Trump's lawyer
(media.scored.co)
Comments (40)
sorted by:
As irritating as he can be, Alan Dershowitz would be way preferable. I know he has represented orange man before.
That being said, what happens with these charges probably has next to zero to do with the skill of his defense. If he gets a super political jury they will convict him and he will have to appeal. If not, then okay.
Trump's only chance at a fair trial is if they move the case out of Manhattan. All of the pundits are saying not to worry because the charges are all crap. I agree that they're crap, but a Manhattan jury has probably a 90% chance of being filled with left wing partisans who won't give a damn about facts or the law and vote to convict due to TDS alone. I also would not trust any Manhattan judge to be fair either.
I heard Dersh on TV. He is hanging out outside this case in case a gag order is issued. At which point it was/is his intent to sue on first amendment grounds on behalf of journalists. But not representing Trump.
Dershowitz is a pedo. Trump's continual association with him is not a good look.
What is your basis for that, that he visited Epstein Island? It certainly isn't impossible, but he is perhaps the one person I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt there seeing as he represented Epstein in the past. And he has a long track record of holding to the philosophy that he thinks everyone, even the most contemptible people deserve to be represented.
Epstein shit &
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/07/30/alan-dershowitz-defends-suggesting-that-age-consent-for-sex-should-lowered/6AxjIuSJMeRG8iIxHf4WxO/story.html
https://www.thecut.com/2019/07/epstein-lawyer-alan-dershowitz-says-he-has-perfect-sex-life.html
It's surprising to me that anybody could think anything other than this man is a pedo, and frankly, if you do, you're a fn pedo, too, and I'd rather not even talk to you.
You sound like a perfectly reasonable individual. That Boston globe article hits me with a pay wall so I can't read it. Regardless, acting like the arbitrary age of 18 as determined by the US government is sacrosanct is the height of idiocy. Obviously there needs to be a cutoff somewhere, but I reject the ridiculously unnuanced take that anyone who says that cutoff shouldn't be 18 is a pedo.
Either this guy pays for the Boston Globe, and thus shouldn't be trusted, or didn't read it himself.
Just so you know, if you turn on 'Reader Mode', you can bypass most paywalls.
I remember Barnes saying the problem Trump has is he hires cheap lawyers than having a dedicated team for himself.
To be fair if Trump hired Barnes himself, he would still be getting screwed since Robert Barnes has revealed himself to be a dumb grifter who is only good at being a sycophant.
At this point if Trump wants to survive the barrage of cases coming his way, he needs competent lawyers who can win not grifter sycophants or Dem plants on his legal defense team.
Trump's history of terrible personnel selection decisions don't bode well for his chances of future success in court.
I remember the last time I challenged you on that statement and you bumbled on like hurr durr cause he still supports Trump and hurr durr he said she said BS from the Rittenhouse lawyers.
You liked Barnes, then you incorporated being anti-orange man as an integral part of your identity, and since Barnes still largely supports him you now go around finding any reason to shit on him. It's unsightly.
I'm not the philosoraptor but one example that stuck out for me was when the Jack Murphy drama came to light, people were asking Barnes about it and Barnes got super ass-blasted about it and threatened to sue everyone for defamation. And then it came to light that he represented/still represents Murphy. That's fine, but he shouldn't pretend to be a neutral legal commentator and he should openly disclose his financial relationship.
And that's my biggest gripe with him. He'll go between being a neutral commentator to being an advocate (either for pay or for his own reasons) without clearly noting to the audience when he has switched between the modes. A lot of times he'll say what he thinks the law ought to be and not what it is, and he won't make that distinction clear to the audience. It makes him a good advocate but not a trustworthy analyst in my opinion. It doesn't help that David Freiheit is Canadian and often doesn't know American law well enough to push back on Barnes's commentary when it's wrong.
None of that is unfair criticism, but that doesn't rise to the level of sycophant grifter, it just means he can have bias in his commentary if it concerns someone he represents. Which should not come as a surprise to anyone, but I can certainly agree he should always strive to be transparent about it, and he usually is.
Philosoraptor has a stick up his ass about anyone that remotely supports Trump, and will twist his mind into a pretzel to criticize anyone who does in any way possible. I've had this exact conversation with him before and it doesn't go anywhere.
Pardon me if I sound frustrated, because I was in an exhausting back and forth that followed this exact general idea yesterday, but it should go without saying that just because I'm willing to defend someone against accusations as intense as being a sycophant grifter, does not mean I am saying I endorse or agree with anything they have ever said or done.
Barnes constantly claims every single fucking election loss is because the GOP candidate iust wasn't MAGA enough and that Trump was not on the ballot.
Barnes is not able to accept reality that the majority of the country hates Trump vehemently and that they will vote for anyone running against him or his handpicked candidates.
This is what revealed that he is a shameless grifter.
These are inconsistent statements. Either he's a true believer - not able to see "reality" as you see it - or he's a shameless grifter. He could be both but not for the same reason. Or I suppose you'll claim he knows the truth but refuses to admit it because the Big Lie helps his grift.
I could take issue with that and go back and forth with you on whether or not the notion that MAGA and Trump adjacent candidates are dead weight from an election standpoint is backed up by reality, but my experiences with you inform me that such a conversation won't be remotely productive in the least and will just be a waste of time for both of us.
For now, I'll just point out that you clearly have no idea what the word grifter means, and are just using it as another buzzword to fling at people you don't like. Anyone I don't like is a grifter!
Barnes profits off his public show of support for Trump and MAGA.
He is the definition of a grifter.
MAGA and Trump adjacent candidates got schlonged in 2022. That is an objective fact.
I like some of the policies of MAGA but the brand has become absolutely toxic to the electorate.
Let's ask Governor Mastriano, Governor Lake, Congressman Joe Kent, Congressman JR Majewski, Senator Herschel Walker and Senator Oz?
Oh wait they all lost.
Ok RINO. God, right wing TDS is somehow significantly crazier than left wing TDS. At least lefty TDS is consistent.
Women are not the majority, no matter how much they pretend they are to demand 51% representation in power.
This is probably of no interest to anyone but me, but I imagine this thread like a WWE match between Boulda and Philosoraptor, when suddenly Imp runs into the ring shouting incoherently about some other opponent who isn't even there, climbs onto the turnbuckle in preparation for a coup de grace against an imaginary figure, then proceeds to slip and fall back out having had no actual impact on the fight whatsoever.
That was cringe.
And I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000, what's your point?
He's getting cleared of every single one of these charges, and here's why:
Donald Trump resigned from The Trump Organization on January 19, 2017.
The earliest charge is from February 2017.
He wasn't running his businesses when they claim he was.
My point was not relevant to this, but since you're asking: you're a total faggot for voting for Nader. Go back to reddit where you belong.
I was 18 years old at the time and a naive liberal idiot (but I repeat myself). I'm 40 now and absolutely know better.
For some reason I was scoffing the idea you leap from 18 to 40 years old in such a short time but then it hit me that 2000 was 23 years ago... it still feels like it was just 7 - 8 years ago for me.. fuck.
Fair. Would you know better to hire a lawyer who voted against you, probably abhors you, and led the defense of a child trafficking ring?
The first two should be enough for a hell no unless you're okay with being convicted, the third one should be a no on principle.
Leverage. Trump has everything.
She has to work EXTRA hard now or SHE goes to prison.
Who's going to put her in prison?
Nobody, because Trump's going to win.
Smooth. :)
EARLY LIFE DETECTED
https://archive.is/dNCJD
You fucking idiot. Never trust a woman.
Especially a tribal one.
You're a complete fuckin moron if you think this will destroy right wing populism. This is the brain-dead take of a reddit NPC.