220
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2024
220 points (95.8% liked)
politics
19159 readers
4546 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Cute they think that was her decision, let alone her idea to have him rant in the trial. Donnie wanted desperately to speak out in almost every prior case so far, and especially so now we are in primary season to maintain his victim complex
She's not a competent lawyer by even the most generous of standards. I agree that this was absolutely his idea, but she also has a fiduciary responsibility to her clients, so the blame is certainly hers. He can't actually take the stand unless called by a lawyer, and no competent lawyer would have done that (and some of his other lawyers even prevented him in other cases).
She's a colossal fuckup, no matter whose hairbrained idea it was initially.
You cannot blame a lawyer for allowing their client to testify, they literally have an ethical obligation to allow a client to testify if the client chooses to (ABA Model Rule 3.3(9) ). You can call her competency into question for other reasons, but she would absolutely be sanctioned if she didn't allow him to testify.
Neat! I learned something! Thanks.
Anytime! I don't respect her decision to advocate for Trump in any way, but she put herself in an extremely difficult situation. Not only are the facts extremely adverse to your side, you have to counsel such an unlikable, egotistical clown. She deserves so much of the criticism that she gets, even if only for being conceited enough to think she could come out of such a public trial without the sort of reputational harm she's receiving.
While technically true, his lawyer must call him to the stand if he wants it. Lawyers aren’t ethically allowed to silence their own clients’ testimony, even if it is damaging to the case. The lawyer can argue with the client ahead of time and tell them it’s a horrible idea. But if the client refuses to budge and insists, the lawyer has an ethical obligation to call them to the stand. She could literally be cited by the bar association for refusing to let him testify.
And I guess that's the reason why two of his lawyers withdrew, one even the day before trial, because they could not convince him to stay silent and did not want to watch him testify and could not hinder him to testify because of the law.
Victim complex yes, but I'm also sure he's convinced he could talk his way out of it. He's been able to do that or pay the right people off his whole life so far, and these cases ending poorly for him surely has him convinced that everyone involved is just "doing it wrong" and he needs to step in and fix it himself.