Trump’s Grifter attorneys claim ‘right to lie in court’ protected by first amendment

Jim W. Dean - We saw signs that the prosecutors are working to build conspiracy cases as the best way to put a wooden stake into the heart of the post election fake fraud claims.

13
1504

You just can’t make this shit up

First aired … July 13, 2021

[ Editor’s Note: Just when I am getting to think I have seen every crazy thing beyond the pale I get surprised once again. I would have lost a bet on these folks not making such a ridiculous claim, simply for the self preservation of wanting to keep their law licences.

I wonder if any of them consulted comptent outside legal advice before doing this. Judge Parker, gave them plenty of rope to hang themselves. Sidney Powell claimed to be proud of the work and would do it again.

Judge Parker asked if they had one case to show as precedent their claim of lying in court was protected by the 1rst amendment. There was complete silence from all  of Trump attorneys. To make sure got that into the written record she said, “let the record show there was no response to the question”.

A similar incident occurred in the Rudy Giuliani NY Supreme Court hearing where there was no answer. We are awaiting the judge’s reccommendation for sanctions.

Until I read this I had not known that the court had allowed some media to participate in the Zoom hearing. We will certainly be getting a transcript of it all, but the six hours will take some time to do. But being able to watch the whole Zoom event would be much better.

It might even become a law school teaching tool on ‘how not to lose your law license in a jiffy’. And I can take this even further. This outrageous legal position in a Federal Court hearing could be evidence in prosecuting all those involved in The Steal as participating in a conspiracy where to protect themselves they would just claim a first amendment right.

We have already, per Biden’s recent statement, over 80 judges ruling against all the claims of The Steal. Are we to endure this for decades without authorities putting a stop to it via legal sanctions? What will stop Republican lawyers always claiming fraud in every election they lose if grifter attorneys are not sanctioned?

We saw signs that the prosecutors are working to build conspiracy cases as the best way to put a wooden stake into the heart of the post election fake fraud claims. The hints are how careful they seem to be combing for every bit of conspiracy evidence that they can to charge the insurrection organizers with that crime.

They also will probably have been told that they could do this, getting a free shot at stealing an election, by exercising their first amendment right. But that will not be the case for those where evidence can be found that they knowing used the free speech smokescreen as just that.

For the prosecutors this could be the biggest, most important case of their lives. General Milley is already at the tip of the spear for the military, via the recent revelations that he clearly saw coup planning in progress and began taking action to block it.

What remains to be learned is why the Milley effort had no ready plans to protect the capitol by having a force ready to do so, via the National Guard.  We will eventually find out as eventually as Milley is expected be on the Congressional hearing witness list… Jim W. Dean ]

Jim's Editor’s Notes are solely crowdfunded via PayPal
Jim's work includes research, field trips, Heritage TV Legacy archiving & more. Thanks for helping. Click to donate >>

“Thy will be not done.”

Biography
Managing Editor
Jim W. Dean is Managing Editor of Veterans Today involved in operations, development, and writing, plus an active schedule of TV and radio interviews. Read Full Complete Bio >>>

Jim W. Dean Archives 2009-2014
ATTENTION READERS
Due to the nature of independent content, VT cannot guarantee content validity.
We ask you to Read Our Content Policy so a clear comprehension of VT's independent non-censored media is understood and given its proper place in the world of news, opinion and media.

All content is owned by author exclusively. Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, other authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners or technicians. Some content may be satirical in nature. All images within are full responsibility of author and NOT VT.

About VT - Read Full Policy Notice - Comment Policy

13 COMMENTS

  1. Made me recall mass murder while committing building insurance fraud called “an act of war”.
    Some liars own the courts.

  2. The more we see of Milley, the more mystifying it is that he wasn’t fired by Trump.
    The military briefings must have been quite something, and I’m guessing will find their way in some form to the big screen,.Milley is one of the few I have liked.

  3. Actually lying in court was well established with the Rules allowing “multiple defenses”. That policy made litigation extremely costly and doubled the case load on the courts. But the advantage was BOTH attorneys reap huge fees and the judge has discretion to piece a ruling together that may look nothing like the case filed and contain so many falsities and prejudice…..making the judge relevant and important and open to bribery. Probably 50% of a courts case load could be reduced by a back to truth in court movement of “ONE TRUTHFUL DEFENSE”.

    • The New York Supreme Court Judges seem to have had a different book than you Toby, that indicating the lawyers have a duty to make an effort that the information that they are presenting is true, and to present information that is not true is grounds for sanctioning. Witnesses are subject to perjury on the stand, and the courts have tools to deal with rogue lawyers as they undermine the system. I will state again, the Detriot judge’s pregnant comment about the ‘evidence’ the grifters were throwing out,”layers of hearsay”. It is ABC and legal training the hearsay is not admissible as evidence. The layers part comes in with the grifters presenting affidavits from someone who claimed that someone (never a name and contact info) else had told them they they saw election workers changing votes. These affidavits are thus about anonymous people that will never show up in a court room because they don’t exist. The judges are no idiots and not about to let the grifters make fools of judges in courtrooms. Saturday is another hearing in Colorado of Trump attorneys. I think someone has a full list.

    • Jim, lawyers they have a very good argument in his favor to refute judge criticism against their lawful tactics, they can quote to Groucho Marx and say…those are my principles, and if you don’t like them… well, I have others. 🙂

    • Jim, look up “argument in the alternative” and expand your mind to judges that only follow some rules….enough to justify a scheme of some kind. It made outright perjury…..okay.

      In Indiana, only 10% of judge complaints are even investigated and 2 of 100 are disciplined at all. I know the rules of court rather well and as a pro say must abide strictly. At least 1/2 of the attorneys AND judges are liars…..in court and pleadings.

      When the local sharks wanted a property I bought, they influenced the zoning director to begin a series of steps to cause me to have to hire a lawyer to defend myself in court and mamas a bill bigger than the property value. Instead I became better at pleadings and I attacked each and every lie, making a motion for the court to find the lies just that…..falsity. I was always denied the motion by the judge(s), but the detail of each lie was in the record of the case as a written motion. The director was so humiliated and her case dismissed. Even in the pleading order for the dismissal, they defrauded the court and she tried filing it again, in a different court. It failed as well. Now she has malicious prosecution AND fraud upon the court exposed.

      I wish all judges and attorneys played by the rules….but they don’t.

  4. “Speaking” of “free speech,” it occured to me that all so-called “political correctness” protocols, as well as so-called “hate speech,” are all anti-first amendment.

    • Elvin, You just get boxed in with ‘yelling fire in a theater’, in the incitement issue. It’s not just what is said, but why, and is its goal to incite violence, which includes saying thankyou for it. These laws were carefully drafted for balance. Try getting a job if you have one of those charges on your record. It will be like that for an insurrectionist. I would put them all in a datebase so people could protect themselves. Our mothers taught us all this, “Actions have consequences”.

    • Jim, yes, actions have consequences… excluding politicians and zionists. Some are more equal than others … 🙂

    • Hey Jim Ole buddy, I think I either didn’t express myself correctly, or either you mistook my meaning. Most likely I probably wrote something that might not have read as I intended it.
      I was in no way supporting or making alibis for the the jan6 loons.
      Actually, my intent was to make a tangential statement on a recent cogitation regarding the shutting down of free speech on the internet, and any other common forum.
      It seems to me that “hate” speech is really just speech which someone else does not want said.
      Political correctness controls serve the same purpose.
      It’s all about shutting down the free expression of one’s viewpoints.
      VT should be able to relate to that.
      When certain topics must not be open for debate, then freedom of speech is become a feel-goodism in name only.

    • Oops, sorry Jim. I just realized this is strictly a legal matter, where the absurd notion of lying is supposed to be protected free speech.
      When it comes to politics, and courtrooms; it is free speech as long as you can get away with it.

  5. Made me recall Rumsfeld defending non-existent Bin Laden’s facilities in a big cave.. 🙂

Comments are closed.