Hi, Shrewd!        Login  
Shrewd'm.com 
A merry & shrewd investing community
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd
Search
Shrewd'm.com Merry shrewd investors
Search
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd


The week's question
In December 2024, in the thread "Re: BRK: Why Not XOM?", BreckHutHigh asked the members: "What about the long road trips with kids?" This week it is put to everyone again. The button below opens the small thread re-asking it - read what others have said so far, then give your own answer as an ordinary reply.
Answer this questionContinue to Shrewd'mThis note won't appear again
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (2) |
Author: WatchingTheHerd   😊 😞
Number: of 84350 
Subject: Trump's Confused Advice of Counsel Argument
Date: 03/12/24 7:13 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 11
One item among many in today's news involves Trump's evolving defense strategy in his New York criminal fraud trial related to hush money payments in 20216. Any case in which a defendent will argue he acted on the advice of counsel requires a formal filing to the court at some pre-set interval before the trial begins. For Trump's hush money trial, that day was sometime this week so Trump and team filed a statement with the court that was classic Trump: He didn't explicitly claim an "advice of counsel" tact would be taken in his defense but he still stated he lacked the criminal intent required under the law because he was "aware numerous lawyers were involved."

So are you in or you out? You can't be both.

A defendent filing an "advice of counsel" notice to the court is essentially waiving their attorney/client privilege with those lawyers. This ensures any communication between the defendent and those lawyers can be examined by prosecutors to counter whatever argument the defense plans on making when the case goes in front of the jury. But of course, that's the LAST thing Trump wants to actually do because his lawyers WERE crooked and WERE acting on his orders or mutually planning the capture/kill scheme between AMI and Daniels with him and were mutually planning with him to bury the expense through compensation payments from The Trump Organization to its employee Michael Cohen rather than simply paying it out of Trump's personal wallet (which would have been legal).

Trump's non-sensical filing will not likely go over well with the judge but it's another sign of how desperate his legal maneuvers have become and how far away from legal norms he is attempting to roam in order to delay a reckoning.


WTH
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
Print the post
Members reply directly to WatchingTheHerd here — and replies get answered. Reading is free; so is joining the conversation. Join Shrewd'm »
This community has written 84,309 posts about US Policy. The article-length ones it recommended most:
It's going to get worse · 33 recs · 2025
G’day Donny · 30 recs · 2026
Old Related Story · 28 recs · 2026
HCR is a national treasure · 27 recs · 2025
Fascism in America · 27 recs · 2025
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (2) |


Announcements
US Policy FAQ
Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Followed Shrewds | Open Questions | Moving a community