Fogdog
Well-Known Member
He's a good lawyer. If anybody were just listening to him, they would be convinced that there isn't a clear case. Trump was just following normal procedures, just like Obama and W. He just needed time to sort through everything. NARA did not provide him with a facility near his home like they did for Obama and W so that the documents could be safely stored. The people they were working with were oppositional. That sort of thing. When cornered, he tosses out several hypothetical alternatives. Note his use of "could be". These "could beees" are red herrings and he's good at it. "It could be that the reason for the break is that the Grand Jury expired and they need to convene a new one". Umm no, it didn't. Also "it could be interpreted a few different ways". Actually, no. Trump's lawyer declared in an affidavit that no more documents being requested by NARA were remaining at MAL. This is not something that could be interpreted in any other way.
Ex-Trump lawyer compares classified docs case to Clinton’s emails
Timothy Parlatore, who recently departed Trump’s legal team, said on “Meet the Press” that the former president might not be prosecuted over his handling of classified documents.www.nbcnews.com
His defense of Trump regarding Jan 6 was classic. When asked how Trump could not know he lost the election after being told so in the courts, by Trump's own staff and by government officials, Palatore said:
"If that's the evidence at the time but that's not the evidence at the time. Some people were telling him there was fraud, some were telling him there was no fraud. For the judicial rulings, some of them reached a partial ruling based upon the merits, based upon not a complete thing, a lot of them said it was threshold issues of standing and so yes there were a lot of judicial rulings against him but none of them said OK, you parties have gone through a complete discovery, you've actually gone through everything and based on the merits this is what the decision is. In fact a lot of those lawsuits at the time, they were seeking these injunctions without discovery and I think that in retrospect had some of those people said "that we are not seeking an injunction now, we are seeking an expedited discovery""
Meet the Press/Chuck Todd asked: "You are saying he had a bad legal team? Is that what you think?"
Paltore's answer: "I think the way some of these things were conducted, certainly some by Sidney Powell (chuckles), were lawsuits that were conducted or criticized after the fact, I think if they had gone for expedited discovery and said, "look, we have an indication of smoke, we don't know if there is a fire, if there is a fire over there, look tell them to open the box and let's have a look. If there is a fire, I'm going to ask for an injunction, if there isn't a fire I'm going to come back and dismiss the case". If they had done that from the beginning there would be a different story. Instead "I have smoke, can you overturn the election? And the judge said "no". "
God damn him for his lie. That lie continues to damage US Democracy to this day. There was no smoke indicating election fraud except the smoke Trump was blowing. Christopher Krebs, the guy who oversaw cyber security for the election said it was the most secure in US history and was able to prove that it was. For doing a perfect job, saying so in an interview and being able to prove it, Trump fired him. Then hired people to tell him what he wanted them to say.
Palatore's argument that Trump is innocent because he had bad lawyers working for him is not new. Hasn't that kind of defense been tried and failed already? Also, look at the alternative scenario Palatore is advocating that he said should have happened "expedited discovery". Of what? It's all just more delay, delay, delay only what he's advocating is delaying the transfer of power from Trump to Biden. "Should seek expedited discovery". Then it all gets snarled up in court. There was no smoke. There never was any smoke. Every investigation into the election over the past three years did not show fraud and the only proof that was "discovered" proved the election was a clean one.
Throughout the interview, Palatore picked and chose the facts he was willing to discuss (he refused to answer several direct questions on the basis that they were "confidential"). On the topics he chose to discuss, in his soft voice, he would put questions and conflicting information around the hard facts to make it seem that things were not as they appeared. Red herrings. If I were looking at doing hard time for my crimes and had the money to pay him, he'd be on my team.
My guess is he thinks Trump is going down and is jumping ship before it does. His reason? "Irreconcilable conflicts with members of the legal team." He explains "I had difficulty doing the job I had to do." He didn't want to expand on it in the interview. I guess that Palatore thinks Trump is heading into a disaster and is jumping ship before the shit storm gets his poorly fitting suit dirty.
Last edited:
Garland apparently has reached his bullshit quota and doesn't need to hear any more.
