Once again she doesn't link to the actual document.
You have a lawyer to advise you on the law.
You can ask can I do this? Is it legal?
If you got charged committing a crime for something your lawyer told you was illegal, you could tell them I relied on the advice of my counsel.
However, if you want to raise that as a legal defense then you're giving up lawyer confidentiality privilege. And the prosecutors will get to see your communications with your council to see if this actually occurred.
So back in March Trump had to indicate if he was going to use this defense, he chose not to. If he declared he was going to use it, the DA could have gotten much more discovery from him.
So they tried something called presence of counseln then involvement of counsel and the judge would not let them do i See this filing, search for this section
People's VI: Motion to Exclude Arguments Regarding Any Alleged Reliance on Advice of Counsel Unless and Until Defendant Establishes A Sufficient Factual Predicate for that Defense
This Court now rules that Defendant may not offer, or even suggest, the defense of "presence-of-counsel." To allow said defense in this matter would effectively permit Defendant to invoke the very defense he has declared he will not rely upon, without the concomitant obligations that come with it. https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/other-courts/2024/2024-ny-slip-op-24121.html
Trump's lawyers tried again last week to use and the judge shot them down
What is it?
What was the good one?
I run hot and cold with steely Dan. Currently hot.
Justice Merchan tells Steinglass that jurors said they could work until 8 p.m.,
Seeing reports that jurors are laughing with the prosecutor's jokes.
That's not a good sign for the defense.
They just showed this chart in court
https://x.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1795580724025921933?t=nRY-0eZVMN-NUfJ33JqaXw&s=19
Um, why would a branch in Youngstown, affect any of those issues?
I actually thought you were kidding
The idea that Trump wasn't told what the crime was is a talking point going around, but it's not true.
Trump is being charged with 34 counts of filing false business records.
Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree, a class E felony, 34 counts
Trump's lawyers have known this since APRIL 4, 2023 when the indictment was filed.
The talking point is this crime is misdemeanor unless it is used to cover up another crime
These were mentioned in another court filing, not in the indictment.
The Daa asked for 4 of them. The judge tossed out one of them. One of them is FECA , the Federal Election Campaign Act.
One is a NY state election law
I forget the other right now, I think it's tax law, but Trump's lawyer was addressing these today in court.
Here's an example
https://x.com/scrippsnews/status/1795495073427468665?t=MS4vFWX6ycZA-i39eQb0uQ&s=19
WHY were the emails marked “CONFIDENTIAL” and “privileged” multiple times regarding “potential challenges in connections with Michigan’s elector certification process”?
because this is part of the Freedom of Information Act Itself. It's in the law.
Not all records are required to be released under the FOIA. Congress established nine exemptions from disclosure for certain categories of information
Exemption 5: Privileged communications within or between agencies, including those protected by the:
>Deliberative Process Privilege (provided the records were created less than 25 years before the date on which they were requested)
>Attorney-Work Product Privilege
>Attorney-Client Privilege
Both are denied without prejudice. Meaning both can be refiled. It means she didn't rule on the merits of the argument.
Trump's motion is asking for sanctions with regard to this motion, the motion she just told Jack Smith he must refile if he wants it considered.
Presumably Trump can file his request for sanctions again if the refiled motion warrants it. Presumably Smith will do the conferral she is asking for and the sanctions won't be necessary.
It's not unusual for a judge to rule for a party and AGAINST the same party in the same motion.
You do know that Trump has been on trial in NY for weeks now right? And Closing arguments are happening?
This scenario involves Trump going jail after being convicted.
It would appear that way if one ignores giving the defense time to respond to what was unsealed.
This goes back to January and it was Trump's team that wanted to file things unsealed (unredacted, actually,) so they have always known exactly what the filings said, because they wrote them. Redactions keep the info from the Public, not Trump's lawyers.
Judge Cannon issued a ruling and then reversed the ruling back on April 9th. It's May 28th. They still aren't public. It's been 5 months.
Well a lot of these motions were filed months ago.
This one that just got released, was filed in February.
https://static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2024/05/Doc_566_Motion.pdf
it hasn't been decided it's only just been put on the docket.
Trump asked for permission for additional discovery in Jan. She hasn't ruled on it.
Back in March she asked for filings about jury instructions. When the trial date wasn't even set. and when she already rejected one of the arguments.
https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/f0ee3456be6a5fcf/06814efe-full.pdf
I think these are deliberate and she is gumming up the works where she can
This would not happen today.
The sentencing would happen on another date and he is the right of appeal.
And jail might not even be part of the sentence for these crimes.
Can you elaborate?
Do you agree with the theory that Judge Cannon is deliberately trying to delay this case?
Last slide: "#10: Cohen Is The Embodiment of Reasonable Doubt."
"He is the human embodiment of reasonable doubt," Blanche says. "Literally."
Justice Merchan advises the parties that the jury agreed to work late.
This probably means both closing arguments will be done today
It was denied without prejudice.
This means they can resubmit it. It seems like she is going to ask them to confer and resubmit.
There still could be sanctions for this.
Trumps lawyers showing slides to emphasize their big points. "Case Turns on Cohen,".....if you can't believe Cohen, case fails
AMI: Standard Operating Procedure....this is about David Pecker and the National Enquirer arguing there was no conspiracy there.
No Election 'Influence.....The National Enquirer could not influence an election.
The Story Was Already Public." .....about Stormy Daniels
Blanche notes that it originally ran on a blog called The Dirty in 2011
Some moments
Trump's lawyers have said several bits of testimony were lies.
Emphasized Trump had nothing to do with the invoices.
Prosecutors have objected at least 3 times, judge sustained. I think this is because attorneys at this point are supposed to argue facts, not interpretations of law, but I'm not sure.
Robert Deniro is doing a Biden campaign press conference at the trial.
There have been instances in court where lawyers have submitted court cases that were entirely made up by AI.
Some of the big AIs are about generating readable language, not accuracy.
It will probably get better, but people have to understand what it does.
They would only get to the jury if they work late
The judge still has to give instructions to the jury, I forgot about that.
Trump said a couple of times he would, then he did not.
This is why the closing arguments are so important. Trump only had one witness. That witness went after Cohen.
But there have been no witness that oppossed any of the other witnesses. So there's a lot of testimony on the record that is unopposed.
We already know a couple of Trump attorneys testified before the grand jury. OK 4 lawyers testified.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-classified-documents-grand-jury-justice-department-623428540a6cff1b5dcdf697cdf45b5d
https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/24/politics/timothy-parlatore-testified-grand-jury-maralago-trump/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/11/politics/christina-bobb-trump-mar-a-lago-grand-jury/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/14/politics/alina-habba-trump-attorney-grand-jury-maralago/index.html
My guess is the info in the Nauta filing is not new news, but just an aggressively worded way to describe these interactions.