Attorneys for former President Trump were forced to explain at a Monday court hearing why their client’s actions on Jan. 6 did not meet the standard for a conspiracy.
The really want to give Trump an aneurysm… fine with me…
They probably should tell the judge to get lost. See how that works out for them… Either that or “But… But… but I was only the coffee boy…”
“every action I took, every speech I gave, every vote I cast about the 2020 elections was within the scope of my employment.”
The only example that Binnall could come up with of a situation in which a president might be held accountable was an arcane hypothetical involving a president trying to undertake a mortgage-related scam.
Oh, you mean like undertakings Cockholster routinely committed over the last 50 years as a well-known real estate con man?
[“The only example that Binnall could come up with of a situation in which a president might be held accountable was an arcane hypothetical involving a president trying to undertake a mortgage-related scam.”].
One at a time, please. The hearing on the Trump “Make America Great” mortgage scam litigation isn’t until next month.
/s
“Trump lawyer Jesse Binnall repeatedly argued that the mob that day did not act in response to Trump’s urges…”
“Look, all he did was yell ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater. It was the crowd that trampled people to death.”
(And don’t even get me started on “Trump’s urges”.)
OT: Very Related
Full story:
Cawthorn’s re-election bid is facing a legal challenge from a group of 11 North Carolina voters who are arguing that his participation in a rally preceding the Jan. 6 riots should bar him from holding office. On the morning of the violent attack, Cawthorn gave a speech accusing Democrats of silencing the opposition and broadcasted unfounded claims regarding the 2020 election. The lawsuit was filed by way of the State Board of Elections, and claims that Cawthorn violated the 14th Amendment, which reads that no one “who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress … to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same.”
Brooks, representing himself, read from a legal document that he had prepared for the hearing, proclaiming that “every action I took, every speech I gave, every vote I cast about the 2020 elections was within the scope of my employment.”
Moron.
So, there are no ways to hold a president accountable under civil law? I guess Bill Clinton should have hired this lawyer.
Who is this guy? He’s like a bad TV show lawyer, arguing nonsense and hoping that the judge falls for the snow job.
As much as I loath Cawthorn, IANAL, this seems pretty weak tea. He has to be found guilty of breaking a law and being an idiot isn;t breaking any laws.
Actually a sticky issue. Usually, an admission by silence requires a duty to speak under the circumstances…and sure, name a POTUS from the last 100 years who wouldn’t have considered it his immediate duty as POTUS to speak out INSTANTLY and tell people…angrily even…to immediately disperse and cut the shit. But now you’re in the realm of “what is the POTUS’s duty, who determines it and is there a slippery slope here where we’re criminalizing POTUS exercising discretion to determine what that duty is and how to fulfill it.”
On the other hand, is it really being used as an “admission” if you’re just pointing to his behavior, his acts or failures to act, as merely evidence of his intent and state of mind…especially in the context of other things, such as reports he was rewinding tape of the insurrection to play his favorite parts over and over again. To make matters worse, it raises questions as to whether in this context we’re talking about political speech (including the choice not to speak) which, as everyone knows, is highly protected.
I wish this was as easy as saying his silence was tacit agreement, or at least indicative of his state of mind that the insurrection was hoped for or should be allowed to continue for 3+ hours before he asks everyone to go home and tells them he loves them for their insurrection, but it’s not.
The only example that Binnall could come up with of a situation in which a president might be held accountable was an arcane hypothetical involving a president trying to undertake a mortgage-related scam.
Now we know with certainty that Trump undertook a mortgage-related scam (or a few) during his presidency.
That’s like his entire property valuation model.
He wasn’t silent.
He was giggling with glee!
As he watched the violence on TeeVee.
We have it from more than one source.
I am honestly asking why not? Why isn’t his failure to speak for hours followed by his calling them special not an indication that their actions were exactly what he was calling for when he repeated the word fight so many times and invited them to DC that day with promisesvthatnit would be wild?
Sometimes you don’t have to win a lawsuit to win and just bringing a lawsuit causes the other guy to lose. This once was the case with the IRS where all it had to do was announce it was auditing a politician and that was enough to defeat the politician.
What the heck do you think the impeachment of Bill Clinton was all about, a blow job?
If this case is allowed to go forward we may see many others that focus attention on elected members of Congress, Senate and even State office holders who were part of the insurrection.
Did I miss in the article what fricking case this argument was for?
What fricking case?
I saw the word “damages.” But that’s it.
Naw. Not having enough class to date someone who knows how to use the dry cleaners.
I thought I just explained why it’s not that simple.
Don’t get me wrong. I lean towards it being evidence the jury should be allowed to consider in determining his state of mind…everything from planning to what he thought while it was ongoing, i.e., if it was a surprise and/or not planned, then maybe he even became complicit by remaining silent. But again, you start brushing up on very complicated and touchy issues involving criminalizing speech, whether it was political speech, whether you can criminalize a POTUS failing to act on a duty you think POTUS has as POTUS, who gets to determine such duties, what is the scope of POTUS’s discretion in determining his duties and how to fulfill them, whether he was maybe instead acting in a private capacity, not as POTUS, etc.
The legal issues are not cut and dry no matter what “folksy wisdom” is telling you.