371
submitted 10 months ago by stopthatgirl7@kbin.social to c/news@lemmy.world

Legal analysts say Trump admitted that the intent in financial representations he made was to convince lenders to loan him money.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] cuibono@lemmy.world 128 points 10 months ago

Imagine being this genius' lawyer

[-] Rocketpoweredgorilla@lemmy.ca 72 points 10 months ago

A plausible sounding article I read stated that his lawyers knew from the start that they didn't have a chance of winning anyway. This whole thing is just theater to try and stall as long as possible to buy time until the election.

I'm sure they've already got plans to cheat their way to a "victory" on that front as well.

[-] emolr@lemmy.world 22 points 10 months ago

But also taking time to give him a proper trial ensures that the final ruling is constitutional and can't risk being declared a mistrial later on.

[-] guacupado@lemmy.world 33 points 10 months ago

His own lawyers declined to question him lmao Knew he'd just make things even worse.

[-] stochasticity@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

Isn't it pretty typical for defendents to not take the stand?

[-] _dev_null@lemmy.zxcvn.xyz 9 points 10 months ago

This is a civil, not criminal trial. Can't self incriminate if it's not a criminal trial, so the 5th amendment doesn't apply (not sure how it works if there's other trials ongoing with cross interest in testimony).

[-] JustZ@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago

The fifth Amendment would not apply to the allegations in the civil complaint. It's still applies to his testimony with regard to uncharged criminal conduct. In other words, he cannot be required to testify in the civil case to something that would incriminate him in an uncharged criminal matter. At least that's my understanding as an attorney, however, I admit I never have to deal with this issue and the one time it almost came up, the other lawyer never asked my witness the right questions.

[-] FARTYSHARTBLAST@kbin.social 20 points 10 months ago

Hope they got paid up front...

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 29 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Narrator: “they didn’t.”

(Which really goes to show how incompetent they are.)

[-] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 15 points 10 months ago

Only people Trump ever paid on time, or at all, was businesses connected to the Russian Mob.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago

exactly. which is why competent lawyers are staying away. Even moderately incompetent ones would demand payment upfront.

[-] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago

Only lawyers willing to take up trumps case, are people who think the fame of being associated with him will benefit them in the future.

Which says all you need to know about their intellectual capacity.

[-] stopthatgirl7@kbin.social 5 points 10 months ago

It’s reached a point where now I’m instantly skeptical of any lawyer who starts going on the news circuit while a case is on-going - they’re looking for fame, not to talk about the case.

[-] jaybone@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

They’ll capitalize on their 15 minutes of MAGA fame and write a book or run for office or whatever.

[-] TheDoozer@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

Nah, they got paid in "exposure" (to ridicule, sanctions, and indictments!)

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

exposure doesn't pay the bills.

[-] andrewta@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

On only fans it does

[-] INHALE_VEGETABLES@aussie.zone 4 points 10 months ago

People keep saying this but honesty if you dont have anything going for you... Why not do it for free?

I know bugger all about law but surely everyone will know you in the profession, and if you mange to do anything close to a good job, then you get some kind of credibility from it?

Seems like a yolo opportunity for anyone wanting to make a name for themselves.

[-] Cypher@lemmy.world 24 points 10 months ago

Ahh the good old “exposure “ argument.

It’s refreshing seeing it applied to lawyers instead of artists.

[-] bradorsomething@ttrpg.network 15 points 10 months ago

At this level there is much more to lose than gain. Trump can literally threaten your law license. The exposure isn’t worth the risk.

[-] INHALE_VEGETABLES@aussie.zone 1 points 10 months ago

your client can do this?

[-] vivadanang@lemm.ee 10 points 10 months ago

I'm beginning to think MAGA stands for make attorneys get aneurisms.

[-] dyathinkhesaurus@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago
[-] vivadanang@lemm.ee 7 points 10 months ago

Sure, that's already happened. Watching Trump jeopardize Chris Kise's legal career with games on the stand tho.... This may be the first time a defense attorney just pops a blood vessel wanting to scream "SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU'RE MAKING IT WORSE YOU RIDICULOUS FUCKNUT"

[-] jmsy@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

His lawyer went to a law school that doesn't require LSAT scores 😆

[-] JustZ@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

Yale or Harvard?

[-] Illuminostro@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

She's been auditioning for a spot on Fox the entire time.

this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2023
371 points (94.1% liked)

News

22895 readers
3902 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS