Nothing fair in get Trump campaign

Dershowitz, author of the book "Get Trump," said that one of the problems for the former president is that he is having difficulty assembling a legal team, because an extremist organization called Project 65 has threatened to file Bar charges against anyone who dares to represent Trump.

Does anyone really believe that?
Besides trumpf should get the chair for what he's done To this country.

Dershowitz, author of the book "Get Trump," said that one of the problems for the former president is that he is having difficulty assembling a legal team, because an extremist organization called Project 65 has threatened to file Bar charges against anyone who dares to represent Trump. Originally Posted by farmstud60

I read Dershowitz's op-ed in the Wall Street Journal the other day, and he did make a decent case against prosecuting Trump.

There are two reasons Trump may be having problems assembling his legal team. The first is that he has a reputation for not paying his lawyers. In this instance it's possible Trump's PAC is paying the lawyers, so maybe that's not the problem.

The second is that he must be a very difficult client to work for. Apparently he's put Evan Corcoran in a position where Corcoran felt compelled to provide evidence that's damning to Trump, despite attorney client privilege. I believe he's Attorney 1 in the indictment about the confidential records (see link), and also believe Corcoran is still working for Trump.

Remember Michael Cohen, another attorney, went to jail on account of Trump, and tax evasion.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...648653.3.0.pdf

And getting a little off topic, not paying your lawyers can backfire. Rudy Giuliani was happy working for free. And he's arguably responsible for both of Trump's impeachments.

Farmstud, excerpts from Dershowitz's editorial,

What should have begun as a routine civil investigation under the Presidential Records Act has ended up with a multicount criminal indictment, the first federal prosecution ever of a former president or a leading candidate for the presidency. This is partially because prosecutors targeted Mr. Trump and partially because of the unwise way he responded.

Mr. Smith had a lot of help from Mr. Trump. Had the former president cooperated with investigators and immediately returned all the classified material in his possession, as Messrs. Biden and Pence did, charges would have been unlikely. But Mr. Trump did what he always does. He attacked Mr. Smith and resisted his efforts. That provoked investigators to double down, which in turn led Mr. Trump to engage in the allegedly obstructive conduct that forms the basis for several counts in the indictment.

Mr. Smith subpoenaed Mr. Trump’s lawyers and persuaded a judge that Mr. Trump had vitiated the attorney-client privilege by instructing them that it would be “better if there are no documents.” The defense team will claim that Mr. Trump was entitled to maintain possession of classified material under the Presidential Records Act of 1978, which establishes detailed procedures for handling the records of former presidents and a civil process for resolving disputes about them. It doesn’t carry criminal penalties for noncompliance. Remarkably, the indictment never mentions the Presidential Records Act, despite its apparent relevance to any possible prosecution under the Espionage Act of 1917.

The indictment quotes tape-recorded conversations that form the basis for several charges under the Espionage Act. The critical recording is of a conversation between Mr. Trump, a writer, a publisher and two Trump staffers, who were discussing a claim that a senior military official had persuaded Mr. Trump not to order an attack on “country A,” which in context is surely Iran. Mr. Trump points to some papers he found and tells his guests they prove that military officials supported an attack. “This totally wins my case,” he says. “This is secret information. Look, look at this.” Mr. Trump then says: “See, as president I could have declassified it. . . . Now I can’t, you know, but this is still a secret.”

It is possible that Mr. Trump merely waved the papers in front of his guests and never gave them an opportunity to read them, which is apparently not in evidence because the prosecutors don’t have the document. But even those hypothetical facts would be enough to support the charge of willfully possessing classified material in an unauthorized manner.

The reason this recording is so powerful is that it is self-proving. It doesn’t rely on testimony by flipped witnesses or antagonists of Mr. Trump. It is the kind of evidence every defense lawyer dreads and every prosecutor dreams about. This is particularly important because an appellate court could find legal error in the ruling that Mr. Trump had vitiated attorney-client confidentiality and reverse convictions based on his lawyers’ compelled testimony. A conviction that rests on a consensually recorded conversation would be harder to challenge.

Mr. Smith has made a stronger case against Mr. Trump than many observers, including me, expected. The question remains: Is it strong enough to justify an indictment of the leading candidate to challenge the president in next year’s election? Even with the recorded statements, this case isn’t nearly as strong as the one that led to President Richard Nixon’s resignation in 1974. Nixon was almost certainly guilty of destroying evidence, bribing witnesses and other acts of obstruction. Many of the charges in this case are matters of degree. Nor have prosecutors any evidence that Mr. Trump’s actions damaged national security more than those of Mr. Biden, Mr. Pence and Mrs. Clinton did.

When an incumbent administration prosecutes the leading candidate against the president, it should have a case that is so compelling that it attracts the kind of bipartisan support that forced Nixon to resign. No such support is currently apparent, since many Republicans continue to be troubled by the targeting of Mr. Trump. Mr. Smith will have to convince not only a Miami jury but the American public, on both sides of the partisan divide.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-stron...trump-80cd7480

Ya know no one takes Dershowitz seriously anymore.

Ya know no one takes Dershowitz seriously anymore. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Mrs. Dershowitz does. He lays down the law in that household.

Ya know no one takes Dershowitz seriously anymore. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Wrong, the liberal anti-constitutional people don’t take anyone that disagrees with with seriously anymore.

trump is convicting himself.
He has dared them to indict him.
They have honored his request.
Georgia is going to bend him over to
.
Weren't flynn and trump both chanting "lock her up"?
Both of them should be in prison.

Dershowitz, author of the book "Get Trump," said that one of the problems for the former president is that he is having difficulty assembling a legal team, because an extremist organization called Project 65 has threatened to file Bar charges against anyone who dares to represent Trump. Originally Posted by farmstud60

Every one deserves a fair trial even Trump.

If trump doesn't have attorneys, that's all on him. He has talked many of those attorneys into leaving.
He has plenty of cash.
Just another delaying action.

Every body knew trump up coming elections. Maybe if he didn't hold off the archives.

Every one deserves a fair trial even Trump. Originally Posted by Ripmany

He’ll get a fair trial. He got an incompetent judge that clearly has a lack of knowledge in this area of the law (see her prior rulings) and he’ll get the lawyers of his choosing. And Tiny will be happy to know that he’s being tried in right wing Florida near his home he’s getting a trifecta and way better than most defendants.

He’ll get a fair trial. He got an incompetent judge that clearly has a lack of knowledge in this area of the law (see her prior rulings) and he’ll get the lawyers of his choosing. And Tiny will be happy to know that he’s being tried in right wing Florida near his home he’s getting a trifecta and way better than most defendants. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Nope, not a chance of anything fair at all with Trump. That is the lie Democrats keep trying to sell, and most people see through the con.

Au contraire farmstud, MOST people saw through the con as proven by the 2020 presidential election outcome. Evidently, you still wear blinders, but it is hyperbole to suggest that most do. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck....it's a duck....or maybe Donald.

Au contraire farmstud, MOST people saw through the con as proven by the 2020 presidential election outcome. Evidently, you still wear blinders, but it is hyperbole to suggest that most do. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck....it's a duck....or maybe Donald. Originally Posted by reddog1951

... If it surely quacks like a duck or not,
Trump remains the Republican front-runner - by FAR!

Ya think THOSE people supporting Him are wearin' blinders??
Are they Fair to Trump?

While with the Dems side - the lot of people there
DON'T want the current president to run again.
Too old and feeble.

Maybe that's fairness to Trump also...

#### Salty

trump in court ..






BAHHAHHAAAAA