The guy with a reputation for not paying his attorneys is having trouble attracting good legal council?
Shocked. I'm shocked.
this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2023
285 points (97.0% liked)
News
23266 readers
3115 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
His lawyers probably didn’t expect to juggle a dozen trials at the same time. That, and, no one even halfway competent would ever work for Trump. Most of his previous attorneys are codefendants in his criminal trials at this point.
I can hear the ineffective assistance of counsel appeal being typed up now.
"OK so what's our strategy here?"
"Well, I'm going to be so incompetent that when you're inevitably found guilty you can appeal on the basis that I'm incompetent"
"Genius. I love it."
Doubtless they will turn it a day late, and a dollar short. SMH
So the repeated (ad nauseum) Trump claim "I only hire the best people" isn't accurate?
It's absolutely accurate, we just never asked by what metric "best" was being measured.
"Best" in this case was apparently "someone dumb enough to think Trump won't screw them out of money." :P
“They didn’t ask for payment up front.”
I'll let the team over at Legal Eagle answer that one
So, I must have followed a link to one of their videos at some point, because the YouTube algorithm spammed me their shit for months until I blocked it.
What kind of content is it? The thumbnails and titles looked rage baity
It's actually pretty decent legal oriented YouTube entertainment. He's a practicing lawyer that talks about current events and discusses possibly relevant laws or sometimes legal procedures. Sort of a more serious version of attorney tom.
It's pretty good. He definitely has a bias and I don't agree with him 100% of the time.
For example, he advocates that forced arbitration agreements isn't that bad. I don't agree with that at all.
But it's good content and high quality.
He's actually pretty good. I really enjoy some of his reviews of legal movies.
I only hire the best people*
*that will actually agree to work for me, which is a small and shrinking list.
and probably not get paid
Oh no. 🍿
I’m just some idiot on the internet who doesn’t know what I’m talking about, but…
Is it possible this isn’t a mistake? If you’re going to try to win a trial through corruption and wrongdoings, it seems easier to illicitly win over (and have it stay quiet) one person than half of a jury, no?
This judge already appears to have an axe to grind with Trump, so, uh, it probably would have been easier with a jury.
That's their play, they don't want a jury because they're trying to pay the groundwork for a mistrial via judicial bias but that is a high jump and they're stumbling on molehills.
Not a mistake. They plan to win on appeal.
Sounds like he's setting up an appeal to a sympathetic judge on the basis of "the evil liberals were mean to me!"
You only need one juror though, no?
I’m honestly not sure. Does a jury vote need to be unanimous for a guilty verdict?
The jury has to be unanimous no matter the decision. If they can't agree, they either deliberate as long as it takes, or if the jury is hung, then they'll reduce the charges.
I posted this story in politics from another source a few days ago and it was removed because apparently the source wasn’t good enough and people couldn’t find it anywhere else. It was the only source reporting it at the time, but ok then.
edit: guess it was farther back than I remember, here’s that article from ~3 weeks ago
https://washingtonpress.com/2023/09/12/attorney-error-trump-eschews-jury-in-manhattan-case/
edit2: yep, 19 days ago
Quit being so fast and accurate with your news! This isn’t Reuters!
Sorry sorry I’ll build in a delay from now on.
Lol this is fantastic. The trial is going to be an absolute blast :D
Did he fire his attorneys? No? Then it was on purpose. He's building up to some political bullshit.
It also really limits his appeals options.
Good. Let's hope that this is just the first of stupidities he stumbles over. Didn't he already piss off the judge that presides over this case?
I'd love to see the judge rule from the bench on this.