Legal question for geeks

[Mike Honcho 5,270]

Is it bad when your legal team pleads guilty to committing crimes on your behalf?

Quote

Former Trump campaign lawyer Jenna Ellis pleads guilty in Georgia case

Former Trump campaign lawyer Jenna Ellis pleaded guilty Tuesday in the Georgia election subversion case and will cooperate with Fulton County prosecutors – the third guilty plea in the past week.

The development comes after back-to-back guilty pleas last week in the sprawling case from former Trump campaign lawyer Sidney Powell and Kenneth Chesebro, who helped devise the fake electors plot.

 

[GutterBoy 2,899]

Only when they spend more than 10 mins in the bathroom multiple times per day.

[Reality 3,121]

Already being addressed. 

Here's a nice little link you can click and everything.

 

[IGotWorms 4,058]

Yes it’s pretty bad.

Number one, obviously, you have people fairly high up in the conspiracy who are now going to testify against you.

But what makes this especially bad is any questions of privilege are almost certainly out the window. Before Trump could’ve argued that communications with the attorneys were privileged and could not be used against him at trial. But there is the crime-fraud exception, and now that the attorneys themselves have admitted guilt to a crime, it seems like pretty much a slam dunk that the exception will apply and the privilege has been destroyed.

Very bad. If this were your typical defendant they’d be completely dead to rights. But Trump does always manage to escape consequences so you can’t discount that.

[seafoam1 3,020]

It's funny to see people who don't know the law start posts about the law as if they know what they are talking about. 

[Blue Horseshoe 348]

5 hours ago, Mike Honcho said:

Is it bad when your legal team pleads guilty to committing crimes on your behalf?

 

The Electoral College should be eliminated

Twelve Democratic presidential candidates have explicitly called for the abolition of the Electoral College, while five others have said they are open to the idea...Some, like Sen. Elizabeth Warren, said they would back a constitutional amendment....Still others, like South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, called the Electoral College “undemocratic,” but hasn’t been clear on how he would repeal the system...Four Democrats said they are open to abolishing the system but didn’t explicitly back doing so. Sen. Kamala Harris said she’s "open to the discussion," while Sen. Bernie Sanders said it’s “hard to defend the current system”

https://www.politico.com/2020-election/candidates-views-on-the-issues/elections/electoral-college/

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CHIAFALO ET AL. v. WASHINGTON
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON
No. 19–465. Argued May 13, 2020—Decided July 6, 2020

“A State may enforce an elector’s pledge to support his party’s nominee—and the state voters’ choice—for President. … Electors are not free agents; they are to vote for the candidate whom the State’s voters have chosen.”

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-465_i425.pdf

1948 Democratic Convention

Nearly two weeks after the convention, the president issued executive orders mandating equal opportunity in the armed forces and in the federal civil service. Outraged segregationists moved ahead with the formation of a States' Rights ("Dixiecrat") Party with Gov. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina as its presidential candidate...In the meantime, Thurmond, winning four states and 39 electoral votes, had fired a telling shot across the Democrats' bow.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/1948-democratic-convention-878284/

U.S. Supreme Court Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214 (1952)

No. 649 Argued March 31, 1952 Decided April 3, 1952

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/343/214/

Five Quotes From Joe Biden’s Eulogy of Famed Republican Racist Strom Thurmond

"Strom Thurmond was also a brave man, who in the end made his choice and moved to the good side. I disagreed deeply with Strom on the issue of civil rights and on many other issues, but I watched him change. We became good friends."...1973 Joe Biden would be stunned to hear that he “disagreed deeply” with Strom on the issue of civil rights given that 1973 and 1974 Biden consistently voted against bills that would have integrated schools. He even used the same “forced busing” phrase that Thurmond used to voice his opposition to the bills he joined Biden in opposing.

https://www.pastemagazine.com/politics/joe-biden/five-quotes-from-joe-bidens-eulogy-of-famed-republ/

*****

Pennsylvania - No faithless elector laws

Georgia - No faithless elector laws

Michigan - Failure to vote as pledged cancels the vote and replaces the elector (Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.47 )

Arizona - Failure to vote as pledged cancels the vote and replaces the elector (Ariz. Rev. Stat § 16-212 )

Wisconsin - Vote counted as cast (Wis. Stat. § 7.75(2) )

Nevada - Failure to vote as pledged cancels the vote and replaces the elector (Nev. Rev. Stat. § 298.075(2) )

New Mexico - Vote counted as cast (N.M. Stat. Ann. § 1-15-9 )

- New Mexico is the only state that has some form of legal penalty on this list for electors whom refuse to vote as pledged.

*****

The 2020 general election states in dispute are Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, Arizona, Wisconsin, Nevada and New Mexico.

The United States Constitution does not cover the "Electoral College" in depth and never specifically does so by name. Article II and the 23rd Amendment are about logistics. The 12th Amendment defers specific breakdown of electors to state legislatures. ( SCOTUS reaffirms this in Chiafalo, but the distinction still remains that this is a matter for state legislatures to hash out for themselves in the details and previous precedents have only resulted in "fines" i.e. Colin Powell/Hillary Clinton)  Two of the states mentioned have no laws regarding faithless electors. Three of the states mentioned allow some mechanism to replace electors in the case of faithless electors. Again, discretion is given to each respective state. The two states that could drive serious problems here are Wisconsin and New Mexico, but again, there would a require a deeper dive into their legislatures and election laws.

From an optics standpoint, dragging out the "rebellious electors" narrative and the "strong arming electors" narrative and "fake electors" narrative will push the conversation back to Strom Thurmond and how SCOTUS got to the point to rule on elector vote adherence (i.e. Ray). Then it pushes back to Joe Biden's relationship with Thurmond and their role together on Civil Rights issues. Biden pushes identity politics when his entire political career, outside of the protection of the activist complicit MSM, shows him as a racist. This is not the kind of backdoor media narrative that the Biden Administration is going to want in 2024. This issue also drags out that POTUS contenders Warren, Sanders, Klobuchar and Buttigieg all wanted, on record, the electoral college to get wiped out. Kamala Harris maintains a fence sitter position here. None of this helps any of them if Trump and Eastman push the failures of the electoral college in the national daily media cycle. This particularly can hurt Buttigieg, and with the Afghanistan disaster, the Party apparatus needs a military man in tow for 2024 in some capacity.

In short, there needs to be a state by state breakdown, considering their respective laws, of what is being considered "fake electors" I actually don't agree with what Trump did and said on J6. It was not in the best interests of functional governance and it was not what was best overall, by intent, for all Americans. That being said, these issues with the electors, on a broad scale, are still functionally MATTERS OF LAW and need to be examined by each state in question and by each accusation levied against what each respective state legislature has ruled and put in place. What are these "fake documents to change electors" if you have states that have mechanisms to actually replace electors? What exists as an "alternate/fake elector scheme" if you have states that have mechanisms to actually replace electors?

So you'll ask, did Trump and Eastman commit conspiracy?  Eastman presented a legal theory to Trump. They both approached Pence with it. Pence said I'll look into this and do my due diligence. Now Pence might have privately thought they were both insane and idiots and could see the dangerous pathway where this could all spiral out of control concerning rioting and violence in the streets. But it's Pence's job to do due diligence. He discussed it with his staff and legal experts around him and he told Trump and Eastman he could not support their claim.

The faithless elector issue, which is a real complex legal discussion BEFORE TRUMP EVER ENTERED PROFESSIONAL POLITICS, is enough of a hedge that Trump can believe, in his own state of mind, that he won the election. Treason is off the table ( Trump is an idiot, he's not in league with the CCP and Xi to start World War III against the US). Sedition is off the table ( i.e the force test) . With the faithless elector issue, I'm going to have a hard time seeing conspiracy fly here and it provides some cover against obstruction. If even one single of the radical lefties here comes out to say Trump staying silent for hours as the riots and breaching kept going proves specific intent, go ahead and prepare to watch this prosecution fail. I'll say it again, many of the states in question have mechanisms by state law to actually replace electors. A few have no laws at all regarding faithless electors. How easily can you unpack "illegal" here?

******Here is the likely core argument John Eastman will make in his defense ( Because you need Eastman first to get Trump for any issue regarding electors) The electors were not "fake".  There is plenty of preexisting legal dispute over the matter of "faithless electors" to explore all practical avenues to ensure a "free and fair election"  The alternate electors were approached to cast their ballots or appealed to cast their ballots in order to prevent then sitting President Donald Trump from being disqualified by technicality in the event the mass of voter fraud lawsuits were successful. This dovetails back to W. Bush and Al Gore regarding Florida and the "Hanging Chads" in the 2000 general cycle. You cannot punish Eastman nor Trump for pursuing every legal avenue available. *******

Jenna Ellis pleaded guilty relating to "alleged lies" made by Giuliani. Chesebro only implicated himself, regarding issues involving electors, but did not implicate Trump in his guilty plea. 

If you want Trump for the elector issue, you need John Eastman first. (Ellis, Powell and Chesbro don't get you Eastman)  However, Georgia, again, at the time and place of the 2020 general election, has no laws on the books regarding faithless electors. Now Team Blue and the DNC might be able to massage some of the lower courts on this, but good luck trying to hang this hat on Trump if this gets to SCOTUS. And remember, fair or not - Kavanaugh had an assassin stalking him near his own home and the activist complicit MSM egged it on. Merrick Garland did nothing and just let it unfold. Alito and Thomas were run through the dirt, also Thomas' wife as well ( I would argue the financial grift there is indefensible, that being said, there are no mechanism to practically remove Alito and Thomas, and it's not like they are going to forget any of that) During Coney Barrett's confirmation hearing, she was repeatedly subjected to softly being called a wh0re to her face. Also she was run over with purity tests about adopting children in need and giving them a home. This was so egregious that Feinstein, what was left of her then, had to basically apologize to ACB's face, in public, over the disgusting display. Gorsuch knows if the fringe radical left get tired of trying to pick off Kavanaugh, that he's next. He's the fall guy for bad blood over McConnell and Garland. 

You need a pure smoking gun. Like Trump and the audio released about the documents case. That's a smoking gun. Trump is really out of rope on that one. However Team Blue needs to show specific intent from Trump. That he clearly knew he lost and still drove forward anyway to change the results of the election. Ellis and Powell testifying to what they think Trump meant within his own state of mind isn't going to do it. There needs to be video and/or audio. Of Trump literally admitting he lost the election, he knew it and that he was going to do whatever possible to subvert the results. It doesn't help that since this is Georgia, this will drag up Stacey Abrams refusing to concede the Governor elections to Brian Kemp. 

From a legal standpoint, there are some very high bars to cross to get Trump in Georgia. The documents case has real teeth. The rest of these cases not so much. Many of these people are pleading guilty on the basis of believing Trump will win 2024 and then immediately pardon them. 

Get Eastman and you have some basis to say Trump's situation is getting murkier. Ellis is small potatoes here though in that regard. 

Put it this way, if there was sufficient indisputable legal rope to nail Trump on Georgia, it would have happened a long time ago. As a matter of the "Court Of Public Opinion", if you chase a guy for 8 plus years straight, and you don't deliver, and he's the center of all outrage for nearly a decade by the 2024 general election, then people just get tired. Lots of Americans are "So What?" at this point. They just want some semblance of hope at the gas pump, grocery store prices and rent costs. They want their kids not to suffer anymore from the linger devastating lockdowns. They'd like law and order in the streets again.  If you make one guy the center of all evil in America for 8 plus years, you've normalized it now. People will just shrug their shoulders and say, "OK, what's new, that's not unusual, Trump's the devil" and move on. The rank and file working class American has an actual "saturation point" when it comes to Trump and his exhausting non stop media pathway. The documents case, again, has real legal teeth, and many Americans are so tired of the same "We got him, no no, this time, we really promise we got him!" angle that they just move on. So when Team Blue FINALLY found something to get Trump on, with the documents scandal, the American public is just out of steam on it. 

The activist MSM has lied so much, that even when they occasionally tell the truth, such as the documents case, many in the public will just write it off as another lie. And that's not just Conservatives doing that. Plenty of moderates, independents and undecideds have abandoned the core MSM and assume everything is a lie. Team Blue and the DNC brought that outcome on themselves.