There was a time when Giuliani was a competent attorney. He’s not now, but he was when he was a prosecutor. Blanche isn’t the best lawyer money can buy, but he’s no Alina Habba either.
5 Likes
Some people who worked with (and against) him at the time think even his success as a prosecutor has been pretty overstated. To wit:
But a former opponent said Giuliani’s prosecutorial work may have been less impressive than it appeared to the public. Part of the reason Giuliani looked good at the Southern District is that it’s always been the best-staffed and most prestigious U.S. attorney’s office in the country. Veteran defense lawyer Gerald Lefcourt said it’s easy to shine when backed by an office stacked with some of the best and brightest prosecutors, along with the full arsenal of federal law enforcement agencies. The Southern District of New York U.S. attorney’s office “makes all the big cases in the country, no matter who heads it,” he said.
Lefcourt repeatedly squared off with Giuliani and was not impressed. One case was the Friedman corruption trial, where Lefcourt represented co-defendant Marvin Kaplan, a businessman. The trial unfolded in New Haven, using Hartford-area jurors. The venue change was needed because Giuliani kept leaking, biasing the pool of potential jurors in New York’s media market, Lefcourt said.
When Giuliani personally cross-examined Friedman, Lefcourt said he and the other defense attorneys successfully objected again and again. Lefcourt said the defense “absolutely destroyed” the prosecution’s key cooperator, Geoffrey Lindenauer, a man who once used a bogus psychotherapy institute as a way to bed patients.
The crash and burn was so complete, Lefcourt said, prosecutors needed a brief break to bring in more witnesses, each with prosecutorial immunity.
Friedman, Kaplan and others were convicted, and the verdicts were largely upheld on appeal. But Lefcourt linked the results to the other trial prosecutors and extra witnesses. “Whatever Rudy did was totally ineffectual,” he said.
Was he competent? Arguably so, at least compared to his more recent legal endeavors. Was he good? Mehh…
8 Likes
I get that part of T****’s legal strategy is to antagonize the judge, prosecution, jury, and witnesses. I just don’t think it’s a good one. Those people are required to enter into the process without bias against the defendant and defense counsel, but there’s nothing that prevents them from developing an earned bias due to behavior exhibited in court during the trial. That’s essentially what the trial is for, to develop an informed opinion about the defendant’s guilt or innocence. Antagonizing all involved parties very effectively turns them against the defense.
11 Likes
3 Likes
Part of me wonders if this wasn’t a deliberate strategy - Trump surely knows that if he Xitts something out, it immediately gets repeated and commented upon, even if he then quickly deletes it. So it becomes a way for Trump to have his cake and eat it too - he can say what he wants, everyone hears it, and he can say, “But I deleted it!” On the other hand, this is Trump - the guy who would fail the marshmallow test, steal more, then insist he was never given any.
This is what baffles me about the rare “good” lawyers working for Trump - they come into it knowing the facts are against them and the law is against them and… what? Do they see it as an interesting challenge? It doesn’t seem like something, as a good lawyer, someone would want to involve themselves with - it seems like a dumb decision to me.
9 Likes
My theory is that no matter what the challenges, they were most likely MAGA minded individuals to begin with. Serving their jeebus is an priviledge worth every billable hour.
2 Likes
Ah, “sidestepping” a judge’s explicit and repeated order even after being found in contempt multiple times and threatened with jail time. A famously effective tactic for steering the proceedings back in your favor.
8 Likes
How is that even “sidestepping” the gag order?
If somebody not under the gag order says something that would breach it if you said it, then surely when you quote it you are still saying something that breaches the gag order.
ETA: I haven’t actually found the video of his “clever” sidestep, but I had the thought that if say Trump quotes news reports quoting Trump or following along with Trump talking points this gets even stupider. “I didn’t say that. I was just saying the news was saying I was saying [something that breaches the gag order].”
9 Likes
The people who think that what he did was a clever legal move are the same folks who think yelling “I’m not touching you!” while sticking one’s finger a half inch from a sibling’s face is a brilliant way to avoid the wrath of mom.
11 Likes
“But it’s right in the MAGA Carta!”
9 Likes
This must be that three-dimensional chess thing they’re always talking about.
3 Likes
8 Likes
Realizing what he had done, Trump immediately backpedaled
Per my understanding, he was allowed (aka, not disallowed) to speak directly about the judge and D.A. based on the stipulations of the gag order. I wonder why his “think tank” decided that this finally crossed the line and made him delete it.
He may not be afraid of jail since he heard he can get Diet Coke with his commissary account
What, a top physical specimen like TFG? PFFFT! he’ll bust out, walking right thru the walls, flag in one hand, hamberder in the other.
3 Likes
IIRC, the prosecution and defense have to share a list of the witnesses they plan to call during the trial. It’s customary, but not required that the order in which they will be called is also shared, and this was not done. That may be what has Cheeto Mussolini’s undies in a twist. IANAL, so take this with a large pinch of salt. I’m sure they had Daniels on the witness list.
I was. Clearing sarcasm doesn’t always translate.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
