And it’s based on his “advice of counsel” defense

Trump plans to assert an “advice of counsel” defense, claiming he was just following the legal advice of his attorneys. However, this defense comes with conditions that could undermine Trump’s case. By asserting this defense, Trump would waive attorney-client privilege, meaning communications with his attorneys would become available to prosecutors. His attorneys would also likely have to testify in court. Furthermore, prosecutors could argue that Trump’s attorneys were actually co-conspirators, not just legal advisors, and that Trump’s reliance on their advice was unreasonable. Special Counsel Jack Smith appears to have capitalized on this by naming Trump’s attorney co-conspirators in the indictment, which could allow him to crack open communications between Trump and his attorneys.

  • @aka_oscar@beehaw.org
    9•1 year ago

    Huh i wasnt aware of the advice of counsel defense. Seems like the conditions are effective in blocking misuse of said defense. I do wonder if there has been a big case where this has been used succesfully, bc it doesnt really sound like a good strategy, even if we consider a less crazy context than this one.

    • BrooklynManEnglish
      12•1 year ago

      well… it’s not a good strategy if you’re lying your ass off, it happens to be true, AND you conspired with your lawyers to commit the crime you’re accused of.

      now, Jack Smith (and every reasonable person on earth, the more clever dolphins, cetaceans, chimps, corvidae, octopods, and a couple of transdimentional mice) knows this is the case, so this is definitely a terrible strategy. It’s also patently Trump to blame anyone else for his own actions but himself. Predictable, even.