To be fair, that’s a pretty common human behavior.
Interesting. Was it anybody we’ve heard of?
Interesting that the groups mentioned are conservative. He should absolutely keep that up.
The Constitution is the highest law in the land.
There’s another term for a technical violation of the Constitution - it’s, “Breaking the Law”.
The police officer just ask for me to drop the gun and I just threatened him and got shot!
I’m not sure there isn’t some weird legal logic behind the “technical violation” argument. (Apologies, I did not listen to the clips.) No one has ever been convicted/incarcerated for “Violating the First Amendment.” Instead, they are convicted for violating some statute which is presumably consistent with the First Amendment as interpreted by the Courts.
Just observing that this may be the sort of distinction lawyers often see which others dismiss.
Well, sure–but Trump isn’t charged with violating the Constitution. He’s charged with breaking specific laws. And violating the first amendment isn’t a thing that a private citizen can do; nor do any of Trump’s actions in the indictment consist of violating the first amendment. So the lawyer’s whole “technical violation” business is a canard.
What he did was a technical violation of multiple statutes. The Constitution provides a framework for those statutes, but unless the attorney wants to challenge the whole “Congress can pass laws” structure, it’s a canard. The Constitution provides a framework for challenging those statutes–e.g., by saying they violate the first amendment–but that’s also not what the attorney appears to be doing.
As near as I can tell, the attorney is trying to keep the focus off the specific crimes Trump is accused of committing, instead preferring a wishy-washy pseudo-theological discussion of the constitution.
It’s the wrong ground for discussion.
Of course it is. But canards are (many) lawyers’ stock in trade! 
Much of what lawyers do inn litigation is make up arguments and hope their arguments persuade the correct persons. When you’ve got a shitty case and an obviously guilty client, the available arguments get weaker.
Agreed–I just want to make sure we don’t accept the attorney’s terms of discussion.
Yes, there are constitutional questions to be raised, here and in many other cases. The order of events goes like this:
- Someone takes an action.
- They’re accused of a crime.
- During the trial, constitutional issues are raised.
- If they’re convicted, these issues are raised during the appeal.
- Constitutional issues are clarified.
The attorney’s suggestion, that constitutional ambiguity means you get out of jail free, is nonsense.
Coordinating with other agencies is a core part of the Secret Service’s job. They do it pretty much every time the President visits any place other than Washington DC, so this should be no impediment.
“Oh, that makes all the difference in the world: upon getting technically found guilty, he’ll technically spend the rest of his life behind bars — technically wearing a prison jumpsuit, and, y’know, technically making license plates — much like how, last week, we technically executed a guy who‘d technically committed murder.”
Actually, I’ve seen that argument made by posters on these very boards, when someone is upset that an unpopular accused person is acquitted because the police infringed the accused’s constitutional rights.
The comment is frequently framed as « He just got off on a technicality. ». The technicality bring a breach of the Constitution.
the person was not named. and for some reason… is no longer a member of trump’s golf clubs.
Judge Snyder: Hutz, we’ve been in here for four hours. Do you have any evidence at all?
Lionel Hutz: Well, Your Honor, we’ve got plenty of hearsay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence.
That particular rule doesn’t apply when no verdict is returned, for example, when there’s a hung jury.
Fox and Friends tried out this new defense this morning. It went something like this:
“When President Trump mentioned to the Georgia Secretary of State that he needed 11,000 votes, he wasn’t asking him to find them, it was just aspirational. That’s a new word - we’re going to be hearing a lot about that.”
Fucking 1984-type bullshit. Just go ahead and tell them that if Trump behaved like a mob boss, that’s perfectly acceptable.
Of course you also have to pretend that he didn’t threaten him legally if he didn’t comply.
Is it only aspirational if I say to someone that it would be really nice if they gave me their wallet, because otherwise I’d shoot them with the gun I’m pointing at them?
Didn’t Trump actually use the word “find”? I don’t have time to read the transcript now.
Yes.
And you are going to find that they are — which is totally illegal, it is more illegal for you than it is for them because, you know what they did and you’re not reporting it. That’s a criminal, that’s a criminal offense. And you can’t let that happen. That’s a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer. And that’s a big risk. But they are shredding ballots, in my opinion, based on what I’ve heard. And they are removing machinery and they’re moving it as fast as they can, both of which are criminal finds. And you can’t let it happen and you are letting it happen. You know, I mean, I’m notifying you that you’re letting it happen. So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state.
That’s a direct transcript.
Luckily for you, I had time (and really just needed to skim it).