As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*


Any person charged with a crime deserves to be represented by an attorney, even Trump. ​ That decent attorneys will no longer work for him is due to his reputation, not his being denied any rights.


It is almost like actually paying your bills has something to do with any atty talking to you.


I think it has as much to do with lying to and coercing his attorneys.


Any good attorney would assume Trump would lie to them and not follow their advice. (He has demonstrated his behavior publicly for decades). So no. It's about getting paid.


Right, all any attorney can do is provide you with legal advice, but they can not prevent you from putting a noose around your own neck. I'm sure there are many top attorneys out there willing to represent him as long as he's paying upfront and the checks keep clearing.


I'm pretty convinced that if Trump got any decent attorney to represent him now, it would only be because they wanted publicity. Trump has stiffed so many attorneys, cities, and businesses that any reasonable person knows they've would be next.


I think his attorneys get paid; they do have to give up their credibility in the process, though. I can't imagine hiring any of Trump's former lawyers for anything...


Trump stiffs them, [PACs pay them](https://www.newsweek.com/trump-may-have-change-how-he-pays-his-mounting-legal-fees-1782865). His supporters pay his legal fees. You know the ones who complain about having to pay for others.


This is an interesting, but entirely separate issue, IMO. Trump's lawyers get paid for their work. This method of payment through PACs may well violate campaign finance law, but either way the lawyers have not been "stiffed" — they got their money. I'm aware that he has stiffed quite a few contractors and small businesses over the years, and that speaks to his character as a whole. As long as his lawyers are consistently being paid for their work, though, I wouldn't expect new Trump lawyers to consider too strongly the risk of non-payment for their upcoming work.


The leadership PAC paying the legal fees is valid specifically because he is a candidate. There is no legal, or even ethical, issue on that front. It's a bit funny considering he's financing his defense properly against the charges, among other things, of financing his impropriety improperly.


Per the linked article in the comment I replied to, the legality is in question because it may constitute a donation to Trump's campaign fund. Recall that there are explicit limits to how much any person or organization can donate to a candidate's campaign fund, but no limits to what they can donate to a PAC. This is because money IS speech, according to the disastrous supreme court decision "Citizens United", but it is still predicated on the requirement that the PACs cannot work with the candidates or their campaigns, and may advocate for candidates only if they do not share strategic leadership or take direction from the candidate. I'm not a lawyer, so I can't adequately evaluate that legal argument, but it sounds plausible enough in context. If you're stating that there is no legal issue here, you'll need to address the legal claim, or at least link an article that attempts to do so, rather than just ask me to take your word for it. However, on the scale of Trump's potentially criminal actions, this would rank pretty low for me even if true. He's done a million other far worse things, so this one hardly seems to matter.


It also has to do with how obvious his crimes are. Most attorneys don't want to work cases they don't think they can win. They also don't want to put their credibility on the line by outright lying, especially if it may later be proven that they were lying. ALL Trump's attorneys have to outright lie, because Trump can't be defended by a truthful lawyer, and that's a lot of what he's paying for.


It's not only about him paying for services rendered. What competent lawyer wants to have a client that never listens to their legal advice and makes their job harder?


It's almost like attorneys don't want to find themselves in the position of needing an attorney.


He keeps having them do insane shit that gets them disbarred and prosecuted. There's no way I'd work for Trump with that track record. He is death to attorney careers.


Couldn't he get a state appointed one? They won't agree to work with him, but "have" to, and for once will get paid as it won't be him paying.


He’d hate that because if they’re appointed, they probably aren’t going along with his crap like the ones he’s been hiring himself.




He will unquestionably appeal on the basis of incompetent representation. And every other possible appeal.


One will be appointed by the state if he cannot acquire one right? That poor lawyer.


Only if he can’t afford it, which he can. No public defenders for the rich.


Tacopina is not an incompetent lawyer. He has an impressive record as a prosecutor and has had some profile defense clients like Meek Mills, Jay Z and A-rod to name a few. He's probably the most competent lawyer Trump has had in a long time.


Trump can always get a public defender. He doesnt pay his bills. Joe Tapioca stepped in some real shit.




Its a great mob name.


Same, I just now realized his name is not actually Joe Tapioca.


If he can't find one, one will be appointed for him.


There is no way Trump will ever have a court appointed lawyer for two reasons, as I see it: 1. Trump would never want to be seen as having to have someone appointed as his counsel, like he's indigent; and 2. There will ALWAYS be scumbag attorneys looking for the publicity and hoping to make a name (whether infamous or not) for themselves.


Dun dunn!


This. I want Trump prosecuted. I want him convicted. But I want it all the while Trump being granted all the same rights as any American. He is entitled to an overzealous defense and he should be granted all such rights without interruption.


Glad to see this is the top comment. He deserves representation, and his lawyer should move heaven and earth to defend him. If we don't believe that, then what are we all doing here?




FYI, it looks like you accidentally posted this comment twice.


They are a bot


And a dumb one that doesn’t understand the difference between an indictment and a jury trial.


What makes you say that? I mean, I have no evidence to say they're NOT a bot, but I don't see anything obviously bot-like about this. Real human users can certainly double-post by accident.


They made 400 comments to different subreddits in like 6 hours all in the exact same style as a chatgpt prompt. Also they have since had their comment removed by mods


Thanks for explaining. Was there something that helped you recognize this individual comment as bot-like, or does it mainly become clear in aggregate, by checking all their other comments?


It can be hard to tell, but ai comments usually don’t understand the context of the comment they’re replying to, the just reply directly to the comments contents. They are also usually overly friendly and detailed. If you suspect an account of being a bot, you do have to check their other posts to make sure.


So if charged and convicted, would this be an argument that legal counsel was biased against his client and open up an avenue for appeal?


I dont think so, the attorney was not assigned to Trump, he hired him, and these comments came out well before Trump hired him.


Yup. If the attorney was publicly and obviously biased against Trump, and Trump hired him anyway, that's on Trump. If he hired the attorney first, and THEN the bias came out, he might have some sort of case to make.


Better ask for monthly advances upfront.


That's my point. He made these remarks in the past, and if he doesn't win, then it was because he was always against Trump and threw the defense. I know it's just my cynicism shining through.


You can’t waive away telling the truth with an NDA. Trump demanded the NDA so that he could hide his (brief) extra-marital relationship from the public during a presidential campaign. The actions that he took to hide the relationship are what got him in trouble, not the relationship itself. Each time that he signed a check, and falsified his business records, he knowingly committed a crime.


To blatantly suddenly change and play the role of a hypocrite, I'm sure he had to get his fee up front to not take the chance of being stiffed by a known stiffer. Especially after giving up his credibility


> “Here’s why it’s not a lie,” he told Melber. “Because it was a confidential settlement. So if he acknowledged that, he would be violating the confidential settlement. So, is it the truth? Of course it’s not the truth. Was he supposed to tell the truth? He would be in violation of the agreement if he told the truth. So by him doing that, he was abiding by, not only his rights, but Stormy Daniels’s rights.” It's like filing your taxes, man. You do illegal shit that makes you money? You still have to disclose that under "Other Income"


>Here’s why it’s not a lie. >So is it the truth? Of course it’s not the truth. This shit is just embarrassing.


The ONLY case where a statement can be explicitly "not the truth" yet still also "not a lie" is if the speaker believed it to be true at the time he said it. Obviously, Trump would have known it is false, so whether he's allowed by some legal agreement to speak the truth is irrelevant. At best, that would give him an excuse to refuse making a statement on it at all, not to make a statement that he knows is false.


Unless that guy got paid upfront, he isn't getting paid. A Trump doesn't pay their debts...


You’re just calling him a lawyer.


Not all of us are without morals or integrity.


How is it without morals or integrity to provide a legal defense to someone? Even the most blatantly guilty individuals need legal representation. It’s a basic right. Agreeing to be someone’s lawyer isn’t an endorsement of them, it’s a job.


To say someone should be prosecuted for a crime, only to change your position for money is a lack of integrity. Yes, everyone deserves a defense. But as a private attorney, I CHOOSE who i represent. If I CHOOSE to represent someone in a case I've already expressed a negative opinion about, then I'm lying to someone - my self, the public, or my client. Edit before response: to add, it is one thing to say "he should be charged, but l'm willing to defend him." It is another thing entirely to say he should be charged but then claim he did nothing wrong in the first place and never should have been charged, now that you're being paid.


Yes, but while your always entitled to counsel, you're never entitled to any particular counsel. Attorneys (who are not public defenders) choose clients knowing full well that those cases may face scrutiny. Not to mention that there are not many good reasons to provide your legal service to as bad a client as Trump.


Tacopina sounds like a racist nickname for a Mexican popstar


He should be indicted for a whole lot of shit, yet he is still free and actively destroying the country. It just doesn’t stop. Crimes on crimes on crimes, no consequences.


These lawyers are just telling us it is not a lie until you say it in court under oath. It is ok to tell the Press that you do not know anything about that person using an NDAs as a legal argument. Rule one in the Billionaire handbook. Poor people go to jail, the rich get away with it. Rule one in the poor person guide.


MAGA- Making Attorneys Get Attorneys


He's defending his client. Every defendant deserves a good defense. If the facts of the case show malfeasance then it doesn't matter how good the defense is. If they don't, then it's good to have a good defense to make sure justice is actually served.


If you hire everyone that thinks you should be put away, it becomes harder to find people to actually do it.


a legal bribe.


Is it even possible not to read his name as "TAPIOCA ?" Still doesn't beat Matthew Calimari...


Notice how everybody wants to get their money for Trump upfront. They’re not billing him later.


Can’t get paid to defend him against a charge of campaign finance fraud, unless it seems likely that he will be charged with campaign finance fraud. I like the marketing approach.


Kinda hard to see any crimes when your paycheck depends on your clients innocence.


He is just left with other fascists at this point.


Ironically that retainer agreement is useless, since Trump will never pay him.


When the check cleared.


Anyone else thinking of the scene in Good Will Hunting where Affleck's character demands a retainer. No one? Just me? Ok


Obvs Tacopenis’ lips are attached to Trump’s ass.


Eh. The guy's a defense lawyer, and Trump hired him to defend him. I'm not a lawyer, and his whole "It's not a lie, it's not the truth, Trump was sticking to the agreement!" is some impressive mental gymnastics to *me* , but that's what lawyers do.


I don't care, the guy is pure entertainment


Indict Trump. But not Hillary, not Barry or any of the others who played loose and fast with campaign finance rules.


You can't equate the two because there is evidence to support the former guy's indictment.




Could that be argued, though? Trump might have a case there if he hired Tacopina and THEN it came out that Tacopina was biased against him. But if Tacopina came out publicly and obviously against Trump years ago, and Trump hired him anyway knowing that, that decision falls entirely on Trump.


ChatGPT much?


If Tacopina had made those statements privately and they came out after Trump hired him, yes, there would be grounds. I know Trump likes to say that CNN has low ratings, but unfortunately for Trump his CNN appearances were far from private and were widely known. There's zero debate.


Not really. Tacopina made a statement on a nationally televised show, and trump willingly hired him long after the fact.




You have pretty bad legal takes for feeling the need to post them 4x in this thread.


All of their comments sound like they're written by an AI, too.


Lmao exactly what I was thinking


Yeah, posting similar comments multiple times in a thread seems to be a pattern with them.


"Eh, I can take an L."


Hope he got paid up front.


More hush money?


LOL! Why does this surprise me not one iota.


And why didn’t any reporters put this in the spotlight during those manic ( immature) interviews?


Also, when did Joe Tac start looking like Hugo Chavez????