It depends on the interaction between the two, at the time of the alleged advice. Whether a lawyer-client relationship was created would depend on the particular facts, and is determined by applying the law governing lawyer duties to the facts of the particular case. If one of the parties denies that there was a lawyer-client relationship, and something turns on the issue in litigation, then the court would have to make a determination.
Thanks!
So might D. Trump denying that she was his lawyer be a way to hold up and disrupt the courts even further by forcing them to make this determination before her testimony or information could be used in his trial (s)?
I think where it could come into play is the “advice of counsel” defence. But if the Donald is now saying that they weren’t his lawyers, hard to simultaneously say that he relied on their legal advice.
I don’t know how it would work procedurally, but trial judges are generally pretty good at moving things along.
Personally, I think this is just Trump’s standard reaction: attack anyone who says bad things about him, and deny that he had any dealings with them.
That may work when you’re stiffing a contractor and there’s not much by way of a paper trail. Not the same when you’re the President of the United States, and everything you do is watched by the media and other politicians.
People keep throwing about “advice of counsel defense” [or defence for you northerners] but I’m not sure it would even apply to the charges here. I don’t think it’s a formal affirmative defense, but perhaps is relevant along the lines of “I didn’t have any intent to commit a crime, and relied on the fact these lawyers assured me it was perfectly legal.” For such an argument, I don’t think the “lawyers” have to be his lawyers. It would work just as well if he read their opinions in the Wall Street Journal. Of course, intending to commit a crime is not the issue. Intent to do the acts is what the Government must prove.
Yes, I have no idea how strong that defence might be, or the parameters. However, it is being tossed around in the op-eds, so there may be some relevance there.
I’ve linked to this article before, but I think it has a home here. A pretty quick read that gives some texture to the Powell/Fox News/Dominion lawsuit stories and helps us understand a primary source for Powell’s “rigged election machines” story:
This is my take, seduced by the trappings of Presidential power.
There were plenty of officials in Trump’s administration that said, “Uh, let me off here…” when the crazy election fraud talk began. Not that there wasn’t plenty of other crazy talk in the Trump administration, but probably not the kind that could get you mired in legal trouble if you went along with it.
Cassidy Hutchinson in her book provides an interesting picture of Mark Meadows, who seems to psychologically disintegrate after the election, due to his willingness to follow Trump off the cliff out of misguided loyalty.
This is one of reasons I started this thread. Loyalty, to Trump? Why? How misguided are these people? We are going to need many, many people to study these people. And as others have said it like being in an abusive relationship I guess.
IMHO, it’s not just how misguided these people are, but how many millions of people are that misguided. That to me is frightening - even to the extent that Cassidy Hutchinson is misguided to the extent that she was or still is.
Many minimized or denied the pathology that was the Trump administration, look at the feckless Republicans after the two impeachments. Others laughably thought he would “pivot” at some point after he’d been reprimanded.
All were complicit to one degree or another.
It seems a new name needs to be added to the title of this thread:
Another Trump lawyer pleading incompetence, I see.
And one waving the cross of Jeebus in front of her as a magic amulet to ward off vampires judges.
Sometimes I wish jeebus was real so folks pulling that stunt could be vaporized by indoor lightning as soon as the words “I’m a christian” come out of their piehole liehole.
I just wish the “Christian” pleading would get her extra punishment, as in “As a Christian, you knew perfectly well that this act you were engaged in was immoral,” and the “Lawyer” pleading got her extra punishment, as in “As a lawyer, you knew perfectly well that this act you were engaged in was illegal.”
Seems like we should include Ellis in this conversation too. Another attorney who should have Known Better.
Always the victims. It’s not her fault she listened to other people and did what they told her of her own free will. It’s not her fault she didn’t do a single thing to make sure she wasn’t breaking the law. It’s those other people. It’s always those other people
Even though she herself was one of the lawyers concocting spurious legal rationales to justify not counting electors from states that voted for her boss’s opponent.
“If all of your friends conspired to overturn the election, would you?”