In the category of “you’re never going to believe this,” John Lauro, supposedly the reasonable, experienced one in Defendant Trump’s legal clown car, confirmed that the scene described on page 34 of the indictment of his client happened exactly the way it is depicted.
I can’t believe Trump’s lawyers would even be going on TV to say anything. Doesn’t seem like a good idea. He really must be getting to the bottom of the barrel lawyer-wise.
Pence’s notes are going to be a killer. I remember Trump giving one of his lawyers a hard time became he was taking notes. Told him Roy Cohn never took notes or some such.
Is this the game where the things Trump wants to say to influence possible witnesses come out of someone else’s mouth? Criminal ventriloquism. Is that what this is?
There’s an old joke among lawyers: “If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the facts are against you, argue the law. If both the law and facts are against you, pound the table and shout.” I think what we’re seeing tonight from Lauro is the 2023 equivalent of pounding the table and shouting. A few months down the road, Lauro may regret these interviews, but by then he may have been fired by Trump or he may have quit because Trump would not pay his invoices for legal services rendered.
Facts obviously don’t matter. He just spins narrative and hopes his audience buys in. Classic selling of the Brooklyn Bridge With his Fox propaganda machine his followers will believe anything. Wild.
Thanks, Lucian, for watching Lauro/Ingraham so we didn't have to. As I was reading your quote of what "lawyer" Lauro said, I was seeing the scene in The Hunt for Red October when the loyal Russian submarine captain has fired the torpedo which then acquires his own boat, and his executive office shouts, just before impact, "You've killed *us!*" Yes, as you wrote, this "whole thing just gets better and better." You will serve us even more well-marbled Trumpburger with its big side of crispy schadenfreude, all of it swimming in organic ketchup. But could I please have Mexican (real sugar) Coca-Cola?
In law school, you're encouraged to make whatever argument sticks to the wall, even when the correct answer is: No Comment.
John Lauro must obviously have drunk the Trump Kool-aid because he goes blathering on about legal issues that have already been decided against his client. The judge knows that the defense has no legal arguments that hold water. There's no executive privilege in a coup d'etat, and all statements made by co-conspirators can be used against every other co-conspirator.
Legal advice offered by a co-conspirator is presumptively not reliable.
So much of the Government's case originates with the co-conspirators, verified by government witnesses.
One or more co-conspirators may decide to flip. John Eastman admitted that his scheme was illegal. The rest will rat out Trump.
The best that Lauro can do is try to work out a plea deal, but Trump won't go for it.
I was curious about John Laurio’s résumé and was surprised that he was once an assistant U.S. Attorney in NY, a graduate of Georgetown Law School and was editor the Law Journal there. After reading his public remarks about Trump yesterday I predict Trump will fire him very soon.
More excrement thrown against the wall to confuse and obfuscate the relatively simple case Smith has laid out. Lauro is depending upon jury nullification not deliberation.
Lauro is another spin doctor and almost as obnoxious as his client. Want to take any bets as to how long it will take for Donald to spew crap out of his mouth that can be used against him?
I can’t believe Trump’s lawyers would even be going on TV to say anything. Doesn’t seem like a good idea. He really must be getting to the bottom of the barrel lawyer-wise.
Pence’s notes are going to be a killer. I remember Trump giving one of his lawyers a hard time became he was taking notes. Told him Roy Cohn never took notes or some such.
I can't wait for the day when I hear nothing more about this man. Thanks for your perspicacity. i think thats the word.
This continues to be a political defense, not a legal one.
Is this the game where the things Trump wants to say to influence possible witnesses come out of someone else’s mouth? Criminal ventriloquism. Is that what this is?
There’s an old joke among lawyers: “If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the facts are against you, argue the law. If both the law and facts are against you, pound the table and shout.” I think what we’re seeing tonight from Lauro is the 2023 equivalent of pounding the table and shouting. A few months down the road, Lauro may regret these interviews, but by then he may have been fired by Trump or he may have quit because Trump would not pay his invoices for legal services rendered.
He’s taking a shot at influencing potential jurors who watch those networks.
Facts obviously don’t matter. He just spins narrative and hopes his audience buys in. Classic selling of the Brooklyn Bridge With his Fox propaganda machine his followers will believe anything. Wild.
Thanks, Lucian, for watching Lauro/Ingraham so we didn't have to. As I was reading your quote of what "lawyer" Lauro said, I was seeing the scene in The Hunt for Red October when the loyal Russian submarine captain has fired the torpedo which then acquires his own boat, and his executive office shouts, just before impact, "You've killed *us!*" Yes, as you wrote, this "whole thing just gets better and better." You will serve us even more well-marbled Trumpburger with its big side of crispy schadenfreude, all of it swimming in organic ketchup. But could I please have Mexican (real sugar) Coca-Cola?
Hooo boy what a bunch of insanity
It doesn't really matter but it sounded to me like he said option "D" not "B."
In law school, you're encouraged to make whatever argument sticks to the wall, even when the correct answer is: No Comment.
John Lauro must obviously have drunk the Trump Kool-aid because he goes blathering on about legal issues that have already been decided against his client. The judge knows that the defense has no legal arguments that hold water. There's no executive privilege in a coup d'etat, and all statements made by co-conspirators can be used against every other co-conspirator.
Legal advice offered by a co-conspirator is presumptively not reliable.
So much of the Government's case originates with the co-conspirators, verified by government witnesses.
One or more co-conspirators may decide to flip. John Eastman admitted that his scheme was illegal. The rest will rat out Trump.
The best that Lauro can do is try to work out a plea deal, but Trump won't go for it.
I was curious about John Laurio’s résumé and was surprised that he was once an assistant U.S. Attorney in NY, a graduate of Georgetown Law School and was editor the Law Journal there. After reading his public remarks about Trump yesterday I predict Trump will fire him very soon.
More excrement thrown against the wall to confuse and obfuscate the relatively simple case Smith has laid out. Lauro is depending upon jury nullification not deliberation.
Lauro is another spin doctor and almost as obnoxious as his client. Want to take any bets as to how long it will take for Donald to spew crap out of his mouth that can be used against him?
haha, Maybe Trump's playing the long game, setting himself up for a mistrial just before the elections.
You should start referring to the defendant as Mr. Trump, I heard this really gets under his skin.