(11-04-2023, 01:28 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote:

(11-04-2023, 10:43 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: Lawyer or not. Once a witness under oath testifies for the prosecution - it is a bit more than finger pointing. Sugar coat it if you like. 
The emails between Cheseboro and Guliani, combined with the internal memos admitted into evidence and now apparently Trump's twitter DMs that have been entered into evidence, are all going to lay out who directed whom in this illegal plot to alter a fair election. 

I wouldn't worry too much about any burden of proof being answered on intent and direction. 

From everything I've read the prosecution believes they already have that in hand and these flipped witnesses will merely corroborate it.

Let me be clear, unless they have evidence that Trump did something... documented evidence, it's the lawyer's responsibility to guide the client. If a patient wants a surgery that's illegal, the doctor is not allowed to perform it, and flipping on the patient shouldn't absolve him of the crime. In this instance, the defense has to prove that Trump believed he lost and was intentionally trying to get a state representative to ILLEGALLY change the results. Based on that transcript, there is no evidence of that claim at all. Unless the lawyers say he was paying them or doing something illicit to change the results, I don't see how this is an issue. Even still, it's one person's word against another's. Thats not really how any defense should be building a case. I think, for this reason, if there is no hard evidence (other than finger pointing), it's going to be difficult to rightfully convict Trump on this charge. I think there will be some blowback, but conservatives are notorious for just talking a big game then backing down. Domestic terrorism is largely non-existent outside of creating a narrative.

Trump's lawyers aren't absolved.  They are being punished.  They've lost their licenses.  But you are correct that there could be two people pointing at each other saying "I just followed his advice" and it doesn't mean one is guilty and the other is not.  They could both be guilty.  The question is, guilty of what.  You have to read the law.  You haven't done that.

---