That the significant cooperation under discussion involves four of Trump’s attorneys underscores the reality that the former president’s regularly touted defense that he was relying on the good-faith guidance of his attorneys during the attempted coup was, and is, nothing more than self-serving fantasy. In the courtroom—as compared with on television or in social media—he has never had the ability to offer that defense.
In court, the advice of counsel “affirmative defense” requires a defendant to prove two things: First, that he relied in good faith on his lawyer’s advice that the conduct in question at trial was legal, and second, that he made a full disclosure of all relevant facts to the attorney before receiving that advice.
Based on my four decades in the courtroom as both federal prosecutor and defense attorney, I can report that the assertion of the attorney-client privilege by a criminal defendant at trial is a black swan event—effective only with the consistent, overlapping trial testimony of both the attorney and the defendant, and the admission into evidence of any documents reflecting the communications or advice they testified about.
He’s the Laurence Olivier and Charles Laughton of pretend morons then, the Barrymore and Bogart of befuddlement, because I’ve seen a LOT of idiots, yet none played as convincingly as Trump.
Unfortunately he’s not an idiot, he’s a malignant narcissist, with diagnosable narcissistic personality disorder. He’s quite adept at keeping attention on himself and deflecting negative narratives, which is what his entire personality has been cultivated around.
True enough, but he’s also a malignant narcissist who has clearly been given simple dementia screenings – that’s specifically what that man, woman, person, camera, tv thing was about – and I don’t think he could reliably pass them now. While narcissism tends to be a disorder of the intelligent, life-long in duration, unfortunately intelligence, or cognitive competence if you like, is of no guaranteed permanency.
So in other words . . . ¿por qué no los dos?
He’s also an idiot.