Trump plans to lean on attorneys' involvement in hush money payments as part of trial defense

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: NBC News

March 12, 2024, 4:05 PM EDT


In his upcoming hush money trial, former President Donald Trump intends to argue that he didn’t think he was doing anything wrong because various lawyers were involved with the underlying conduct that gave rise to the charges against him. Trump attorneys said in a New York criminal court filing made public Tuesday that part of his defense will be that he "lacked the requisite intent to commit the conduct charged in the indictment."

“President Trump intends to elicit these facts from witnesses...whom we expect will testify about President Trump’s awareness of counsel’s involvement in the charged conduct. This is not a formal advice-of-counsel defense,” his lawyers wrote. It’s not a foregone conclusion that the judge overseeing the case will allow Trump to present evidence of his lawyers’ involvement without expressly invoking the advice of counsel defense.

The former president has been hit with 34 charges related to allegations that he covered up a $130,000 payment that his then-attorney Michael Cohen made to adult film star Stormy Daniels in the closing days of the 2016 presidential campaign. The payment was intended to have Daniels keep quiet about a sexual encounter she said she had with Trump in 2006. Trump has denied that he slept with Daniels, but he has acknowledged repaying Cohen.

Prosecutors from the Manhattan district attorney's office say Trump falsified the documentation surrounding payments to Cohen. Trump has pleaded not guilty to the charges against him. Jury selection in the trial is scheduled to begin March 25.

Read more: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-plans-lean-attorneys-involvement-hush-money-payments-part-trial-rcna143045

[twodogsbarking]

1. Ignorance is no defense. Neither is stupidity.

[LakeVermilion]

3. He's, no doubt, used it before...

and was probably successful.


Do you remember when Republicans used to rant about the courts being tied up in frivolous litigation? The most vile user of the court's time is now their candidate for president.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

2. This is not a true advise of counsel defense

Normally to use any sort of advise of counsel defense TFG would have to testify and that will not happen. TFG is trying to create a new hybrid counsel defense where TFG is not waving attorney client privilege. It will be fun to see if the judge lets TFG ignore the law and create his own special privilege

Link to tweet

Here is a link to TFG's filing
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24478394-trump-notice-re-advice-of-counsel-defense

This is from the filing

While President Trump intends to elicit evidence concerning the presence, involvement and advice of lawyers in relevant events giving rise to the charges in the Indictment, he does not intend to assert a formal advice-of-counsel defense that would require him to prove at trial that he “(1) made a complete disclosure to counsel [concerning the matter at issue], (2) sought advice as to the legality of his conduct, (3) received advice that his conduct was legal, and (4) relied on that advice in good faith.” Bankman-Fried, 2023 WL 6392718, at *1. Accordingly, there is no privilege waiver requiring production of communications protected by the attorney-client privilege, and there is no basis for the People to demand a preview of our defenses at trial. See United States v. Wilkerson, 388 F. Supp. 3d 969, 974-75 (E.D. Tenn. 2019) (“[C]ourts should not ad hoc invent new ways to coerce criminal defendants to assist the government in their prosecution—absent compelling reason to do so. . . . t would be untenable—and, most likely, unconstitutional—to require Defendants to turn over potential evidence (most of which is currently privileged) to the Government or risk forfeiting a defense.”); see also 2/7/2024 Decision at 4 (noting that the CPL does not require pretrial notice of an advice of counsel defense); cf. United States v. Scali, 2018 WL 461441, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2018) (requiring defendant to produce relevant materials where defendant “unequivocally” stated that he “intend[ed] to demonstrate that he is not guilty of tax evasion because, for the years in question, he followed counsel’s advice”).

[BumRushDaShow]

6. And that citation that you posted

referenced the Bankman-Fried case, where he is sitting in prison right now!

[bucolic_frolic]

4. We'll clean this up for you, Boss!

'I'm innocent so $130,000.00 ought to cover it!'

[BadgerKid]

5. All the other cars were speeding, too.

But you’re the one who got pulled over.

[NonPC]

7. Trump Wants to Have His Cake and Eat It Too

New frontiers in BS defense strategies...

[LetMyPeopleVote]

8. Judge Merchan rejects the "presence of counsel" defense

TFG tried to create a new legal defense where TFG could claim the benefits of the advise of counsel defense without complying with the requirements of such defense. Judge Merchan rejected TFG's new legal defense.

This makes me smile. Judge Merchan just told TFG that TFG is NOT special and the normal rules apply to him.

Link to tweet

[BumRushDaShow]

9. There were a bunch of things that Merchan did today

and it seems the various news sites are mentioning different pieces of the ruling.

[bluestarone]

10. I'm pretty sure TFG will NOT get on the stand.

No way right? (i hope he does)