Report: Trump didn't fire his lawyers; they fired him.

[kstewart33]

Last edited Sat Jul 22, 2017, 01:20 PM - Edit history (1)

Political Wire:

"A Republican who served on the Trump transition team and has close ties to many in the White House, including some Trump family members, tells me that the “shakeup” of the president’s legal team wasn’t being reported correctly. Trump wasn’t firing his lawyers. Instead, they were firing him.

According to this source, these lawyers no longer agree with the president’s strategy for dealing with the Russia investigation. Trump is willing to try to end the investigation by any means necessary, including firing special counsel Robert Mueller and other Justice Department officials. The lawyers know that will force a constitutional crisis and they want no part of it.

Meanwhile, Mike Allen reports that Trump “is building a wartime Cabinet, for political and legal war.” The addition of Anthony Scaramucci as White House communications director is part of this effort. Scaramucci was opposed by nearly everyone in Trump’s inner circle, with the exception of Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump. Of course, Kushner was also the key person who advised Trump to fire FBI Director James Comey.

A “West Wing confidant” tells Allen that Trump really might dismiss Mueller. So he needs “a group that can fight through what could end up being something quite amazing.”"

Update: The article is behind a paywall.
Link: https://politicalwire.com/2017/07/22/what-comes-next/

[emulatorloo]

1. I thought as much. If you are a lawyer who believes in the law, you would run like hell

from Trump after the NYT interview and recent tweets.

[Not Ruth]

3. There is no such thing as a criminal lawyer that believes in the law

Their ability to evade the law is what defines them. They have to understand the law, but never would they believe in it.

[unblock]

7. That's complete horsesh*t

Yes, there are slimy lawyers in every area of law, just as there are slimy people in any profession. But most are ethical.

The role of defense attorney is vital and noble. It most certainly can be done ethically and usually is.

[Honeycombe8]

33. I agree. Many people don't understand the role of criminal defense lawyers in the system.

They are vitally important...whether their clients are innocent or guilty.

[Shrike47]

8. I disagree. I practiced criminal law for many years and firmly believe in the law.

So did many of my friends. We also believe in the Constitution, even if some people don't like the results of its application.

Many lay people confuse following the law with obtaining their desired outcome.

[Not Ruth]

10. The key is the difference between factual guilt and legal guilt

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/representing-client-whom-the-lawyer-thinks-is-guilty.html

First, understand that what’s at stake in your case is whether the prosecution can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you committed the crime with which you’re charged. That’s a different question than asking whether you did the act that’s involved. For example, if you’re charged with robbery and you did, in fact, wrestle a purse from a woman on the street, you’re entitled to an acquittal if the victim cannot identify you.
Factual versus Legal Guilt

The key is the difference between factual guilt (what the defendant actually did) and legal guilt (what a prosecutor can prove). A good criminal defense lawyer asks not, “Did my client do it?” but rather, “Can the government prove that my client did it?” No matter what the defendant has done, he is not legally guilty until a prosecutor offers enough evidence to persuade a judge or jury to convict.

[hueymahl]

17. What is your point? NT

[Not Ruth]

18. Evading legal guilt does not qualify as believing in the law

No more than corrupting religious text in the name of religion makes one a believer in that religion. Perhaps it does in name, but not in spirit.

[hueymahl]

21. You seem to be confused about believing in the rule of law and believing in "justice"

The rule of law demands that the state prove its case, regardless of actual guilt. Defense attorneys, just like all attorneys (there are always exceptions, of course), believe in the rule of law.

Justice does not always flow from the rule of law, but the rule of law is the best method society has yet developed to insure justice as often as possible.

[Not Ruth]

24. Do you agree that evading legal guilt when you believe in factual guilt is not believing in the law?

That it is a manipulation of it.

[hueymahl]

26. I absolutely do not agree with that

It is important, actually critical, to the operation of the law that the state is forced to prove guilt using lawful methods. For example, guilty men have gone free because evidence was suppressed from unlawful searches and seizures by the state. Nobody likes the immediate result (except the defendant), but this is a critical constitutional protection and limitation on the state. Critical to protecting the innocent.

It is NOT a manipulation. It is part of the process. Part of the rule of law check on a state with the power to take your property, your liberty and your life. It is fundamental to the US Constitution and the Rule of Law. If you cannot see that, then it is you that does not believe in the rule of law.

[Not Ruth]

29. Criminal lawyers not believing in the law is certainly part of the process

[Not Ruth]

31. You should ask yourself why one believes in law

"There are many reasons why we need law: to regulate society; to protect people; to enforce rights and to solve conflicts. Laws prevent or deter people from behaving in a manner that negatively affects the quality of life of other people, therefore the consequences of breaking the law often fit the crime."

[hueymahl]

39. I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree

I don't mean to offend, but your understanding of the US legal system is so shallow and superficial, that it is difficult to have a conversation with you about it. For example, I don't know where that quote comes from or what you are intending to assert by it, but it is a simplistic statement of goals, not something that gives insight into how you achieve those goals.

I will leave you with this. The US was the first country in history that was founded almost wholly on the idea that laws created by the people should govern society, as opposed to the historic societal organization of justice coming from god or a leader. This one concept revolutionized the world and helped propel the US to its standing today. This concept has been argued, fought over and refined for almost 250 years by some of the brightest minds ever to exist. The end result of this work in progress is the continued reaffirmation that for a rule of law based society to continue to operate, it must protect itself from both violent elements in its midst and the entity with the greatest ability to do society harm - the government itself.

You may not agree with the US legal system and how it defines the rule of law. But simply saying that because YOU think someone is guilty (even if you are right) they should go to jail despite constitutional violations, shows that you either do not believe in the rule of law or you are so ignorant of what the rule of law means that it is the same thing.

I would encourage you to read some basic texts about how our legal system works. Here are two to get you started:

Michael C. Dorf, Constitutional Law Stories (Foundation Press, 2004)
American Constitutional History: A Brief Introduction by Jack Fruchtman.

[Not Ruth]

35. Take a look at the breakdown between prosecutors and criminal lawyers that have gone on to politics

You could look at it as a division between believing in the law vs not.

[JBoy]

22. You don't seem to understand the whole "burden of proof" concept.

Or maybe you do, but just don't like it?

Be sure to bring these viewpoints up if you're ever called for jury duty. You won't have to serve.

[Honeycombe8]

34. +1. nt

[hueymahl]

16. A fully ignorant statement

And that is the nicest thing I can say about it.

[Marthe48]

20. I've hired lawyers more than once over the years

and always satisfied with the outcome.

[Not Ruth]

2. Maybe he did not pay them

[Brother Buzz]

4. Why would he pay them when....

his re-election campaign is ponying up the dough; the rubes stupid enough to still be in his camp him are paying the freight.

[Not Ruth]

5. Maybe the re election campaign did not pay them

The point is that they probably never got a penny.

[Brother Buzz]

9. The re-election campaign fund is cutting checks for legal fees left and right

Why do you think the ass is stumping after only being in office six months?

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/15/trump-campaign-paid-jr-attorney-240592

[Honeycombe8]

36. I think it was probably the Mueller strategy. Positive that's why Mark Corallo left.

Corallo assisted Trump's personal lawyer, Kasowitz. Kasowitz resigned his role as top lawyer and has become one on the side. That's probably because his expertise is not in criminal law, and that's what's needed now. But it's also possible he wants nothing to do with the Mueller strategy and thinks highly of Mueller, like Corallo does.

This strategy of attacking and firing Mueller is unusual and particularly troubling, given Mueller's highly respected status throughout Congress and the legal community. And it's not likely to end well for either side. So if I were a lawyer, I'd run for the hills or risk being tainted forever...unless I were used to being a lawyer for unsavory clients like mobsters. Which is what Trump is.

[magicarpet]

38. Tr-dump intended Sessions be his legal shield....

... to deflect any and all legal harm to come tr-dump's way be it questionable or fraudulent business practices, years of Russian money laundering, election meddling and rigging, or questionable/illegal political actions.during the elections or after taking office.

Tr-dump intended to bounce all these legal fees off the DOJ and the taxpayer was to pickup the tab.

Once Sessions recused himself this scheme fell through causing tr-dump to then bounce the legal fees off his re-elect campaign funds.

Talk about freeloaders looking for a free ride - tr-dump is the epitome.

[no_hypocrisy]

11. Maybe . . . . . ????

I'm sure they blew through their retainers in phonecalls alone the first two weeks of representation and he wouldn't replenish.

No money, no honey.

[Oneironaut]

6. Trump will burn it all to the ground before being impeached.

He would kill everyone if he had to. He's not going to be impeached easily (if it even happens). This could get ugly.

[Honeycombe8]

37. It HAS gotten ugly. I hate the thought of how much uglier it's going to get.

I am comforted in the fact that it is LIKELY (but not certain) that it's not going to end well for Trump.

How strong and balanced is our government system? We're about to find out. Can Russia continue to rule our country from the White House and Congress? We'll see.

[Gothmog]

12. This is going to get nasty

[mazzarro]

13. Can Mueller safeguard his work product out of the reach of PINO?

I fear that the first thing PINO and his people will do is to get hold of whatever documents and evidence gathered so far and quickly destroy them. Regardless of what the law says about destruction of evidence and/or government documents. After which they will argue and challenge any accusations brought against them.

[leftyladyfrommo]

15. I'm sure Mueller and his team are very aware

of that possibility and are taking steps to protect themselves and their investigation.

Ole dumb Donald thinks
he is s so smart. But that bunch that Mueller put together will run circles around him.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

19. "Ole dumb Donald thinks he is so smart".

Bingo. He always thinks he's the smartest person in the room, which he pretty much never is. Unless he's alone in the room.

[annabanana]

23. even then it's a toss-up . . . n/t

[Ligyron]

28. There were no leaks to speak of from Mueller's team.

But as soon as the story about them looking into financial matters hit the other day, Trump went all panic attack. Now he's going nutz trying to come up with a way to end the investigation. Silence is golden.

[Skittles]

25. stupid, arrogant fucker doesn't listen to anyone

THAT is what will bring him down

[samnsara]

27. moochie comes across as a snot nosed wanna be...easy to take down.

[Achilleaze]

30. the republican Draft-Dodger-in-Chief is a freaking republican tar baby

who wants to hang out with the republican traitors against America? No one with a shred of decency or integrity.

[Catmusicfan]

32. Kick and recommending.