criminal lawyers, or *criminal* lawyers.

Except criminal lawyers, whose job is to represent the client's version of reality. — unenlightened

I can't speak for other countries, but here in the USA that is most definitely NOT the job of a criminal lawyer. The job of a criminal lawyer in the US is to demonstrate to the jury (or judge if the defendant so chooses) that - based on the evidence presented in the trial by both sides -that the prosecution has not proven beyond all reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime. If the lawyer thinks the prosecution has not presented sufficient evidence, then the lawyer does not have to do a thing except convince the judge or jury (in summation) that there is insufficient evidence.

The job of a criminal lawyer in the US is to demonstrate to the jury (or judge if the defendant so chooses) that - based on the evidence presented in the trial by both sides -that the prosecution has not proven beyond all reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime. If the lawyer thinks the prosecution has not presented sufficient evidence, then the lawyer does not have to do a thing except convince the judge or jury (in summation) that there is insufficient evidence. — EricH

Perfectly explained, and that's what Donald J. Trump is asking for from their lawyers. A group of legal experts to help him to convince the jury that he is innocent. Why is this evil? If I were Trump's lawyer, I would give my best to represent him in court because that is why he hired me in the first place. Whether Trump is condemned or not, it is upon the jury/judge's final decision.

But aren't we talking about lawyers Trump hired long before he was indicted for anything? The context is that Trump was hiring lawyers to advise him and help him challenge the election results in the courts. At that point, they weren't on the defense -- they were on the offense, and making the claim that the election was rigged and stolen and so they had the burden of proof.

Well aren't we all putting on our wigs and getting excited! I maintain that the defendants version of the truth is liable to be that they are not guilty, and then their lawyers' business is to make this somewhat credible. Accordingly, a lawyer who warned in advance that one's proposed actions were illegal would be ill-placed to mount a defence thereof.

that's not the lawyers I was talking about, who he fired lmao. You got the wrong end of the stick somewhere.

He was talking about lawyers he had on his team prior to Jan 6, not the lawyers he now relies on to defend him in court.

There is a movement to disbar and condemn the lawyers who work for Trump. Famed defense lawyer Alan Dershowitz, who defended Trump in his first impeachment, has illustrated how shadowy legal groups like The 65 project has sought his own disbarment. He often notes that he has been effectively alienated from his usual social groups because he had the gall to believe that one particular defendent deserved representation. He says of the most recent indictment that it is the worst example yet of criminalizing lawyers and strikes at the heart of democracy and the US constitution.

I've only recently realised that you misunderstood the context of all of this.

This wasn't trump firing lawyers from his criminal trials. This was trump firing lawyers long before any charges were brought against him, during his campaign to overturn the election results.

I'm going to spell out a few more things for you here as well because there was a lot of things you might have misunderstood.

Nobody is saying it was wrong, criminal, or anything like that for him to fire these lawyers. He can hire and fire whatever lawyers he wants - THAT'S not what's so interesting about what he's saying in the Twitter clip.

What's interesting about what he's saying is it proves that the legal experts he surrounded himself with were all telling him he didn't have enough evidence to maintain that the election was stolen. So he fired them and hired lawyers who were telling him what he wanted to hear. Which means he can no longer honestly say "I believed the election was stolen based on reliable expert analysis", because all the experts around him were telling him it wasn't stolen. It means the root concept in his brain that the election was stolen originated from within him.

It was his idea to argue the election was stolen, against the grain of evidence and expert opinion.

Which blows a hole in his own current defense

So he fired them and hired lawyers who were telling him what he wanted to hear. — flannel jesus

I clearly understand what you are complaining about, and I am aware of the context. Nonetheless, you are mixing up many things regarding lawyer's work, and that is seen in the phrase I quoted from you. It doesn't matter if Trump hired those lawyers before or after the rigged elections. Here the key is how effective the lawyers should be (that's why you pay a lot of money to them) when you need their help.

On the other hand, I doubt that Trump wasted thousands of dollars just to hear "what he wants to". He is not stupid, and maybe he is not the type of politician you like, but it is obvious that he will not waste his money on useless lawyers (before the election issue or afterwards). The aim of the lawyers is to try to get what Trump is looking for. Again, this is why you pay them. If the lawyers do not want to help Trump out, they are fired. Simple.

He has the idea that the elections were stolen. Now, he is searching lawyers to help him in court to go in that path or strategy. And again, whether Trump conspired or not, the final decision is on the judges.

If someone says he is lying, prove it with the defence of your lawyer. As well as Trump needs to prove that the elections were rigged.

I’m afraid the only expertise of “legal experts” is law. An election is a political venture, not a legal one. So I’m not sure why you’d think his lawyers were the kind of experts he was referring to.

As usual, short on facts and long on hyperbole and misrepresentation. The complaint against Dershowitz has nothing to do with him being a social outcast.

Why would you pretend I said the complaint against Dershowitz has something to do with him being a social outcast? Because you like men of straw.

Yawn. Trump is a criminal and tried to overthrow an election. May he drop dead soon.

Fun to watch his few sycophants here playing three card monty with the truth.

Why would you pretend I said the complaint against Dershowitz has something to do with him being a social outcast? — NOS4A2

You say that he has illustrated how shadowy legal groups like The 65 Project have sought to disbar and condemn the lawyers who work for Trump. How has he illustrated this? In the next sentence you say he notes how he has been effectively alienated from his usual social group because he had the gall to believe that one particular defendent deserved representation.

One has nothing to do with the other, but you move from the one to the other as if it is all one and the same. Until you are called out on it. His defense of Trump in the first impeachment has nothing to do with the 65 Project's complaint against him. He, like Trump, wants to play the victim.

We all know what happened at this point, but a few people are still in denial. Trump had a pattern of behavior dating back to the 2016 Iowa primary and general election of claiming the only way he could lose is if it there was election fraud. So, it was no surprise that he did it again in 2020. This wasn't a belief based on evidence, it was a strategy. And of course he was going to fire any of his lawyers and underlings who didn't go along with the strategy. Fortunately for our country, there were those willing to not go along with his strategy to overturn the election. Unfortunately for Trump, the consequences are catching up with him.

I was just listing the typical anti-Trumpism he faced, at least according to him, both the attempt to remove people from their careers and the ostracism people face should they oppose anti-Trump narratives. He has spoken about it many times.

He has the idea that the elections were stolen. Now, he is searching lawyers to help him in court to go in that path or strategy. — javi2541997

And if it's true that he just invented that idea out of thin air, I hope he goes to prison for it. That's dictator behaviour.

I was just listing the typical anti-Trumpism he faced — NOS4A2

Obviously, you did not read the complaint against Dershowitz. Your spurious allegation that the 65 Project is shadowy is without evidence. This is a typical Trumpian tactic, attempt to discredit anyone who attempts to bring to light to the actions of Trump and his minions.

Dershowitz and others whose lawsuit, Lake v Hobbs, against the Grand Canyon State’s election process, failed and Dershowitz and the others were sactioned. For details.

Trump says for years he won’t accept the results of an election unless he wins.

He loses fair and square.

Then — surprise — refuses to accept the outcome and tries to literally overturn the election. The justification is irrelevant — it could have been anything. Maybe aliens came down from the moon and rigged the numbers. Of course there’s no evidence for any of it. A child could understand this.

Of course these crazy ramblings and predictable excuses for being a loser had their time in court (laughably), and of course 60+ were thrown out by Republican and Democrat appointed judges.

That brings us to today, where Trump is being held accountable. Turns out you can’t overturn the results just because they hurt your ego.

Maybe one day we’ll get to the bottom of the Moon People stealing the election though. Who knows. :roll:

I don’t care about the complaint of anti-Trump forces, nor if you lap it all up.

A dark money group with ties to Democratic Party heavyweights will spend millions this year to expose and try to disbar more than 100 lawyers who worked on Donald Trump’s post-election lawsuits, people involved with the effort tell Axios.

David Brock, who founded Media Matters for America and the super PAC American Bridge 21st Century and is a Hillary Clinton ally and prolific fundraiser for Democrats, is advising the group.

Brock told Axios in an interview that the idea is to "not only bring the grievances in the bar complaints, but shame them and make them toxic in their communities and in their firms."

https://www.axios.com/2022/03/07/trump-election-lawyers-disbar

The whole Biden administration belongs to the US Ukraine portfolio, so it's kind of obvious what's wrong on, really.

At almost every step Ukraine appears to be a common theme. It is becoming more and more evident that Trump got in the way of their ongoing regime-change and proxy war in Ukraine.

I don’t care about the complaint of anti-Trump forces ... — NOS4A2

Of course you don't. At least now that it is clear you can't spin it the way you want. You brought it up.

Some key points in the Axios article:

1.The group is working to expose and try to disbar lawyers who worked on Donald Trump’s post-election lawsuit.

None of those lawsuits were found to have merit and those who attempt to overturn an election should be exposed. Those who seek to bring it to light do not operate in the shadows.

2.The 65 Project hopes to deter right-wing legal talent from signing on to any future GOP efforts to overturn elections.

3 Advisory board members include Paul Rosenzweig, a conservative and member of the Federalist Society.

Meritless efforts to overturn an election should not be tolerated.

Your emphasis does nothing but distract from what you’re trying to hide.

More key points:

1. The project was devised by Melissa Moss, a Democratic consultant and former senior Clinton administration official.

2. Some of the attorney targets already have been hit with bar complaints. One going after Georgia attorney Brad Carver for his role as an alternate elector was dismissed for lack of evidence. Carver, in an email to Axios, reiterated his position that his involvement was legally appropriate.

3. "This is mostly important for the deterrent effect that it can bring so that you can kill the pool of available legal talent going forward," according to a person involved with the effort, who asked to remain anonymous.

4. Advisory board members include former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.); and Paul Rosenzweig, a conservative and member of the Federalist Society who was former senior counsel for Ken Starr's Clint0n-era Whitewater investigation and served in George W. Bush's Department of Homeland Security.

Your emphasis does nothing but distract from what you’re trying to hide. — NOS4A2

I am not trying to hide anything. Let's look at your key points:

1. As I said, this is not a Democrat vs Republican issue, as your point 4 supports. The reason why most are Democrats is because most Republicans lack to backbone to stand against Trump and his efforts to overturn the election.

2. Brad Carver's case was dismissed. So? He is one out of over 100 they are targeting. Do you really think that one case being dismissed means that over 100 lawyers did not attempt to overturn the election? Or do you think that there is nothing wrong with an attempt to overturn the election?

3. Yes. They have made their intentions clear: deterring lawyers from attempts to overturn future legitimate elections. Again, do you think that there is nothing wrong with an attempt to overturn the election?

4. Daschle, a Democrat is a member of the advisory board. Paul Rosenzweig, as I pointed out, is a conservative and member of the Federalist Society. A Democrat and a Republican working together to preserve election integrity. Sounds suspicious! I better hide that.

I never said it was a Democrat vs Republican issue, I’m afraid, so your argument means nothing. I strictly used the phrase “anti-Trump forces”. I was noting the “typical anti-Trumpism” Dershowitz (a Democrat) and other lawyers were facing. It’s no secret the neoconservative wing of the grand ol’ party are NeveverTrump. Besides that, Rosenzweig has voted for Democrats since 2018. Who cares about their party affiliation? More straw men.

“A dark money group with ties to Democratic Party heavyweights will spend millions this year to expose and try to disbar more than 100 lawyers who worked on Donald Trump’s post-election lawsuits”. This, according to Fooloso, is a bipartisan effort to “preserve election integrity”. No greater amount of hokum has foamed at the corners of someone’s mouth.

Some may find this a worthwhile read ...

Inside the Next Republican Revolution
^{— Michael Hirsh · POLITICO · Sep 19, 2023}

This land is your land, this federal government is your federal government. It’s not just the sole province of people in the metro D.C. area. Within 350 million Americans we can find genuine, intelligent, straightforward politicians to move things forward. — corrected Paul Dans quote

That is rather interesting.

Particularly the equivalence drawn between Bernie and Donald. I'm reminded of the French revolution as much as of the rise of Fascism in the 30's. A system that cannot adapt fast enough has to collapse, and that is what consensus politics is doing.

"Heads must roll" is the new consensus, but also "Not mine". The contradictions are obvious. The turmoil will not lead to what its instigators want though, but to a political system that will address the new imperatives - to Green Fascism. We will face reality eventually, when everything else has been tried and has failed. And by then the global power will be China, because they already have the autocratic system in place, and have already shown themselves capable of radical change of policy.

In the dispute between liberty and the laws of physics, liberty is bound to lose.

This land is your land, this federal government is your federal government. It’s not just the sole province of people in the metro D.C. area. — corrected Paul Dans quote

The argument for more participatory democracy in a nutshell but instead they prefer to vest all power in the President and defund all countervailing powers. The performative contradiction alone makes me giggle.

I never said it was a Democrat vs Republican issue, I’m afraid, so your argument means nothing. — NOS4A2

You accused me of hiding something and identified four key points. The first of your key points was that the project was started by a Democrat.

Dershowitz (a Democrat) — NOS4A2

He was a Democrat. He says he has been excluded. His resentment against the Democrats is evident. This is his membership card to the Party of Trump.

Who cares about their party affiliation? — NOS4A2

Apparently you do, until you don't. But then again you do:

A dark money group with ties to Democratic Party heavyweights ...
This, according to Fooloso, is a bipartisan effort ... — NOS4A2

In all this pointing to and then denying the importance of party affiliation, you overlook the main issue:

Election integrity. I'll ask you for the third time. Do you think that there is nothing wrong with an attempt to overturn the election?