I would not be surprised if when going to court, Trump hires a group of lawyers with experience in criminal proceedings, as he walks away from the obvious clown show people like this lawyer (Alina Habba), are engaging in. Trump does deserve the best defense (money can by) going forward. The clown show lawyers need to step aside.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

Let's start with facts vs opinions and wild accusations from the peanut gallery.

Here is where it stands going forward. I'd appreciate it if people would resist the temptations to hijack this thread, or try and use it to deflect away from facts.

I believe it's important to have a thread where factual developments regarding Trump's legal team and can be posted and discussed civilly and with respect.

"Let's talk about the judge," Bash pressed.

"Will you ask for a different judge?"

"You know, I have no issue with this judge whatsoever," the attorney replied.

MSN

www.msn.com

Alan Dershowitz Warns Trump ‘Probably Will Be Convicted’ in Hush Money Trial​

Alan Dershowitz Warns Trump ‘Probably Will Be Convicted’ in Hush Money Trial

 

[Dante Reawakened]

It's coming. Trump's lawyers will be testifying too.

MSN

www.msn.com

4:13 PM - 142

 

[Dante Reawakened]

FASCINATING IN THAT THE PANEL HERE [ not focusing on Conway here], EXPLAINS MANY QUESTIONS PEOPLE HAVE ABOUT STATEMENT O FACTS vs INDICTMENT ITSELF and HOW SOME THINGS ARE COMMON IN STATE CPOURTS THAT ARE NOT IN FEDERAL COURTS
FOR THE GLIB AND CHALLENGED HERE: IT'S ONLY A FEW MINUTES LONG

MSN

www.msn.com

George Conway: There’s no question it was a crime under New York state law.

Donald Trump was arraigned Tuesday on 34 felony charges relating to hush money payments surrounding the 2016 election. Trump pleaded not guilty, and his lawyer told reporters the charges were "what we expected," but the court filings from the Manhattan district attorney's office did include some surprises. The Morning Joe panel discusses.

143

 

[Dante Reawakened]

The Prosecution has asked for a trial in January 2024.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

Let's start with facts vs opinions and wild accusations from the peanut gallery.

Here is where it stands going forward. I'd appreciate it if people would resist the temptations to hijack this thread, or try and use it to deflect away from facts.

I believe it's important to have a thread where factual developments regarding Trump's legal team and can be posted and discussed civilly and with respect.

"Let's talk about the judge," Bash pressed.

"Will you ask for a different judge?"

"You know, I have no issue with this judge whatsoever," the attorney replied.

MSN

www.msn.com

MSN

www.msn.com

Prosecutors investigating Trump taking classified documents to his Mar-a-Lago Club after leaving office won a court fight that allowed them to question Corcoran when judges ruled that he could not use attorney-client privilege to avoid disclosing information about his communications with Trump. Prosecutors cited an exception to the legal principle that lawyers must keep confidential what they are told by their clients when there is evidence that a client used the attorney’s legal services in furtherance of a crime.

The move comes as the Justice Department is increasingly focused on possible obstruction by Trump in the investigation into the documents found at his Mar-a-Lago home, and whether Trump took or directed others to impede government efforts to collect all the sensitive records.