🛝

Prospective lawyers flee as Trump plots using trial 'as a platform for his election lies': report https://t.co/nBk9DQV3Vk

— Raw Story (@RawStory) July 26, 2023

According to the magazine's sources, Trump "wants the trial to be used as a platform to promote his false claim to have won in 2020," and has demanded that "lawyers should display 'proof' of Trump’s lie that the 2020 election was stolen."

Given that the 2020 election was not stolen and that Trump's voter fraud claims were debunked by top officials at his own Department of Justice, many lawyers fear this defense has no chance of succeeding.

Point A: they can't. 

Lawyers can only present evidence admissable under the Rules of Evidence.  And for a variety of reasons, they can't present evidence of election fraud that didn't happen, especially as a defense against charges of election fraud (broadly speaking, not a a legal charge in the J6 case).  What (I presume) Trump wants to do is argue the fraud against him obviates the fraud he allegedly committed and is charged with (again, I'm using "fraud" in the non-legal use of the word, the same way Trump is using it).

Problem is: it doesn't.  You can't claim the bank defrauded you of your money, and that's why you robbed cash from the tellers, therefore you aren't a bank robber.  I mean:  they started it!  Right?  It's a simplistic analogy, but so is Trump's "argument."  Any "fraud" that may have been committed against him, is not legal justification for the crimes he is (will be) charged with. His legal recourse was the courts, and in 60+ cases he couldn't present evidence of fraud sufficient to even keep the case in court beyond the first challenge.

His potential lawyers aren't afraid to present this "defense," any more than they "fear this defense has no chance of succeeding."  They know it doesn't.  They know the court won't let them present the first witness, or ask the first question on cross-examination, about such a hare-brained idea.  They know it's a loser, and if they know Trump is going to demand they present it anyway, why take the case and antagonize the court? Trump is not going to find his William Kunstler, and this trial won't be the Chicago 7 redux.

Point B: 

Trump has no evidence of fraud.  As I said, he tried that 60+ times, and every case failed.  Rules of evidence, bay-bee.  Even Giuliani famously stopped talking about "fraud" when he had to stand in front of a Federal judge and say the word. Giuliani knew if he said the word, he'd have to present evidence to support it as a legal claim; and he knew he couldn't do that.

No lawyer is going to raise Trump's claims of "fraud" as a defense to Trump's actions against any charges arising from J6.  You lose the case and commit malpractice (and probably face sanctions from the court for trying such a stunt.  Federal judges control access to their courtrooms, never forget.).  What a deal!

And Trump's argument really is:  "they" committed fraud first, so he can commit fraud (crimes I'm tossing under that umbrella) to "fix" their fraud.  Right?

Kids on the playground know better than this.