Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy❤
No. of Recommendations: 2
No. of Recommendations: 18
you out. Here are the bios of a few of the lawyers I get my info from, who you claim don't get it and are lost on the merits of the case.How does that help me out? I don't dispute the professional credentials of those folks. Just as (I assume) you don't dispute the professional credentials of the accomplished lawyers who have laid out arguments for the strength of the prosecution as well: Tribe, Turley, Cobb.
You have qualified lawyers who hold different views of the strength of the prosecution's case. This so frequently as to be ubiquitous. For almost any position in almost any case, you can find a solid lawyer who can advocate for that position.
Here's the solution to that:
Don't weigh their bios. Weigh their argumentsThe problem with your approach is that you keep trotting out the qualifications of the people who agree with you, rather than actually taking a look at their arguments and seeing whether they're making good or bad arguments. For example, in your most recent post you linked to a video of Dersh criticizing the prosecution's case. But all of his arguments
were poor arguments. He's got great credentials, but his arguments are still very poor - he obviously hasn't informed himself about what the prosecution's case actually is, or researched what New York law actually
says.
So rather than posting links to these guys' bios, or what networks they appear on, perhaps you could tell me why
substantively you think their positions are correct?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_Tribehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Conwayhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ty_Cobb_(attorney)
No. of Recommendations: 2
"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Conway"
Conway, you are kidding right? Riddle me this, IF cases just like this are filed every day WHY wasn't this non political case filed five years ago? I'm not a lawyer bud, but when the lawyers I respect claim the defense closing argument was weak, I suspect it was weak. If you think Tribe and CONway are non political lets just move on. Thanks.
No. of Recommendations: 14
I'm not a lawyer bud, but when the lawyers I respect claim the defense closing argument was weak, I suspect it was weak. If you think Tribe and CONway are non political lets just move on.
Again, you can't assess the strength of the arguments by deciding which lawyers have the better bio. Or by which lawyers you choose to respect or not respect - because that choice will invariably be affected by whether they are advocating a position you agree with or not.
I'm not arguing that Tribe or Conway are non-political, any more than I would argue that Turley or Dersh are non-political. I'm arguing that they have the better arguments. On the merits, the things that Dersh and Turley are saying are mostly: i) inaccurate presentations of the prosecution's case; or ii) inconsistent with what NY law actually is.
They can fulminate all they want about how Trump wasn't required to disclose a contribution until after the election, or that he wasn't involved in claiming the Daniel's payment as a legal expense for tax purposes, or how awful it is that the jurors don't have to agree on the object crimes - but none of those are valid criticisms of the prosecution's case. Because the prosecution's case isn't based on the timing of the contribution reporting (because the contribution itself exceeded the legal limit), or whether Trump claimed a deduction (the alleged tax fraud took place on Cohen's return, not Trump's)....and the reason the defense lost the argument on unanimity on the object crimes is because there's pre-existing case law saying that's not necessary.
You keep trying to rely on the fact that Turley and Dersh are accomplished lawyers as a shortcut for actually figuring out whether their arguments are good, whether they're actually helping you understand the strength of the case or not. That's not going to work. There's accomplished lawyers on both sides (and every side in between), so there's no way to do that effectively. Lawyers with solid credentials are all over the map on this.
No. of Recommendations: 1
“ Lawyers with solid credentials are all over the map on this.” First,if I was the king, neither Biden nor Trump would be their parties nominees. The gop went through the process, republicans voted for Trump, I don’t get it but there it is. On the other hand , the Dem party told us Joe will be the nominee, period. I don’t flip legal opinions like they are tennis players. Dersh has been a New Yorker since childhood , he doesn’t know New York law? If lawyers are all over the map on the merits of this case, why was it brought? Political pal, that’s why.
No. of Recommendations: 7
For the record "Dersh" also argued on behalf of Epstein, OJ, Weinstein, Jim Bakker, and wrote a LA Times column arguing that statutory rape was an outdated concept.
No. of Recommendations: 8
Dersh has been a New Yorker since childhood , he doesn’t know New York law? If lawyers are all over the map on the merits of this case, why was it brought?
Because lawyers can be all over the map on any legal issue. In any case, there's going to be lawyers on the other side arguing that the case shouldn't have been brought - and any case that goes to trial is going to have that, because so many criminal cases plea bargain out.
In countless posts on this subject, I don't recall you ever actually engaging with the subject of these arguments. You post links to them, but you never talk about the merits of what their positions are - just that they're critical of the prosecution. Which is your prerogative, of course - you don't actually have to spend any time understanding what these guys are arguing, let alone assessing whether their arguments have any merits. But it's not an effective strategy to try to convince other people of the merits of their arguments without, you know, presenting their arguments rather than just discussing their bios over and over.
No. of Recommendations: 2
You want a non lawyer to make legal arguments? Do you want me to give medical advice too? You never answered why this obvious case wasn’t brought five years ago ? If it wasn’t strong enough to bring five years ago it wasn’t strong enough to be brought 9 months before the election, comprende? Thats why the common sense experienced Dems keep repeating the same line, it isn’t working. Be cute if you want but we know why the case wasn’t brought five years ago, that’s my legal opinion. 🍿☮️
No. of Recommendations: 6
First,if I was the king, neither Biden nor Trump would be their parties nominees.
If you're King, there would be no nominees because you are the KING.
the Dem party told us Joe will be the nominee, period
Have you been awake when this happens almost every time there is an incumbent President? History makes this not suspicious.
Dersh has been a New Yorker since childhood , he doesn’t know New York law?
Ok, there is a phenomena that happens when a "celebrity" on one political side switches sides. Whether it's they miss the limelight, the money, or a combination, they can switch sides and have a cache because of their former status on the other side.
But look to their arguments, are they simply making statements that you like without explaining the underlying reasoning with details?
From memory, Dersh stated that when the Judge cleared the courtroom and he was one of the few allowed to stay, that what the judge did and said during that cleared time was unconstitutional. Did he explain why any of it was unconstitutional? Did he cite the law or case(s) that the judge violated? Did you come away with a clear understanding of why it was unconstitutional? That's his JOB. We don't care if his name is Dersh, we want him to do his job, explain it with enough detail that we are better off for having read his piece.
I was worse off after having read the Dersh piece because I just had more questions with no understanding. What would you do if an investment article did this to you about a potential investment? Wouldn't you decide not to read that fellow again and move on to someone who would explain with enough detail you were more knowledgeable after reading them? That's what we try and do. We don't want to read every investment article and evaluate, so we try and find good sources, and we want them to care about their reputation, and are sad when the source goes sour on us.
Dersh is a source that has gone sour on us and reading his articles doesn't help us, we aren't more knowledgeable after reading them, and are sad that a once good source has gone bad.
No. of Recommendations: 1
albaby, would you be kind enough to offer us the names of the 5 defense lawyers prosecutors would prefer to not see representing the defendant the past 20 years ? Thank you.
No. of Recommendations: 2
No. of Recommendations: 14
You never answered why this obvious case wasn’t brought five years ago ? If it wasn’t strong enough to bring five years ago it wasn’t strong enough to be brought 9 months before the election, comprende?
What? Oh, that's easy - Trump was President five years ago. It's hard enough winning a case against a wealthy, lawyered-up figure without adding the wrinkle of whether a state can indict a sitting President. To answer the obvious next question, why wait so long after he left office? Because the civil proceedings against the Trump organization - resulting in two Trump Org felony convictions - in 2022 gave prosecutors more information that they were able to use to build their case, records and info that wasn't available in 2021.
Plus you are (again) wrong about the facts. The grand jury to indict Trump was convened in January of 2023 - almost two full years before the election. The indictments were issued in early April 2023 - a year before the case got to trial. The decision to start bringing the case to trial through the grand jury process was made in late 2022.
I'm not asking you to make legal arguments - just engage with them. What do you think is the strongest substantive argument against the charges? Not peripheral matters like the timing of when to bring the case or the bios of lawyers who criticize it. What do you think is the biggest defect that leads you to believe that Trump should not have been charged?
No. of Recommendations: 3
albaby, would you be kind enough to offer us the names of the 5 defense lawyers prosecutors would prefer to not see representing the defendant the past 20 years ?
??? I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you asking me who the best criminal defense lawyers in the country are right now?
No. of Recommendations: 1
Lmao, I get a kick out of you bud. Couldn’t you be making 800$$ an hour billing a client or are you on the clock now? Thank you for generously sharing your time with us, see ya later, a video poker machine is waiting for me 🙏 ☮️
No. of Recommendations: 1
" I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you asking me who the best criminal defense lawyers in the country are right now?"
sure right now and the past ten years Thanks.
No. of Recommendations: 6
sure right now and the past ten years Thanks.
Oh, I don't know. It's almost certainly not going to be anyone that we've mentioned in this thread. Your best criminal defense attorneys are going to be top lawyers that are actually engaged in criminal defense work, rather than being public commentators on legal issues. If you're asking who the half dozen or so criminal defense attorneys are that prosecutors would rather not face, that list is probably the top practicing NY defense bar - not someone like Dersh or Turley or Geragos.
No. of Recommendations: 4
If you want more depth from Dersh google his interviews,
What I'm saying is I wouldn't post anything from Dersh or anyone else unless they have that depth. You posted a link to a Dersh column that had no reasoning or sufficient detail for us to come away feeling reading it was worthwhile. A couple of those, and people will stop reading what you post. There isn't any entertainment value to anything Dersh writes.
