One is plenty, believe me.
Trump was too stupid and too undisciplined for that.
He was issued a secured government phone but continued to use his personal phone extensively through his entire term and beyond. It was be appropriate if a guy who made a habit of ripping up any sheet of paper he was given could not be inconvenienced to use a secure phone
Looking at the Legal Eagle lawsuit summary, I wouldn’t bet on how long she’s going to be able to maintain a top tear hairdresser. Especially if Trump drops her in a desperate effort to stay out of yet ANOTHER case against him if it turns out she starts indicating she did it at his direct behalf and will testify to that effect.
(No, I don’t think that’s likely to happen, because that would of course incriminate herself, but if she becomes trouble for Trump, she’s out the door with “I hardly knew her,” a tainted rep, and a very serious likely lawsuit headed her way)
I don’t know where to put this without bumping some very old thread, so placing it here. It looks like Michael Cohen’s lawyer is in some deep, deep, shit:
Do you think he tried to cheat by using an AI Chatbot to find the cases? It’s happened before.
And I’m thinking Cohen isn’t going to get an early end to his supervised release.
He was either very lazy (and careless) or very intentionally deceptive. Either way, I have no sympathy for him.
I can 't read that document, even if I go to Flickr.
I didn’t have any issue reading it.
The text is way too small and I can’t find a way to increase it enough.
ETA: never mind, I found a way.
The breakdown is that Cohen’s lawyer cited cases that seem to have been made up out of whole cloth. Law review searches and such have returned no results and he has until end of the week(?) to produce his cites or show in writing why he shouldn’t be sanctioned. They’re also curious how much input, if any, Michael Cohen had on the situation.
Obviously those citations are in the same folder all those missing Trump votes got siphoned off into.
Maybe Cohen’s lawyer was citing ChatGPT hallucinations, in keeping with current legal practice in some circles …
But how did he think this would work? Lawyers have whole staffs of people whose job is to look up these kinds of cites, so that they know if they’re actually relevant to the case at hand. How do you argue that Bob vs Bill isn’t a precedent, if you don’t read the case file?
I mean, using an AI in such an important case is also kind of stupid, but it’s the kind of stupid that at least makes some bit of sense, if the lawyer doesn’t really understand how AI works, and some of the problems people have found in using it. But just assuming no one will even look up the cases you cite? That’s so blindingly stupid I simply can’t fathom it.
Forget it Jake. It’s TrumpTown.
I don’t know if this is quite exactly schadenfreude-inducing, but it’s certainly adjacent. And I had to laugh when I saw this article’s title quoting Trump:
‘They’re trying to get a guilty plea!’ Trump admits Supreme Court might rule against him (msn.com)
When was the last time Trump actually had a court decision go his way? Particularly one that didn’t involve Judge Cannon?
I think the Appeals court left Judge Chutkan’s gag order in place though somewhat narrowed its scope. Does that count?
I’m thinking that Appeals Court decision was about a 90/10 favorable ruling for the prosecution.
< Trump Math > "So I win with 10 out of 10, right?
The math checks out!