Trump and his DOJ, including Barr, have done this once or twice.
6 Likes
Should a proper lawyer be saying this in public about his client’s case?
You’d tell your client it’s hopeless in private but… announcing it to the public?
1 Like
Ahhh, zealous advocacy and all that. Even if you’re bringing suit against the man in the moon, you’re supposed to be able to have a lawyer. But here’s Trump’s dilemma—any lawyer who sees any merit in these poppycock suits is a garbage lawyer. A good lawyer, even just a sane lawyer, knows it’s b.s. and that’s arguably a bit of an attitude problem. And there you are.
Heh.
14 Likes
Come on. It’s not as if he announced it to the public after he took on the case!
4 Likes
Scaringi started his political life as a aide Santorum so you know he is a genius. 
14 Likes
Oh well …
10 Likes
OT
Biden just passed the 79 million vote mark.
14 Likes
For the aggrieved plaintiff Trump it is a matter of principle and he’s entitled to his day in court. For his apparently bottom feeding lawyer Scaringi it is a matter of principal.
And look at the price they’ve had to pay. It’s mind boggling.
4 Likes
13 Likes
He’s billing by the minute for his expertise. Donnie Two Scoops will understand the grift, but won’t pay the bill.
3 Likes
At least three law firms, all prestigious, all understand their client is a fool.
3 Likes
In 2016 when the loser wasn’t a loser he won 62,979,616 popular votes and declared it a landslide. HRC of course won 64,844,594, so she had an even bigger landslide but didn’t give herself bragging rights.
2 Likes
Nice wordplay there 
1 Like
Boy…they sure can pick um cant they…radio show host…
2 Likes
He’s not admitting a lie. He’s admitting that even if he wins the actions he’s litigating, it won’t change the outcome of the election.
The problem here isn’t that he’s lied to the court, which yeah, gets you sanctioned and likely disciplined by the judge or state bar. The problem is that he’s made public statements detrimental to his client’s cause and that he may have done so in a context creating a conflict between a client’s interests and his personal business interests.
Will a judge quote this to him and demand that he explain why the whole case shouldn’t be dismissed as moot? Yes. Could a judge say that it’s an admission against the client’s interest made within the scope of the representation? Yes. But if the judge distinguishes between comments made on behalf of the client and comments made in a personal capacity, all he does is set the guy up for a conflict of interest charge by the client in the course of a fee dispute.
And the most likely outcome here isn’t that the guy get’s sanctioned or disciplined. The most likely, indeed, I’d say certain, outcome is he doesn’t get paid. Regardless, at this point, I’d say he is obligated to withdraw from the representation and ask the Court to give the client time to get new lawyers.
5 Likes
No news here, just another Trumper who lies through his teeth. Wonder how many of these right wing lawyers is going to end up getting stiffed by the Trumpy campaign and become non-believers.
1 Like
Do note that his comments were before Trump was his client.
1 Like
I assume that PA SOS will note the comments by Scaringi and counsel will seek either sanctions or dismissal on the basis that counsel himself believes the case is frivolous.
1 Like
That may or may not be the case, but in public discourse and in civics class, it was always assumed to be the case that elections were about giving everyone the right to vote and counting all the votes. And even under the Voting Rights Act, the assumption was that some localities and some states carried on minority-voter suppression, not that it was a nationally coordinated effort by one party.
If it was always this bad, at least now through social media and much bad experience we are finally aware of the problem.
So usually (as I understand it) lawyers have to deal with their clients making boneheaded statements that undermine their own case. In this case, the lawyer has apparently decided to eliminate the middleman, and just saw that tree branch off himself.
(Yes, I know that the statement was made several days before taking the case. But still…)
ETA:
And the most likely outcome here isn’t that the guy get’s sanctioned or disciplined. The most likely, indeed, I’d say certain, outcome is he doesn’t get paid.
Ooooh, a Rule 1 failure.
(Rule 1 says “the attorneys always get paid”.)
1 Like