54
votes
Donald Trump finds no new lawyers in time for Mar-a-Lago documents arraignment: he is expected to be represented by existing lawyers Todd Blanche and Chris Kise
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Authors
- Hugo Lowell
- Published
- Jun 13 2023
- Word count
- 987 words
While Trump's legal team may be a bit thin, I'm sure they're already keeping track of possible appeals routes should they need to use them. The fact that Mr Trump's legal team appears to lack the necessary security clearance to read the documents he is accused of hording seems like it might hold water in front of the right judge.
It shouldn't. But it sounds good enough on camera that I expect they'll make a play for it.
Obviously due to deep-state string pulling... The remaining Trump supporters are either completely out of the loop or so far down the conspiracy rabbit hole, that there is no amount of factual, concrete evidence that couldn't be countered by the shadow of the all powerful "deep state".
Since this is just the arraignment hearing, it isn't a problem afaik. My guess is that if he can't find an attorney willing to work for him the courts will end up appointing him a suitable lawyer.
While the thought of him having a court-appointed lawyer is amusing, I would feel bad for any lawyer forced to work for him by the nature of the appointment. There are also many many criminal lawyers licensed in Florida, and I'm sure at least one of them would take up his case for the Florida of it all. A cursory glance at Justia shows lots of criminal defense attorneys in FL.
Then again, I have no sympathy for his lawyers if they're stuck with him, they had the option not to take him on as a client and chose to do so.
From the indictment, he was suggesting to his lawyers that they should take fall for him (saying something that it was Hilary's lawyer that deleted her e-mails and he had no consequences, don't know much about it, but did that really happen?). So with all other things added it must be kind of shitty working for him, with all the additional issues he is creating.
Clients who don't listen to their lawyers get fired. I don't know how any of the high-profile attorneys that worked for him could even consider it after a consultation. I would assume anyone who willingly works for him is already a criminal.
And how many of those attorneys have or can get the necessary clearance to handle the documents? I don't know if he can actually get just any lawyer off the street.
It takes such a long time to get clearance too. My brother waited over a year and half to get security clearance in order to start a job.... and I'm sure the clearance needed for some of these documents in Trumps case requires a higher level than what my bro obtained.
But they don't need to read the documents, the case hinges on whether he improperly kept them.
Of course they do. He (and his representation) has the right to examine all evidence entered against him. For this exact reason, the government opted not to enter 13 documents deemed too sensitive to enter into the complaint.
I was kinda wondering when this was going to happen. With Trump's long history of not paying people for their services, being very difficult to work for, not keeping his mouth or social media account shut when he should (for his own sake), and being up against some pretty damning allegations, I was wondering how he kept managing to get lawyers willing to work for him? I'd have to imagine that being a lawyer and putting "Represented Donald Trump" on your resume would be a career-limiting move for prospective clients that you might actually want to represent later.
The damning allegations on their own would not limit his choice of attorneys in an exceptional way. Defense attorneys are diverse and the right of anyone to have a lawyer is a value in the profession. His habit of embroiling his lawyers in his crimes in a way that threatens their licenses and freedom is a bigger issue. (MAGA - making attorneys get attorneys).
Also as you mentioned, not being able to follow basic instructions like keeping your mouth shut about the case and a history of not paying people makes him a very unattractive client.
Plenty of lawyers are willing to defend clients they know are guilty, but Trump a) lies to his lawyers repeatedly and b) tells his lawyers to commit crimes for him, some of which have done so and paid the price for it. Those are two humongous red flags that would make most lawyers back off right away.
The "not paying people for their services" thing is, I presume, not an issue at this point, because any lawyer working for Trump would almost certainly ask for the bulk of their payment up front.
Not being able to keep his mouth shut is probably a pretty big red flag for a lot of attorneys. You never know at what moment he's going to say something that completely hamstrings the defense you're working on.
I honestly don't understand why lawyers approach cases that way. Heck, it's a criminal defense matter. I imagine the number of criminal defense attorneys who exclusively represent innocent clients with great cases is pretty small.
If I'm ever shopping for a criminal defense lawyer I want someone who'll bring their A-game no matter what. This seems like a great place to demonstrate that.
I think the problem is being able to show your A-game. Trump doesn't listen to his lawyers -- you'd have to work to disentangle your work from your client's sabotaging of their own case, all while Trump is throwing you under the bus.
I don't know if lawyers actually approach cases this way... maybe ones who work on contingency do. But sometimes, your A-game doesn't get any recognition when you have a client like Trump who sabatages your case.
I think Trump's tendency to not pay people for services rendered as well as his history of making his lawyers participate in criminal activity with him are enough that most good lawyers wouldn't consider that proposition worth it.
He's managed to score himself a very sympathetic judge. https://www.vice.com/en/article/k7zzgw/trump-looks-doomed-an-infamously-pro-trump-judge-could-save-his-bacon
Everyone's been talking about this and I have been unsure of how bad this is exactly, since as a layperson reading sensationalistic news, it's often difficult to understand the actual importance of things that appear good or bad on their face. So I took a look around and... in the words of Ken White (Popehat), uh, it's bad (emphasis mine):
He goes on to describe the myriad of other political factors that are sure to result in turning an indictment so strong that he describes it as "one of the most devastating on its face that I’ve seen in my career" into almost a guaranteed victory for Trump.
If she does not refuse herself I genuinely believe the Circuit will remove her. They have already expressed incredulity at her previous work in related cases (the special master review). They have the power to do this if asked by the DoJ.
He didn't find any new attorneys in one afternoon?
Sounds like Trump is a little bit of a procrastinator.
I think the news is making this a bigger deal than it really is.
Trump is represented by Chris Krise, former solicitor general of Florida.
While it's normal to find a local trial attorney (even for federal charges,) you can get special dispensation to have a lawyer from another state represent you, and he did do that for this arraignment with Blanche.
All he has to do in an arraignment is listen to the charges and say "not guilty."
I'm sure they're the best of the best.