Is there any legal significance to the idea that being pardoned implies guilt? Like, say Trump is pardoned and it's determined by the courts that this means he's totes guilty. Does that implication of guilt actually mean anything? Is there something that now he legally can't do that he would be able to do if he wasn't considered guilty? Or is it just a question of rhetoric?
Pardons only work for federal court, not for state court. So if he pardons say Manafort, well Manafort can still be tried in New York State court for money laundering, as an example, and since the pardon is an admission of guilt it's basically a 100% guaranteed guilty verdict in state.
Double jeopardy would apply then, no?
Nope, since New York is considered a separate sovereign, and as such is not bound by the federal proceedings.
It's a big reason why pardons are so rare, and usually only issued for crimes which only exist in one jurisdiction.
It's also considered...unwise for a state prosecutor to retry someone that's received a federal pardon, even if they technically could, since you're basically spitting in the face of the sitting POTUS. Obama pardoned many convictions of drug crimes where the sentence was inflated due to mandatory minimums and 3 strike laws, and prosecutors, if they were so inclined, could have reopened many of those cases, since state draw laws also exist.
But when the POTUS is themselves the target of the pardon, that probably doesn't carry as much weight.
Is there any legal significance to the idea that being pardoned implies guilt? Like, say Trump is pardoned and it's determined by the courts that this means he's totes guilty. Does that implication of guilt actually mean anything? Is there something that now he legally can't do that he would be able to do if he wasn't considered guilty? Or is it just a question of rhetoric?
Pardons only work for federal court, not for state court. So if he pardons say Manafort, well Manafort can still be tried in New York State court for money laundering, as an example, and since the pardon is an admission of guilt it's basically a 100% guaranteed guilty verdict in state.
Double jeopardy would apply then, no?
Nope, since New York is considered a separate sovereign, and as such is not bound by the federal proceedings.
No big law firm can rep Trump because of powerful partners (especially female) redlining it and the associate recruiting pr disaster it would trigger (especially with young women). Repping Trump is a political statement no large law firm can afford to make. Big city lawyers are disproportionately Dems.
Most firms now have at least a few powerful female partners and they ALL have 50 percent young women as associates. Of course many of the men despise Trump too, but it is the women who are saying you represent this fucking pig and I will quit tomorrow and everyone knows they mean it. And any firm that represented Trump may as well just give up on attracting female associates. It would become their entire brand overnight, and it is a terrible black mark. The top firms are interchangeable, so it doesn’t take much to drop to the bottom of young associates’ list. Yes, the fact that he won’t pay, will fucking lose spectacularly and along the way will inevitably force his lawyer to choose between suborning perjury and quitting (if he can), but the truth is it’s the Trump brand they just can’t afford. He’s a Swastika.
If accurate, that's goddamn hilarious and heartening.
Is there any legal significance to the idea that being pardoned implies guilt? Like, say Trump is pardoned and it's determined by the courts that this means he's totes guilty. Does that implication of guilt actually mean anything? Is there something that now he legally can't do that he would be able to do if he wasn't considered guilty? Or is it just a question of rhetoric?
it could be used as evidence in a relevant civil trial
No big law firm can rep Trump because of powerful partners (especially female) redlining it and the associate recruiting pr disaster it would trigger (especially with young women). Repping Trump is a political statement no large law firm can afford to make. Big city lawyers are disproportionately Dems.
Most firms now have at least a few powerful female partners and they ALL have 50 percent young women as associates. Of course many of the men despise Trump too, but it is the women who are saying you represent this fucking pig and I will quit tomorrow and everyone knows they mean it. And any firm that represented Trump may as well just give up on attracting female associates. It would become their entire brand overnight, and it is a terrible black mark. The top firms are interchangeable, so it doesn’t take much to drop to the bottom of young associates’ list. Yes, the fact that he won’t pay, will fucking lose spectacularly and along the way will inevitably force his lawyer to choose between suborning perjury and quitting (if he can), but the truth is it’s the Trump brand they just can’t afford. He’s a Swastika.
If accurate, that's goddamn hilarious and heartening.
It's a nice sentiment, but the 'article' is literally them ripping a user comment from 'TPM reader JB' and posting it on their site. There's no citation or even any arguments as to why this is the case. White women voted majority for Trump, and while many law firms may be hiring more women, they are still shit at hiring minorities.
No big law firm can rep Trump because of powerful partners (especially female) redlining it and the associate recruiting pr disaster it would trigger (especially with young women). Repping Trump is a political statement no large law firm can afford to make. Big city lawyers are disproportionately Dems.
Most firms now have at least a few powerful female partners and they ALL have 50 percent young women as associates. Of course many of the men despise Trump too, but it is the women who are saying you represent this fucking pig and I will quit tomorrow and everyone knows they mean it. And any firm that represented Trump may as well just give up on attracting female associates. It would become their entire brand overnight, and it is a terrible black mark. The top firms are interchangeable, so it doesn’t take much to drop to the bottom of young associates’ list. Yes, the fact that he won’t pay, will fucking lose spectacularly and along the way will inevitably force his lawyer to choose between suborning perjury and quitting (if he can), but the truth is it’s the Trump brand they just can’t afford. He’s a Swastika.
If accurate, that's goddamn hilarious and heartening.
It's a nice sentiment, but the 'article' is literally them ripping a user comment from 'TPM reader JB' and posting it on their site. There's no citation or even any arguments as to why this is the case. White women voted majority for Trump, and while many law firms may be hiring more women, they are still shit at hiring minorities.
Yeah no evidence of this and I totally believe its made up bullshit. They aren't repping Trump because he's famous for not paying or listening to legal council. That's it.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
No big law firm can rep Trump because of powerful partners (especially female) redlining it and the associate recruiting pr disaster it would trigger (especially with young women). Repping Trump is a political statement no large law firm can afford to make. Big city lawyers are disproportionately Dems.
Most firms now have at least a few powerful female partners and they ALL have 50 percent young women as associates. Of course many of the men despise Trump too, but it is the women who are saying you represent this fucking pig and I will quit tomorrow and everyone knows they mean it. And any firm that represented Trump may as well just give up on attracting female associates. It would become their entire brand overnight, and it is a terrible black mark. The top firms are interchangeable, so it doesn’t take much to drop to the bottom of young associates’ list. Yes, the fact that he won’t pay, will fucking lose spectacularly and along the way will inevitably force his lawyer to choose between suborning perjury and quitting (if he can), but the truth is it’s the Trump brand they just can’t afford. He’s a Swastika.
If accurate, that's goddamn hilarious and heartening.
It's a nice sentiment, but the 'article' is literally them ripping a user comment from 'TPM reader JB' and posting it on their site. There's no citation or even any arguments as to why this is the case. White women voted majority for Trump, and while many law firms may be hiring more women, they are still shit at hiring minorities.
While white women like Trump (on average) white *educated* women (such as lawyers) do not.
But there's enough old boy law firms that Trump could get representation from them just fine.
No big law firm can rep Trump because of powerful partners (especially female) redlining it and the associate recruiting pr disaster it would trigger (especially with young women). Repping Trump is a political statement no large law firm can afford to make. Big city lawyers are disproportionately Dems.
Most firms now have at least a few powerful female partners and they ALL have 50 percent young women as associates. Of course many of the men despise Trump too, but it is the women who are saying you represent this fucking pig and I will quit tomorrow and everyone knows they mean it. And any firm that represented Trump may as well just give up on attracting female associates. It would become their entire brand overnight, and it is a terrible black mark. The top firms are interchangeable, so it doesn’t take much to drop to the bottom of young associates’ list. Yes, the fact that he won’t pay, will fucking lose spectacularly and along the way will inevitably force his lawyer to choose between suborning perjury and quitting (if he can), but the truth is it’s the Trump brand they just can’t afford. He’s a Swastika.
If accurate, that's goddamn hilarious and heartening.
It's a nice sentiment, but the 'article' is literally them ripping a user comment from 'TPM reader JB' and posting it on their site. There's no citation or even any arguments as to why this is the case. White women voted majority for Trump, and while many law firms may be hiring more women, they are still shit at hiring minorities.
I literally said that's what it was dude. It's also the same thing I'm hearing from some peeps I know from other places, a few of whom are in high-end law firms in NY. They basically said the take was accurate if perhaps slightly exaggerated in it's spot on the list of reasons no one will touch him (they suggested it's more like: ethical clusterfuck, doesn't pay, doesn't listen, bad for your reputation and image). But yeah, being known as the firm that reps Trump is apparently not good for your ability to recruit good talent.
Even if it's overstated, it probably isn't helping.
Much like the shitshow that helped get us here, it doesn't have to be a smoking gun or THE big reason to potentially be A reason.
It seems like something that some people might be sensitive to, even if it's not necessarily the sole and majority cause of his troubles attracting legal talent.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
+1
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
Not a single firm worth a damn would be willing to represent him before he suspended his Twitter account.
No big law firm can rep Trump because of powerful partners (especially female) redlining it and the associate recruiting pr disaster it would trigger (especially with young women). Repping Trump is a political statement no large law firm can afford to make. Big city lawyers are disproportionately Dems.
Most firms now have at least a few powerful female partners and they ALL have 50 percent young women as associates. Of course many of the men despise Trump too, but it is the women who are saying you represent this fucking pig and I will quit tomorrow and everyone knows they mean it. And any firm that represented Trump may as well just give up on attracting female associates. It would become their entire brand overnight, and it is a terrible black mark. The top firms are interchangeable, so it doesn’t take much to drop to the bottom of young associates’ list. Yes, the fact that he won’t pay, will fucking lose spectacularly and along the way will inevitably force his lawyer to choose between suborning perjury and quitting (if he can), but the truth is it’s the Trump brand they just can’t afford. He’s a Swastika.
If accurate, that's goddamn hilarious and heartening.
It's a nice sentiment, but the 'article' is literally them ripping a user comment from 'TPM reader JB' and posting it on their site. There's no citation or even any arguments as to why this is the case. White women voted majority for Trump, and while many law firms may be hiring more women, they are still shit at hiring minorities.
While white women like Trump (on average) white *educated* women (such as lawyers) do not.
But there's enough old boy law firms that Trump could get representation from them just fine.
You'd think so, and yet here we are. Trump is asserting his ability to pull top-shelf legal representation with the same style he uses to assert his full confidence in someone he's gonna fire a week from now via tweet.
A lot of lawfirms are run by old boys but they are not staffed by old boys.
No big law firm can rep Trump because of powerful partners (especially female) redlining it and the associate recruiting pr disaster it would trigger (especially with young women). Repping Trump is a political statement no large law firm can afford to make. Big city lawyers are disproportionately Dems.
Most firms now have at least a few powerful female partners and they ALL have 50 percent young women as associates. Of course many of the men despise Trump too, but it is the women who are saying you represent this fucking pig and I will quit tomorrow and everyone knows they mean it. And any firm that represented Trump may as well just give up on attracting female associates. It would become their entire brand overnight, and it is a terrible black mark. The top firms are interchangeable, so it doesn’t take much to drop to the bottom of young associates’ list. Yes, the fact that he won’t pay, will fucking lose spectacularly and along the way will inevitably force his lawyer to choose between suborning perjury and quitting (if he can), but the truth is it’s the Trump brand they just can’t afford. He’s a Swastika.
If accurate, that's goddamn hilarious and heartening.
It's a nice sentiment, but the 'article' is literally them ripping a user comment from 'TPM reader JB' and posting it on their site. There's no citation or even any arguments as to why this is the case. White women voted majority for Trump, and while many law firms may be hiring more women, they are still shit at hiring minorities.
While white women like Trump (on average) white *educated* women (such as lawyers) do not.
But there's enough old boy law firms that Trump could get representation from them just fine.
And 75 percent of Young women are liberal according to a most recent pew poll
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
I have the utmost confidence in this thread's ability to get back on topic without folks needing to eat infractions.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Paul Manafort has filed a motion to dismiss Mueller's indictment in Virginia. Two weeks ago, a nearly identical motion was filed for charges in D.C.
Good luck Paul!
Does not hurt to try. He has money to burn especially since he's going to lose it all when he goes down.
Actually, it does. Making frivolous motions that everyone knows are just going to give the judge busy work in denying them is a good way to piss said judge off.
Paul Manafort has filed a motion to dismiss Mueller's indictment in Virginia. Two weeks ago, a nearly identical motion was filed for charges in D.C.
Good luck Paul!
Does not hurt to try. He has money to burn especially since he's going to lose it all when he goes down.
Actually, it does. Making frivolous motions that everyone knows are just going to give the judge busy work in denying them is a good way to piss said judge off.
Yeah but if the judge is allowing that to compromise their judgment, they should be recusing themselves.
Paul Manafort has filed a motion to dismiss Mueller's indictment in Virginia. Two weeks ago, a nearly identical motion was filed for charges in D.C.
Good luck Paul!
Does not hurt to try. He has money to burn especially since he's going to lose it all when he goes down.
Actually, it does. Making frivolous motions that everyone knows are just going to give the judge busy work in denying them is a good way to piss said judge off.
Yeah but if the judge is allowing that to compromise their judgment, they should be recusing themselves.
Nah. That's not a reason for recusal and judges absolutely should be slapping this shit down.
Paul Manafort has filed a motion to dismiss Mueller's indictment in Virginia. Two weeks ago, a nearly identical motion was filed for charges in D.C.
Good luck Paul!
Does not hurt to try. He has money to burn especially since he's going to lose it all when he goes down.
Actually, it does. Making frivolous motions that everyone knows are just going to give the judge busy work in denying them is a good way to piss said judge off.
Yeah but if the judge is allowing that to compromise their judgment, they should be recusing themselves.
Nah. That's not a reason for recusal and judges absolutely should be slapping this shit down.
I suspect that judicial bias doesn't count if that bias was obtained entirely as part of the case itself.
+16
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Paul Manafort has filed a motion to dismiss Mueller's indictment in Virginia. Two weeks ago, a nearly identical motion was filed for charges in D.C.
Good luck Paul!
Does not hurt to try. He has money to burn especially since he's going to lose it all when he goes down.
Actually, it does. Making frivolous motions that everyone knows are just going to give the judge busy work in denying them is a good way to piss said judge off.
Yeah, for fairly obvious reasons you can not annoy your assigned judge in an effort to get them to recuse themselves. That would be tremendously gameable.
Well ok, you can, but you will not like the results.
Man it takes a lot of balls to say "you can't hold me accountable for these crimes because you weren't supposed to be looking at them!!"
That is kind of what the 4th amendment says. Shouldn't apply in this case since I'm assuming it's safe to assume Mueller followed proper procedures to collect his evidence, but it's not a crazy legal argument.
Paul Manafort has filed a motion to dismiss Mueller's indictment in Virginia. Two weeks ago, a nearly identical motion was filed for charges in D.C.
Good luck Paul!
Does not hurt to try. He has money to burn especially since he's going to lose it all when he goes down.
Actually, it does. Making frivolous motions that everyone knows are just going to give the judge busy work in denying them is a good way to piss said judge off.
Yeah but if the judge is allowing that to compromise their judgment, they should be recusing themselves.
Nah. That's not a reason for recusal and judges absolutely should be slapping this shit down.
Denying the motion is fine, and should happen if the motion has no credible basis. A judges' impartiality being impacted because they're 'pissed off' due to how many motions have previously been filed is not fine.
Paul Manafort has filed a motion to dismiss Mueller's indictment in Virginia. Two weeks ago, a nearly identical motion was filed for charges in D.C.
Good luck Paul!
Does not hurt to try. He has money to burn especially since he's going to lose it all when he goes down.
Actually, it does. Making frivolous motions that everyone knows are just going to give the judge busy work in denying them is a good way to piss said judge off.
Yeah but if the judge is allowing that to compromise their judgment, they should be recusing themselves.
Nah. That's not a reason for recusal and judges absolutely should be slapping this shit down.
Denying the motion is fine, and should happen if the motion has no credible basis. A judges' impartiality being impacted because they're 'pissed off' due to how many motions have previously been filed is not fine.
Yes, it is. A judge is supposed to be impartial but that doesn't mean "incapable of remembering anything that happened before this very second". A judge should be able to make note of a pattern of bad faith behaviour, as an example.
+53
Options
WACriminalDying Is Easy, Young ManLiving Is HarderRegistered Userregular
Yeah, for fairly obvious reasons you can not annoy your assigned judge in an effort to get them to recuse themselves. That would be tremendously gameable.
Well ok, you can, but you will not like the results.
I mean, it worked for Kirk vs. Captain Spock!
I'm really just curious how Manafort sees this ending. Is he really so stupid and/or deluded to think that this shit he's doing will work, or is there some peripheral reason he's doing it?
Is it the same judge? Given one set of charges is in DC and the other in VA I thought it would be two different judges, but I'm not super familiar with how this case is playing out in that regard.
"If complete and utter chaos was lightning, then he'd be the sort to stand on a hilltop in a thunderstorm wearing wet copper armour and shouting 'All gods are bastards'."
Man it takes a lot of balls to say "you can't hold me accountable for these crimes because you weren't supposed to be looking at them!!"
That is kind of what the 4th amendment says. Shouldn't apply in this case since I'm assuming it's safe to assume Mueller followed proper procedures to collect his evidence, but it's not a crazy legal argument.
No, he's not arguing about evidence collection. He's arguing he can't be charged with the crimes behind Mueller wasn't supposed to look for those crimes.
The 4th comes up during trial with motions to supress evidence, which can be followed by motions to dismiss if all the key evidence is excluded. This is different and has no legal basis.
He's basically saying that a prosecutor who's been told to look for financial crimes can't bring murder charges if they find evidence of them.
What would theoretically happen if Trump pardoned himself but was then convicted of something in NY or another state using the pardon as evidence of wrongdoing? Would he be unable to enter those states without some kind of law enforcement standoff?
What would theoretically happen if Trump pardoned himself but was then convicted of something in NY or another state using the pardon as evidence of wrongdoing? Would he be unable to enter those states without some kind of law enforcement standoff?
The same way all the options end: a constitutional crisis.
Man it takes a lot of balls to say "you can't hold me accountable for these crimes because you weren't supposed to be looking at them!!"
That is kind of what the 4th amendment says. Shouldn't apply in this case since I'm assuming it's safe to assume Mueller followed proper procedures to collect his evidence, but it's not a crazy legal argument.
No, he's not arguing about evidence collection. He's arguing he can't be charged with the crimes behind Mueller wasn't supposed to look for those crimes.
The 4th comes up during trial with motions to supress evidence, which can be followed by motions to dismiss if all the key evidence is excluded. This is different and has no legal basis.
He's basically saying that a prosecutor who's been told to look for financial crimes can't bring murder charges if they find evidence of them.
Ok, yeah, that is just Hold My Beer levels of stupid.
Especially since Muellers appointment specifically says "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation"
+20
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
No big law firm can rep Trump because of powerful partners (especially female) redlining it and the associate recruiting pr disaster it would trigger (especially with young women). Repping Trump is a political statement no large law firm can afford to make. Big city lawyers are disproportionately Dems.
Most firms now have at least a few powerful female partners and they ALL have 50 percent young women as associates. Of course many of the men despise Trump too, but it is the women who are saying you represent this fucking pig and I will quit tomorrow and everyone knows they mean it. And any firm that represented Trump may as well just give up on attracting female associates. It would become their entire brand overnight, and it is a terrible black mark. The top firms are interchangeable, so it doesn’t take much to drop to the bottom of young associates’ list. Yes, the fact that he won’t pay, will fucking lose spectacularly and along the way will inevitably force his lawyer to choose between suborning perjury and quitting (if he can), but the truth is it’s the Trump brand they just can’t afford. He’s a Swastika.
If accurate, that's goddamn hilarious and heartening.
It's a nice sentiment, but the 'article' is literally them ripping a user comment from 'TPM reader JB' and posting it on their site. There's no citation or even any arguments as to why this is the case. White women voted majority for Trump, and while many law firms may be hiring more women, they are still shit at hiring minorities.
While white women like Trump (on average) white *educated* women (such as lawyers) do not.
But there's enough old boy law firms that Trump could get representation from them just fine.
You'd think so, and yet here we are. Trump is asserting his ability to pull top-shelf legal representation with the same style he uses to assert his full confidence in someone he's gonna fire a week from now via tweet.
A lot of lawfirms are run by old boys but they are not staffed by old boys.
It's not even about old boys or new people, it's just simply bad business.
This is likely to result in about $2-$3 million in billable work between Trump his family and business, but there is a higher than usual probability that Trump won't pay (especially if he loses), and there is also a higher than usual probability that Trump will attempt to compromise the partners working on the case in such a way they risk disbarment. Over a 3 million dollar 1 time client that is a poor investment.
Trump is used to hiring lawyers who act more like mobsters, so he assumes that any lawyer who wants to act like an actual lawyer is doing something wrong.
Paul Manafort has filed a motion to dismiss Mueller's indictment in Virginia. Two weeks ago, a nearly identical motion was filed for charges in D.C.
Good luck Paul!
Does not hurt to try. He has money to burn especially since he's going to lose it all when he goes down.
Actually, it does. Making frivolous motions that everyone knows are just going to give the judge busy work in denying them is a good way to piss said judge off.
Yeah but if the judge is allowing that to compromise their judgment, they should be recusing themselves.
Nah. That's not a reason for recusal and judges absolutely should be slapping this shit down.
Denying the motion is fine, and should happen if the motion has no credible basis. A judges' impartiality being impacted because they're 'pissed off' due to how many motions have previously been filed is not fine.
A trial judge has some discretion in their court and how they conduct a case, oversee the trial, etc. A good way to ensure that judge doesn't use his or her discretion in your favor (give you a little leeway on a deadline, allow a line of questioning to continue, reconsider a motion) is to piss them off with frivolous shenanigans. Judges also rely on the lawyers in the case to be credible officers of the court, filing a bunch of questionable motions undermines that.
Trump is used to hiring lawyers who act more like mobsters, so he assumes that any lawyer who wants to act like an actual lawyer is doing something wrong.
Remember, Trump's personal lawyer and mentor for a long time was Roy Cohn, of Mcarthy and Nixon infamy
The National Rifle Association is acknowledging that it accepts donations from foreign entities, and that it moves money between its various accounts “as permitted by law.”
The gun group insists it has never received foreign money in connection with an election. But campaign finance experts say that, since money is fungible, that assurance doesn’t mean much.
...
The admissions came in a recent letter to Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), who has sought answers about the group’s foreign funding, following reports that the FBI is probing whether a Russian banker funneled money to the NRA to benefit the Trump campaign.
“While we do receive some contributions from foreign individuals and entities, those contributions are made directly to the NRA for lawful purposes,” NRA General Counsel John Frazer wrote to Wyden. “Our review of our records has found no foreign donations in connection with a United States election, either directly or through a conduit.”
Posts
It's also considered...unwise for a state prosecutor to retry someone that's received a federal pardon, even if they technically could, since you're basically spitting in the face of the sitting POTUS. Obama pardoned many convictions of drug crimes where the sentence was inflated due to mandatory minimums and 3 strike laws, and prosecutors, if they were so inclined, could have reopened many of those cases, since state draw laws also exist.
But when the POTUS is themselves the target of the pardon, that probably doesn't carry as much weight.
Even if the law in question is exactly the same.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/why-the-president-has-no-personal-attorney
If accurate, that's goddamn hilarious and heartening.
it could be used as evidence in a relevant civil trial
It's a nice sentiment, but the 'article' is literally them ripping a user comment from 'TPM reader JB' and posting it on their site. There's no citation or even any arguments as to why this is the case. White women voted majority for Trump, and while many law firms may be hiring more women, they are still shit at hiring minorities.
Yeah no evidence of this and I totally believe its made up bullshit. They aren't repping Trump because he's famous for not paying or listening to legal council. That's it.
pleasepaypreacher.net
While white women like Trump (on average) white *educated* women (such as lawyers) do not.
But there's enough old boy law firms that Trump could get representation from them just fine.
I literally said that's what it was dude. It's also the same thing I'm hearing from some peeps I know from other places, a few of whom are in high-end law firms in NY. They basically said the take was accurate if perhaps slightly exaggerated in it's spot on the list of reasons no one will touch him (they suggested it's more like: ethical clusterfuck, doesn't pay, doesn't listen, bad for your reputation and image). But yeah, being known as the firm that reps Trump is apparently not good for your ability to recruit good talent.
Much like the shitshow that helped get us here, it doesn't have to be a smoking gun or THE big reason to potentially be A reason.
It seems like something that some people might be sensitive to, even if it's not necessarily the sole and majority cause of his troubles attracting legal talent.
You'd think so, and yet here we are. Trump is asserting his ability to pull top-shelf legal representation with the same style he uses to assert his full confidence in someone he's gonna fire a week from now via tweet.
A lot of lawfirms are run by old boys but they are not staffed by old boys.
And 75 percent of Young women are liberal according to a most recent pew poll
That's kind of bigger than anything
Good luck Paul!
Does not hurt to try. He has money to burn especially since he's going to lose it all when he goes down.
Actually, it does. Making frivolous motions that everyone knows are just going to give the judge busy work in denying them is a good way to piss said judge off.
Yeah but if the judge is allowing that to compromise their judgment, they should be recusing themselves.
Nah. That's not a reason for recusal and judges absolutely should be slapping this shit down.
I suspect that judicial bias doesn't count if that bias was obtained entirely as part of the case itself.
If you’re going to lose anyway, who cares?
Well ok, you can, but you will not like the results.
That is kind of what the 4th amendment says. Shouldn't apply in this case since I'm assuming it's safe to assume Mueller followed proper procedures to collect his evidence, but it's not a crazy legal argument.
Denying the motion is fine, and should happen if the motion has no credible basis. A judges' impartiality being impacted because they're 'pissed off' due to how many motions have previously been filed is not fine.
Yes, it is. A judge is supposed to be impartial but that doesn't mean "incapable of remembering anything that happened before this very second". A judge should be able to make note of a pattern of bad faith behaviour, as an example.
I mean, it worked for Kirk vs. Captain Spock!
I'm really just curious how Manafort sees this ending. Is he really so stupid and/or deluded to think that this shit he's doing will work, or is there some peripheral reason he's doing it?
No, he's not arguing about evidence collection. He's arguing he can't be charged with the crimes behind Mueller wasn't supposed to look for those crimes.
The 4th comes up during trial with motions to supress evidence, which can be followed by motions to dismiss if all the key evidence is excluded. This is different and has no legal basis.
He's basically saying that a prosecutor who's been told to look for financial crimes can't bring murder charges if they find evidence of them.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
The same way all the options end: a constitutional crisis.
Ok, yeah, that is just Hold My Beer levels of stupid.
Especially since Muellers appointment specifically says "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation"
This is likely to result in about $2-$3 million in billable work between Trump his family and business, but there is a higher than usual probability that Trump won't pay (especially if he loses), and there is also a higher than usual probability that Trump will attempt to compromise the partners working on the case in such a way they risk disbarment. Over a 3 million dollar 1 time client that is a poor investment.
A trial judge has some discretion in their court and how they conduct a case, oversee the trial, etc. A good way to ensure that judge doesn't use his or her discretion in your favor (give you a little leeway on a deadline, allow a line of questioning to continue, reconsider a motion) is to piss them off with frivolous shenanigans. Judges also rely on the lawyers in the case to be credible officers of the court, filing a bunch of questionable motions undermines that.
Remember, Trump's personal lawyer and mentor for a long time was Roy Cohn, of Mcarthy and Nixon infamy