Live Breaking News & Updates on January 6th Indictment|Page 5
Stay updated with breaking news from January 6th indictment. Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.
Here s the thing, you know, reliance on advice of counsel can be a viable defense. think about one of the more ordinary circumstances. my tax lawyer told me i could take this deduction, and it turns out you couldn t take that deduction. it was illegal to take that deduction. you may very well have an advice of counsel defense available to you. i think, implied, there is a word that is implied, in the reliance on advice of counsel defense. it is reliance on advice of a sober council. you know, i think donald trump has an uphill climb here offering a reliance on the advice of counsel with a straight face. here is, i think, a more fundamental problem than rudy giuliani s possible intoxication when he s giving advice to his client. when i saw the first indictment come out, the january 6th indictment, and we learned rudy giuliani was one of the unindicted coconspirators, but ....
Essentially saying in an order he doesn t know, and he wants some clarity about it. i will tell you, and there is some case law out of other areas that says, if one claim is removable, then all claims are removable. that doesn t really seem to apply to federal cases. it may all depend on the difference between an overt act, a criminal act, towards the finish line, not necessarily criminal, and a racketeering which is the meat and potatoes of reclaim, which is we and what [inaudible] glenn, there is reason for mark meadows lawyers to be helpful. here is a judge raising this question of, is one sufficient? they will clearly argue that one is sufficient, then they will go to the indictment and tried to pick out the one, the incident in the indictment that ....
Fundamental challenge for mark meadows here, and for judge jones. it seems like he is struggling in earnest to make sure he makes, not only the right decision, but a fully support-able decision. one way or another, it is likely to get appealed. he s getting his ducks in a row by asking the parties for input on this question of law. here s what i see is the fundamental challenge. let s assume half a dozen things mark meadows is accused of doing and that rico indictment handed down by fani willis, that it can be viewed as within the scope of his official duties as chief of staff, but let s assume six others are not, and let me use the hypothetical to drive the point home. let s assume donald trump asked him to go out to shoot somebody on fifth avenue, and he did it. nobody could argue that is within the scope of his official duties as the chief of staff, even if a number of the other overt acts were within the scope. what does that mean? it means i would assume, because i don t know the ....
Is removable, then all claims are removable. that doesn t really seem to apply to federal cases. it may all depend on the difference between an overt act, a criminal act, towards the finish line, not necessarily criminal, and a racketeering act, which is the meat and potatoes of reclaim, which is we and what [inaudible] glenn, there is reason for mark meadows lawyers to be helpful. here is a judge raising this question of, is one sufficient? they will clearly argue that one is sufficient, then they will go to the indictment and tried to pick out the one, the incident in the indictment that they say is arguably something he did in the regular course of his job, therefore, because there is one there they can point to, then this definitely should be moved to federal court. yeah, but i think there s a ....
Because out now. bob, thank you very much for joining us tonight. i really appreciate it. as i look at this charge of defraud the united states, and its historic import, i am wondering what your perspective is on how that s being used in this case, in this prosecution, by jack smith? i think, lawrence, this is the most important case. there are only four charges. all the others have more counts, but there are only four counts in this. if you look at the indictment, it is all, the first 42 pages are built around that law of ....