Next contestant… “Come On Down!” John Lauro. MeidasTouch
If I’m not mistaken, a lawyer can allow his client to lie on the witness stand - (if the defendant truly insists on speaking, the lawyer cannot stop him) - but the lawyer would usually say something like, “Your Honor, my client will be testifying in narrative form.”
That way, the lawyer is not liable for anything the client says, and the prosecution also knows what it means.
I went looking for a non-paywalled source and
here we go, the s highly respected and trusted by eveyone /s Alan Dershowitz tells us that there is a shadowy, nefarious group called the 65 Project that is threatening lawyers who would consider representing Individual-ONE and the he himself got threatened by them just for offering to represent any lawyers whom they went after.
“If you go to work for that guy who doesn’t pay his bills and doesn’t listen to advice, you’ll be sorry” may have the same syntax as a veiled threat, but it is actually a simple statement of fact.
It can’t be that easy to get away with lying, can it?
The judge knows that the accused is lying (or at least, that the accused’s own lawyer believes that the accused is lying), and will instruct the jury accordingly on the “frailties” of such evidence.
Plus, the accused then has to sit through the prosecution’s cross-examination, who also knows that the accused’s own lawyer thinks he’s lying. The prosecutor will also know, from the other testimony that they’ve heard and the other evidence in the case, just where the “frailties” in the accused’s testimony lie, and will examine the accused on those points, in great detail, in front of the jury. And the accused can’t refuse to answer questions. The jury will hear, at great length, the prosecution’s examination and the accused’s attempt to explain it all away.
And in closing, there’s a very good chance that the prosecutor will simply state that the jury should find that the accused was lying and his testimony should not be given any weight.
Dude actually said he was going to be defending the “sovereign citizens” of the United States. Am I reading a little too much into that? It’s just not a phrase I hear outside of describing a bunch of nutbags who are concerned with fringes on flags and arguing that they’re not driving they’re travelling. And he wants cameras in the courtroom during Trump’s trial? I can’t help but think that’s an effort to show his client has nothing to hide because he knows there’s not going to be a camera in a federal courtroom, right?
The problem is that Trump doesn’t give a flying fuck about the jury in the courtroom. He wants a captive audience where his every word will be broadcast on every channel, over and over again. He is depending on winning the election, not the trial, because he is sure that accomplishing the former will enable him to make the latter go away…and with the Congress and the Court the way it currently is, I’m not sure he isn’t correct in his thinking.
What will be great is if Dershowitz himself joins Trump’s legal team. It’ll be hilarious watching the two of them each trying to grab all of the public attention at every press conference.
That’s not what the 65 Project are saying. What they are actually saying is that if you do anything illegal or unethical in acting for Trump we will come after you. So if you want to act for Trump and don’t want 65 Project to come after you, act ethically. Shouldn’t be such a big ask.
But of course the subtext is that even stupid lawyers know that Trump will ask them to do unethical things. So no doubt 65 Project’s warning is a real threat of probable action. But that’s a problem created by Trump (and those silly enough to act for him). Not the 65 Project’s problem.
I can see it now.
Dershowitz is lying? Whaaat?
Yeh, there’s an old joke that goes: What’s the most dangerous place in thr world? Between a camera and Alan Dershowitz.
No doubt it’s been said of others, of course.
Funny how they fought allowing camera’s in the Stormy indictment. “Trump’s lawyers urged the judge to reject the media’s request for cameras in the courtroom.”
Of course. Demand cameras and claim the biased judge won’t let you have them. Then demand no cameras and claim the biased judge won’t let you not have them.
The critical thing to notice about the Trump Method is every noun, e.g. “judge” is preceded by an adjective e.g. “biased” every time. That turns the idea into a compound noun. His followers quickly cannot conceive of the idea of a non-biased judge. It’s very effective. cf. “job-killing regulations” which the Rs have been touting as a compound noun since the 1980s.
Well not so much lying as being distinctly economical with the truth. Reading his piece and various sympathetic pieces linked off it, they all make a big deal of the 65 Project going after Trump’s lawyers (and potential lawyers) and make it all sound terribly insidious and menacing.
They don’t actually lie. They just quietly fail to mention that the reason - and the only reason - the 65 Project has been so successful is because Trump’s lawyers have acted (and his future lawyers probably will act) egregiously unethically.
No, I believe what he is doing has no daylight between it and lying. It is like “Trump is President of the US” is “being economical with the truth” by leaving out the “not”. Oh, sorry, I just forgot to put that in there.
Far be it from me to defend Dershowitz but there is a huge difference between your example saying Trump is President, and Dershowitz saying that the 65 Project is going after all these lawyers.
The first example is simply false. The second example is true it’s just that it leaves out the reason why.
As I examine the Dershowitz piece more closely, it looks like outright lies – not just lies of omission. The 65 Project is going after lawyers like Sidney Powell for blatantly unethical behavior and lying to the bench. He claims they went after him for offering to defend anyone targeted by 65, but his offer was made in March of last year, and 65 did not file against him until mid December – on charges of unethical behavior related to the “election fraud” cases. On top of that, I see no indications of actual direct threats to lawyers who might defend Individual-ONE, merely that 65 will go after lawyers who behave unethically.
That sounds like a little bit more than “lying by omission”.
Just a reminder that the claim “I was cancelled by my local library” was in reference to this event, when the Chilmark library wouldn’t let him do a book reading there because the last time he did, there were over 250 abusive people trying to get into a room that fit 40. They found him another location 11 miles away, but a reasonable solution like that was of course beyond the pale for Dershowitz, who instead threatened to sue the library for denying his 1st amendment rights.
And btw, the library did decide to let him back, 2 weeks before the Daily Caller article.