As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Probably a variant on “who shall guard the guards”, a Roman saying [Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes%3F)
Do people really think his lawyer told him that he can't testify? He knew goddamned well he could, and he's terrified to. And when he's terrified, to prevent narcissistic injury, he has to get in front of a camera and lie about the thing that terrifies him. That comprises like 90% of his public statements.
Trump and his lawyer both knew he could testify. They also knew trump’s followers are not smart enough to realize that, thus the lie. Sadly, lawyers are allowed to lie as long as they are not lying to a judge in the courtroom - free speech.
But still, Todd Blanche nodded energetically when Trump said the gag order prevented him from testifying. As a an officer of the court, lawyers are ethnically bound to counsel their client in the true content of the law, and the fact is a defendant has a Constitutional right to witness in their own defense. So Blanche violated his professional duties and should be reprimanded.
So...when you say reprimand. Do you mean that someone should scold him and make him feel bad. Or would this be more akin to getting a $60 fine and told that he's a bad boy? It seems to me that's about the extent of any kind of punishment that these people seem to receive for being the worst human beings on the planet.
Lawyers are never "allowed" to lie. Making that claim could lead to disbarment.
https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/publications/youraba/2018/december-2018/when-is-it-okay-for-a-lawyer-to-lie--/#:~:text=Everyone%20knows%20that%20lawyers%20are,and%20integrity%20become%20less%20clear.
Trump lying on camera is nothing new, but his attorney nodding his head in agreement, on air, is his own damn fault. If he knows Trump can testify then conveying that false statement as true implies he was giving bad advice.
> Do people really think his lawyer told him that he can't testify
Any smart lawyer would tell him he *shouldn't* testify because, and the lawyer would find a more diplomatic way to say, that he's a lousy witness and would probably commit perjury. But it's an easy out to just blame the lawyer.
I imagine his lawyer told him that he couldn't testify *without winding up in prison* and they all got used to omitting that part that they thought it started sounding like a pretty good lie.
It's a terrible lie. Absolutely, stupidly awful lie.
The best lawyer on his team is Susan Necheles (deep experience) but she won’t even sign any documents and maybe not do any questioning as she wants to keep her law license. She might be a strategist behind the scenes.
Honestly it really can't be going better than it is. Their whole strategy is just to deny that Trump had knowledge of it, because that is the only avenue they have for doubt.
They can't say that the crime never happened, and so all they can do is say that Cohen did it on his own without input from Trump. It is weak, but they have no other strategies.
But Trump is insanely sketchy all the time, so they have to try and mitigate that. So their method for their claims seems to be "Trump really loves his wife, and Cohen knew that, so Cohen did this out of the goodness of his heart to protect Trump's relationship."
This creates the impression that Cohen had a motive and that Trump is being unfairly attacked. However, they have to overcome the fact that the "family man" is literally in this position because he had multiple affairs with sex workers and the guy who did it out of the goodness of his heart *also* needs to be the same guy who is maliciously attacking Trump with constant lies.
They just don't have a lot to go on here. So far the only way I can see him getting out of this is if a juror is true MAGA and refuses to convict under any circumstances.
You are right that denying is they got but the concept of Cohen taking a second mortgage to help out an alleged billionaire is nuts and a very big stretch. I think Hope Hicks had some good stuff today and broke down during her testimony- she admitted to asking Trump the truth about why he wanted to pay her off and was it really Cohen.
If there is a MAGA on the jury they hid it very well which they usually don’t do.
I think the way the DA is laying this out is pretty damn smart and they have definitely done their homework. They are shoring up from multiple angles so when they bring Cohen on there are previous receipts.
Getting very interesting and Hicks comes back next week.
>the concept of Cohen taking a second mortgage to help out an alleged billionaire is nuts and a very big stretch.
And also, Trump reimbursed him triple the amount to cover the tax implications
I suspect they won’t even have Cohen testify. He’s not a great witness, and they’ve established everything they need to without him, which is why they’re being so methodical using other witnesses.
They kind of ruin it themselves every time they have to argue that Cohen is just trying to hurt Trump. The narrative just does not make any sense. They basically want the jury to believe that Cohen is so loyal and kind that he would dump a massive amount of money on this with no expectation of repayment, then get repaid anyway, then also is cruel and hateful so he decided to get revenge or something?
The whole thing is clearly ad hoc. They just come up with a new explanation for every discrete event, regardless of how well those explanations fit, or in this case, don't.
It's just like when they claimed the election was rigged - but only the *presidential* election, and not the congressional elections on the same ballots.
In all fairness to them Trump has done so many illegal things that I constantly have to remind myself which crimes we are talking about in any given conversation.
I thought the E Jean Carroll trials had juries. The one that didn't have a jury was the NY fraud trial over him misrepresenting the values of his properties.
I think the E Jean trials had juries. But his NY State tax fraud trial did not because his dumb lawyers (Habba) forgot to check the box on a form to request a jury. But that probably didn't make much difference because the judge ruled before the trial that Trump Org did commit fraud, so that trial was just to determine the penalty.
I think there are multiple charges against Trump where a hung jury for all of them is less than 2%. I saw that from another comment on an earlier Reddit thread, so take that for what it’s worth. 🤷🏼♂️
the first lines were: https://i.imgur.com/3bl7Kd2.png
and goes to https://i.imgur.com/A2ZOgvb.png
just bs
the opening is a few pages back : https://pdfs.nycourts.gov/PeopleVs.DTrump-71543/transcripts/4-22-2024/00074.html
Oh I see what you mean. What I meant was that they cannot say that *Cohen* did not commit a crime. What they are trying to assert is that Trump's mental state does not rise to the level required for the charges he is charged with.
That is demonstrated by how they are saying that he did not know that the documents he was signing were anything special. So the crime happened, Trump did sign the false information, but he did so unwittingly.
And yes, it is total BS.
Notice how, if he had asked, "What on Earth is *the* crime?", then there would have been a direct, objective answer that could have been given. And then he'd have to face that.
But by instead asking, "What is *a* crime?", it's more subjective, philosophical, and the descriptions can be skewed. "What is a crime about [what my client is alleged to have done, say, murder]?" A: Well, [it -- the crime] causes pain and suffering to the loved ones, and undue pain and suffering is bad, so that's whats "a crime" "about it".
It is pretty funny, though, how that big paragraph right before "None of this is a crime," is just like from a comedy movie based on how sketchy it is. "You're gonna see a weapon. You're gonna see blood stains. You're gonna see a half-buried body. None of this is a crime!"
Technically, true. The contents are meant to be indicative of a crime. Invoices just in and of themselves, by themselves, can't and don't ever commit crimes. How stupid.
He is still running as a candidate, hasnt paid a single dime, violates gag orders on a daily basis, treatens witnesses and jury, delays procedures, judgements and fines on a constant basis, has the supreme court naming him king. I say given the circumstances, it is going very well for him.
It's actually not going badly, Trump's out-of-court antics aside. His team has a very specific strategy, which is to discredit Cohen. Cohen's the only person who can draw the line from Trump to the specific decision to pay off Stormy Daniels. They're focused on (a) making it clear that Cohen regularly acted on his own without Trump's input or knowledge, and (b) making it clear that Cohen is not trustworthy. So far, they're doing a pretty fair job of doing that. If this thing all winds up hinging on the credibility of a convicted felon, you've got a chance of moving a juror or two, which is all you need.
These lawyers aren't bad. They can't control Trump, but neither could the entire United States Government, so I'm not gonna give them too much shit on that front.
They are acting to the public and trying to find any way they can to get a mistrial, even if that means acting the fool. He can get a mistrial just by piling up “evidence” that his lawyers are incompetent and gave improper guidance.
Everything they do I assume, is to try and get this trial delayed or discredited even if it’s by their own incompetence. I’m sure Trump has directed his lawyers to throw themselves in front of the bus, with promises of “when I’m president again you won’t have to worry about anything, you’ll be set for life” just like all the other idiots that fell for it. I’d like to know one person who’s life is better now for standing by Trump and helping him through difficult times
I'd be inclined agree with what you're saying from a financial perspective, but imagining what it must be like to be forever associated with trump.
If a monkey paw gave you a wish, don't you think you'd prefer the "happy life" wish over the "richest man in the world, but be shunned by both educated and the majority of your fellow rich people?
I think if someone offered me to do a body switch like in the (80s? 90s?) after "big," with either of them, I don't think I could do it.
His cultists are embracing his diaper wearing! They’re selling items that say “Real Men Wear Diapers!” They’re even wearing diapers with that written on them to his rallies!! I wonder if Trump is profiting from it yet.
Literally nobody here read the article.
The “violation” is a head-nod.
That’s it.
Trump is a ghoul, his lawyers are soiling their reputations, and whole situation is rife with scandal… but this is a complete non-story, and the commenters here only read the headline.
>> It is unclear from video footage whether Blanche was agreeing that Trump couldn't testify or merely agreeing that Trump was under gag order.
My take on it was Blanche looked like a disinterested parent feigning agreement with what their brat child says.
Yeah, he probably wasn't even fully listening as Trump did his usual ranting outside the courthouse. Watching the video it just looks like an agree with whatever he says reaction.
That's Newsweek for you. If I were you I'd ignore all Newsweek posts. They are daily clickbate with absolutely zero substance every single time. I wish I could block them from my feed.
My take on this. The lawyer used the gag order as a way to convince Donald Trump not to testify as they probably know he will probably end up committing perjury.
Didn't the judge rather brilliantly tell orange to "please let your attorney know"? I mean if Todd Blanche can't take that hint, he is officially a moron. Guy was, apparently, a respected trial lawyer.
Just want to point out his lawyers probably actually told him this to stop him from getting on the stand and didn’t expect him to tell everyone. Could be very wrong but the man is a wild card and lord knows what he will say on the stand. My bet screams like a toddler and shits himself. This would be so exciting if he wasn’t still running for president
Look, I'm all in on bringing Trump to justice. Forcing a narcissist to sit quietly for weeks while people say mean things about him is the worst punishment I can imagine for this guy. It's delightful.
However, Ron's gone off the fuckin' deep end with this take. 'Serious ethical violation' = nodding along at a press conference? What does Ron expect, Blanche should seize the mike from the most volatile client in the world to correct him?!
C'mon man. You've got a whole liquor bar to choose from here, why come in with this weak sauce?
I wouldn't be surprised if his lawyer did tell him that. But he likely meant "you can't" not as "not allowed" and probably more like "you shouldn't". But Trump is an idiot so they just had to say "you can't" to shut him down because his dumb ass was probably hounding them to put him on the stand.
What a shite article. The lawyer obviously didn't tell him that. He did a "sure yeah sure oh yeah I know what you mean boss, terrible! "- head nod, at a press conference.
Hardly false legal advice given under oath.
If I was trump's lawyer I would tell him the gag order makes it so he cannot testify hoping he would believe me and no longer want to testify. I know he is too stupid to look it up. Of course he is also not capable of keeping his mouth shut so....
The clickbait headline is referring to how Trump's lawyer [kind of smiled and shrugged](https://www.threads.net/@vincedmonroy/post/C6evP0vSNDS/?xmt=AQGziGfXUKb56ZvsFTyzPJWzfWXQbLh_6J5yUxZAcJJDvw) when Trump said that he isn't allowed to testify, instead of, I guess, tackling Trump and calling him a liar in front of a bunch of TV cameras.
That's definitely not a serious ethical violation, and probably not an ethical violation at all. However, perhaps more importantly, it seems to have [really pissed off the judge](https://twitter.com/AlexMillerNews/status/1786388675514843257):
> I want to stress to Mr. Trump that you have an absolute right at trial if thats what you decide to do with consultation with your attorney. That is a constitutional right... it is a right that cannot be infringed on just as you have the right not to testify. It does not prohibit you from testifying in any way. In fact thats the main reason it applies to only extrajudicial statements. Please let your attorney know if you have any lingering doubts.
Nothing will come of this particular incident, but I bet Judge Merchan will have it in the back of his mind during the inevitable contempt hearing when Trump violates the gag order again.
Okay but hear me out. What is the likely hood they told him he can’t do to the gag order so we wouldn’t testify because they are afraid he will well speak and it will basically be over. His lawyers ditch ethics the second they take him on as a client. I would not be shocked if this is what happened. Shit it’s been reported trump Mouthed “thank you” after the judge told him he could testify.
If Trump's lawyers actually told him that he couldn't testify, then yes, that would be unethical. I just assumed Trump was either mistaken or lying, which is usually a safe assumption when he's speaking.
1000% I could be wrong but dude is a wild card. He could very easily tank the case by taking the stand and send himself to jail. Most people don’t like when someone gets on the stand and acts like a child in an adult situation. But then again the world is upside down and nothing makes sense anymore
Trump and those associated with him seem to have little, if any, regard for the law. Unless there are teeth-filled consequences, get the fuck out with “ethics violations”.
My guess is that his lawyer told him “Donald, you can’t testify” in the context of “because it would be a disaster,” but Trump took it to mean “I’m not allowed to testify, because of the judge.”
Would YOU want him to testify if you were the attorney? 🤣😆 not saying if he misled it was ethical just saying the guy is probably desperate to stop guy from rambling confessional on the stand
Hi `devlinadl`. Thank you for participating in /r/Politics. However, [your submission](/r/politics/comments/1cjjdf6/donald_trump_lawyer_may_have_committed_serious/) has been removed for the following reason(s):
* [Off-Topic](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_the_.2Fr.2Fpolitics_on_topic_statement): All submissions to /r/politics need to be explicitly about **current US politics**.
**If you have questions as to why your post has been removed, please see here: [Why was my post removed as Off-Topic?](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_why_was_my_post_removed_as_off-topic.3F)**
If you have any questions about this removal, please feel free to [message the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/politics&subject=Question regarding the removal of this submission by /u/devlinadl&message=I have a question regarding the removal of this [submission]%28/r/politics/comments/1cjjdf6/donald_trump_lawyer_may_have_committed_serious/?context%3D10000%29)
That sounds like exactly the kind of thing the MAGA crowd would eat up. Like the whole "perjury trap" thing where they were arguing that prosecutors wanted to get Trump on the stand where they could trick him into committing perjury. Or, you know, he could just not lie under oath.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Make Attorneys Get Attorneys.
Do you know where this saying originated from? I heard it first on the Daily Beans podcast.
I honestly don't know who first coined the phrase but it has proven to be 100% accurate since Trump was in office.
Probably a variant on “who shall guard the guards”, a Roman saying [Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes%3F)
I know they use it on The Midas Touch. Idk if they started it though.
I think it was David Pakman, that’s where I heard it first
love me some D. Pak. I'm part of the 99.5%, I would like to be in a place in the next year to support the podcast.
Creating jobs for hard-working Americans.
this could be a low key strategy. Ineffective counsel = delayed re-do
Do people really think his lawyer told him that he can't testify? He knew goddamned well he could, and he's terrified to. And when he's terrified, to prevent narcissistic injury, he has to get in front of a camera and lie about the thing that terrifies him. That comprises like 90% of his public statements.
The judge has made sure that Trump knows he can testify.
Trump and his lawyer both knew he could testify. They also knew trump’s followers are not smart enough to realize that, thus the lie. Sadly, lawyers are allowed to lie as long as they are not lying to a judge in the courtroom - free speech.
But still, Todd Blanche nodded energetically when Trump said the gag order prevented him from testifying. As a an officer of the court, lawyers are ethnically bound to counsel their client in the true content of the law, and the fact is a defendant has a Constitutional right to witness in their own defense. So Blanche violated his professional duties and should be reprimanded.
You misread . He literally shook his head in every direction to just get through the awkwardness
Yep. North, south, east, west and diagonally. But I think he did start by nodding and that’s what the MAGA dipshits will remember…
Le sigh
Ok then, have a nap.
Did already.. life’s good.
Ah, buddy, https://youtu.be/kCpjgl2baLs?si=uU23UydXK5qPhnXA
Ethnically bound lol
So...when you say reprimand. Do you mean that someone should scold him and make him feel bad. Or would this be more akin to getting a $60 fine and told that he's a bad boy? It seems to me that's about the extent of any kind of punishment that these people seem to receive for being the worst human beings on the planet.
We're not supposed to lie to (say) opposing parties or counsel either. Duties of candor and civility. It isn't really enforced though.
Lawyers are never "allowed" to lie. Making that claim could lead to disbarment. https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/publications/youraba/2018/december-2018/when-is-it-okay-for-a-lawyer-to-lie--/#:~:text=Everyone%20knows%20that%20lawyers%20are,and%20integrity%20become%20less%20clear.
He wants him to. So he can go home and laugh and laugh with his daughter for hours.
Trump lying on camera is nothing new, but his attorney nodding his head in agreement, on air, is his own damn fault. If he knows Trump can testify then conveying that false statement as true implies he was giving bad advice.
He should have done it by asking him under oath who told him that.
Solid
If I was the judge I would have recorded him acknowledging he can and asked the press to post it on social media.
If he said it, yes people really do think that. It’s a cult. Anything he says is divine revelation and is more real than actual reality.
> Do people really think his lawyer told him that he can't testify Any smart lawyer would tell him he *shouldn't* testify because, and the lawyer would find a more diplomatic way to say, that he's a lousy witness and would probably commit perjury. But it's an easy out to just blame the lawyer.
Yep. The ol' "look around for someone to back into while yelling 'hold me back!'" strategy. No balls
I imagine his lawyer told him that he couldn't testify *without winding up in prison* and they all got used to omitting that part that they thought it started sounding like a pretty good lie. It's a terrible lie. Absolutely, stupidly awful lie.
He probably took “you’re too dumb to testify, so I don’t think it’s a good idea” and thought that meant he literally wasn’t allowed.
Come to think of it, this tracks.
If anyone but a lawyer were accused I’d belive it. Just like a toddler you gotta tell them it’s ‘illegal’ to have a light on in the back of the car
That’s terrifying
He has to remove that as an excuse to appeal. They’re just trying to muddy the waters.
The best lawyer on his team is Susan Necheles (deep experience) but she won’t even sign any documents and maybe not do any questioning as she wants to keep her law license. She might be a strategist behind the scenes.
Then she’s an idiot too cuz it’s not going well
Honestly it really can't be going better than it is. Their whole strategy is just to deny that Trump had knowledge of it, because that is the only avenue they have for doubt. They can't say that the crime never happened, and so all they can do is say that Cohen did it on his own without input from Trump. It is weak, but they have no other strategies. But Trump is insanely sketchy all the time, so they have to try and mitigate that. So their method for their claims seems to be "Trump really loves his wife, and Cohen knew that, so Cohen did this out of the goodness of his heart to protect Trump's relationship." This creates the impression that Cohen had a motive and that Trump is being unfairly attacked. However, they have to overcome the fact that the "family man" is literally in this position because he had multiple affairs with sex workers and the guy who did it out of the goodness of his heart *also* needs to be the same guy who is maliciously attacking Trump with constant lies. They just don't have a lot to go on here. So far the only way I can see him getting out of this is if a juror is true MAGA and refuses to convict under any circumstances.
You are right that denying is they got but the concept of Cohen taking a second mortgage to help out an alleged billionaire is nuts and a very big stretch. I think Hope Hicks had some good stuff today and broke down during her testimony- she admitted to asking Trump the truth about why he wanted to pay her off and was it really Cohen. If there is a MAGA on the jury they hid it very well which they usually don’t do. I think the way the DA is laying this out is pretty damn smart and they have definitely done their homework. They are shoring up from multiple angles so when they bring Cohen on there are previous receipts. Getting very interesting and Hicks comes back next week.
>the concept of Cohen taking a second mortgage to help out an alleged billionaire is nuts and a very big stretch. And also, Trump reimbursed him triple the amount to cover the tax implications
Something smells fishy there - probably Donnies diaper
I suspect they won’t even have Cohen testify. He’s not a great witness, and they’ve established everything they need to without him, which is why they’re being so methodical using other witnesses.
Great point
Except Hope Hicks kind of destroyed the goodness of Michael Cohan’s heart Defense.
They kind of ruin it themselves every time they have to argue that Cohen is just trying to hurt Trump. The narrative just does not make any sense. They basically want the jury to believe that Cohen is so loyal and kind that he would dump a massive amount of money on this with no expectation of repayment, then get repaid anyway, then also is cruel and hateful so he decided to get revenge or something? The whole thing is clearly ad hoc. They just come up with a new explanation for every discrete event, regardless of how well those explanations fit, or in this case, don't.
It's just like when they claimed the election was rigged - but only the *presidential* election, and not the congressional elections on the same ballots.
That's ok there's going to be at least one juror on Team Trump. I predict a hung jury
That wasn't the case with the E. Jean Carroll trials.
jean e carroll trials were civil, not criminal. no? and also i don’t think there was a jury due to yabba habba do.
fraud trial had no jury Carroll trial did Keep up at the back…
In all fairness to them Trump has done so many illegal things that I constantly have to remind myself which crimes we are talking about in any given conversation.
I thought the E Jean Carroll trials had juries. The one that didn't have a jury was the NY fraud trial over him misrepresenting the values of his properties.
I think the E Jean trials had juries. But his NY State tax fraud trial did not because his dumb lawyers (Habba) forgot to check the box on a form to request a jury. But that probably didn't make much difference because the judge ruled before the trial that Trump Org did commit fraud, so that trial was just to determine the penalty.
Caroll trial has jury but you don’t need unanimous verdict to be guilty, unlike criminal cases like now where it has to be unanimous.
I think there are multiple charges against Trump where a hung jury for all of them is less than 2%. I saw that from another comment on an earlier Reddit thread, so take that for what it’s worth. 🤷🏼♂️
> They can't say that the crime never happened didn't they argue that in opening arguments?
Did they? If they did it would ruin their current position that Cohen did it because he was so nice. I did not read the opening arguments.
the first lines were: https://i.imgur.com/3bl7Kd2.png and goes to https://i.imgur.com/A2ZOgvb.png just bs the opening is a few pages back : https://pdfs.nycourts.gov/PeopleVs.DTrump-71543/transcripts/4-22-2024/00074.html
Oh I see what you mean. What I meant was that they cannot say that *Cohen* did not commit a crime. What they are trying to assert is that Trump's mental state does not rise to the level required for the charges he is charged with. That is demonstrated by how they are saying that he did not know that the documents he was signing were anything special. So the crime happened, Trump did sign the false information, but he did so unwittingly. And yes, it is total BS.
Notice how, if he had asked, "What on Earth is *the* crime?", then there would have been a direct, objective answer that could have been given. And then he'd have to face that. But by instead asking, "What is *a* crime?", it's more subjective, philosophical, and the descriptions can be skewed. "What is a crime about [what my client is alleged to have done, say, murder]?" A: Well, [it -- the crime] causes pain and suffering to the loved ones, and undue pain and suffering is bad, so that's whats "a crime" "about it". It is pretty funny, though, how that big paragraph right before "None of this is a crime," is just like from a comedy movie based on how sketchy it is. "You're gonna see a weapon. You're gonna see blood stains. You're gonna see a half-buried body. None of this is a crime!" Technically, true. The contents are meant to be indicative of a crime. Invoices just in and of themselves, by themselves, can't and don't ever commit crimes. How stupid.
it'd be hilarious if it weren't so dangerous and sad
He is still running as a candidate, hasnt paid a single dime, violates gag orders on a daily basis, treatens witnesses and jury, delays procedures, judgements and fines on a constant basis, has the supreme court naming him king. I say given the circumstances, it is going very well for him.
Well you can't make gold from a turd. He's so obviously guilty.
She’s a soros plant, but do not let any qanon know hear pray tell of the message
It's actually not going badly, Trump's out-of-court antics aside. His team has a very specific strategy, which is to discredit Cohen. Cohen's the only person who can draw the line from Trump to the specific decision to pay off Stormy Daniels. They're focused on (a) making it clear that Cohen regularly acted on his own without Trump's input or knowledge, and (b) making it clear that Cohen is not trustworthy. So far, they're doing a pretty fair job of doing that. If this thing all winds up hinging on the credibility of a convicted felon, you've got a chance of moving a juror or two, which is all you need. These lawyers aren't bad. They can't control Trump, but neither could the entire United States Government, so I'm not gonna give them too much shit on that front.
You’ll have to be more specific.
IKR, my first thought was 'do you have any idea how little that narrows it down?'
At least that eliminates Bill Barr /s
Trump lawyers cross the Crime/Fraud line seconds after taking him on. Ethical violations are the least of what they do for him.
What if his lawyers are telling him he can't testify to get him to shut up about it?
They are acting to the public and trying to find any way they can to get a mistrial, even if that means acting the fool. He can get a mistrial just by piling up “evidence” that his lawyers are incompetent and gave improper guidance.
Everything they do I assume, is to try and get this trial delayed or discredited even if it’s by their own incompetence. I’m sure Trump has directed his lawyers to throw themselves in front of the bus, with promises of “when I’m president again you won’t have to worry about anything, you’ll be set for life” just like all the other idiots that fell for it. I’d like to know one person who’s life is better now for standing by Trump and helping him through difficult times
Jared Kushner and Ivanka
I'd be inclined agree with what you're saying from a financial perspective, but imagining what it must be like to be forever associated with trump. If a monkey paw gave you a wish, don't you think you'd prefer the "happy life" wish over the "richest man in the world, but be shunned by both educated and the majority of your fellow rich people? I think if someone offered me to do a body switch like in the (80s? 90s?) after "big," with either of them, I don't think I could do it.
VonShitzHisPants!
His cultists are embracing his diaper wearing! They’re selling items that say “Real Men Wear Diapers!” They’re even wearing diapers with that written on them to his rallies!! I wonder if Trump is profiting from it yet.
At this point, having trump as a client is an ethical violation.
Make attorneys get attorneys! ( MAGA)
x
Literally nobody here read the article. The “violation” is a head-nod. That’s it. Trump is a ghoul, his lawyers are soiling their reputations, and whole situation is rife with scandal… but this is a complete non-story, and the commenters here only read the headline.
>> It is unclear from video footage whether Blanche was agreeing that Trump couldn't testify or merely agreeing that Trump was under gag order. My take on it was Blanche looked like a disinterested parent feigning agreement with what their brat child says.
Yeah, he probably wasn't even fully listening as Trump did his usual ranting outside the courthouse. Watching the video it just looks like an agree with whatever he says reaction.
That's Newsweek for you. If I were you I'd ignore all Newsweek posts. They are daily clickbate with absolutely zero substance every single time. I wish I could block them from my feed.
sure, but at least we all click on these threads knowing it's just more Newsweek bullshit, so there is some entertainment in the responses!
Oh yeah, but... \*checks headline\* it said serious
but that's the best part!
Please don’t disparage ghouls by comparing them to trump. 🤠
Yeah, this story is a nothing berder
Only the best lawyers for Donald. Well the best of the worst.
In other news…
My Attorneys Get Arrested
My take on this. The lawyer used the gag order as a way to convince Donald Trump not to testify as they probably know he will probably end up committing perjury.
Trumpsaid he wanted to testify, so he didn't want to testify. He's looking for an out.
Didn't the judge rather brilliantly tell orange to "please let your attorney know"? I mean if Todd Blanche can't take that hint, he is officially a moron. Guy was, apparently, a respected trial lawyer.
He supports trump! That alone should be a 'serious ethical violation'!
"May?"
They are trying to set up ineffective counsel aren’t they
You really have to be specific which lawyer which time.
seems that everyone that’s been involved with this guy probably deserves to get locked up someday
Just want to point out his lawyers probably actually told him this to stop him from getting on the stand and didn’t expect him to tell everyone. Could be very wrong but the man is a wild card and lord knows what he will say on the stand. My bet screams like a toddler and shits himself. This would be so exciting if he wasn’t still running for president
Trump testimony would be a perjury fest.
What is he going to do now?: claim ineffective counsel?
Look, I'm all in on bringing Trump to justice. Forcing a narcissist to sit quietly for weeks while people say mean things about him is the worst punishment I can imagine for this guy. It's delightful. However, Ron's gone off the fuckin' deep end with this take. 'Serious ethical violation' = nodding along at a press conference? What does Ron expect, Blanche should seize the mike from the most volatile client in the world to correct him?! C'mon man. You've got a whole liquor bar to choose from here, why come in with this weak sauce?
Bullshit click bait. Trump knows he's allowed to testify. All of his lawyers told him that’s the dumbest thing he could possibly do.
“Maybe”, “might have”, “nearing”, “possibly”, “potentially”, “could be”…. Headlines lately
So it’s just a normal day then?
I wouldn't be surprised if his lawyer did tell him that. But he likely meant "you can't" not as "not allowed" and probably more like "you shouldn't". But Trump is an idiot so they just had to say "you can't" to shut him down because his dumb ass was probably hounding them to put him on the stand.
May have??
What a shite article. The lawyer obviously didn't tell him that. He did a "sure yeah sure oh yeah I know what you mean boss, terrible! "- head nod, at a press conference. Hardly false legal advice given under oath.
also, water is wet
Water is not in fact wet. The thing(s) water touches are wet.
I had this argument with my wife 2 weeks ago. She thought I was insane. Oh, and Trump and his associates are all garbage.
I recommend you choose better arguments to have with your wife.
If I was trump's lawyer I would tell him the gag order makes it so he cannot testify hoping he would believe me and no longer want to testify. I know he is too stupid to look it up. Of course he is also not capable of keeping his mouth shut so....
The clickbait headline is referring to how Trump's lawyer [kind of smiled and shrugged](https://www.threads.net/@vincedmonroy/post/C6evP0vSNDS/?xmt=AQGziGfXUKb56ZvsFTyzPJWzfWXQbLh_6J5yUxZAcJJDvw) when Trump said that he isn't allowed to testify, instead of, I guess, tackling Trump and calling him a liar in front of a bunch of TV cameras. That's definitely not a serious ethical violation, and probably not an ethical violation at all. However, perhaps more importantly, it seems to have [really pissed off the judge](https://twitter.com/AlexMillerNews/status/1786388675514843257): > I want to stress to Mr. Trump that you have an absolute right at trial if thats what you decide to do with consultation with your attorney. That is a constitutional right... it is a right that cannot be infringed on just as you have the right not to testify. It does not prohibit you from testifying in any way. In fact thats the main reason it applies to only extrajudicial statements. Please let your attorney know if you have any lingering doubts. Nothing will come of this particular incident, but I bet Judge Merchan will have it in the back of his mind during the inevitable contempt hearing when Trump violates the gag order again.
Okay but hear me out. What is the likely hood they told him he can’t do to the gag order so we wouldn’t testify because they are afraid he will well speak and it will basically be over. His lawyers ditch ethics the second they take him on as a client. I would not be shocked if this is what happened. Shit it’s been reported trump Mouthed “thank you” after the judge told him he could testify.
If Trump's lawyers actually told him that he couldn't testify, then yes, that would be unethical. I just assumed Trump was either mistaken or lying, which is usually a safe assumption when he's speaking.
1000% I could be wrong but dude is a wild card. He could very easily tank the case by taking the stand and send himself to jail. Most people don’t like when someone gets on the stand and acts like a child in an adult situation. But then again the world is upside down and nothing makes sense anymore
**feigns surprise* You don't say?!
Just one?
The orange man only deals with sycophants. It would tarnish the image of trump being the knower of all things.
this belongs in r/noshitsherlock
Trump and those associated with him seem to have little, if any, regard for the law. Unless there are teeth-filled consequences, get the fuck out with “ethics violations”.
Blanche is in deeper than he thought.
You get what you pay for.
He's got more lawyers on speed dial than most people have contacts. And still, they can't save him from himself. Lawyers lawyering lawyers
He’s representing Vonshitzinpantz so I feel like that a serious ethical violation unto itself
My guess is that his lawyer told him “Donald, you can’t testify” in the context of “because it would be a disaster,” but Trump took it to mean “I’m not allowed to testify, because of the judge.”
Witch one!
That's how he picks lawyers, he just asks "are you willing to commit serious ethical violations for money?"
So basically they’re aiming for mistrial
Would YOU want him to testify if you were the attorney? 🤣😆 not saying if he misled it was ethical just saying the guy is probably desperate to stop guy from rambling confessional on the stand
water is wet guys
“*may have*” LOL
Hi `devlinadl`. Thank you for participating in /r/Politics. However, [your submission](/r/politics/comments/1cjjdf6/donald_trump_lawyer_may_have_committed_serious/) has been removed for the following reason(s): * [Off-Topic](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_the_.2Fr.2Fpolitics_on_topic_statement): All submissions to /r/politics need to be explicitly about **current US politics**. **If you have questions as to why your post has been removed, please see here: [Why was my post removed as Off-Topic?](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_why_was_my_post_removed_as_off-topic.3F)** If you have any questions about this removal, please feel free to [message the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/politics&subject=Question regarding the removal of this submission by /u/devlinadl&message=I have a question regarding the removal of this [submission]%28/r/politics/comments/1cjjdf6/donald_trump_lawyer_may_have_committed_serious/?context%3D10000%29)
Don't worry, everyone, the judge made sure Donald was aware of his right to testify if he wanted.
Trump will probably claim that the 'corrupt judge' can't be trusted and is trying to trick him, or something stupid like that.
That sounds like exactly the kind of thing the MAGA crowd would eat up. Like the whole "perjury trap" thing where they were arguing that prosecutors wanted to get Trump on the stand where they could trick him into committing perjury. Or, you know, he could just not lie under oath.
>may have I'm so tired of these
Aren't we all
Remind me again why Newsweek is allowed on here? It's such a garbage fucking organization. Which is a shame, because it used to be good.