351

Jack Smith Has Set a Trap for Trump (statuskuo.substack.com)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

51 comments fedilink hide all child comments

And it’s based on his “advice of counsel” defense

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] [email protected] 41 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

“advice of counsel” is a tough defense to assert. It comes with some preconditions that could prove highly damaging to Trump as well as legal hurdles that the jury could quickly find render the defense unavailable to him.

one thing that disappears right away is your right to assert that your communications with those lawyers are “privileged.”

Skipping a bunch of the other items why it's tough and going for the trap:

flipping attorneys is problematic, normally, because even if they agree to squawk, prosecutors normally can’t put them on a stand and ask them to testify about communications with their client. That’s because the attorney-client privilege belongs to the client. It isn’t something attorneys by themselves can decide to waive.

But here, again by putting advice of counsel at issue, Trump himself has waived the privilege.

In short, Jack Smith appears to have leveraged the advice of counsel defense by naming a bunch of lawyer co-conspirators. This could permit him to crack open the black box of the conspiracies, should any co-conspirator cooperate.

this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2023

351 points (96.8% liked)

politics

18869 readers

3595 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News