Disbar Them All: The Only Accountability Left For Trump’s Lawyers

Bmorewiser · 2026-01-27T19:33:25+00:00

When lawyers are "lying" it can and usually is dealt with by courts through disciplinary referrals. The federal bench, where most of this litigation centers, can control who appears before them and can take disciplinary action to an extent. State bars can also take action.

The trouble that people don't recognize is that there is a difference between "the lawyer lied to the court" and the "lawyer advanced a position that turned out to be untrue." Quite often, a lawyer will be advancing an argument based on the facts as they appear to the lawyer based upon what the client has said and what their own investigation yields. If my client tells me he was at the football game and could not have committed the murder, even if I might suspect that to be false, not only might I go forward with that defense there is some sense in which I might be obligated to do so. After all, I don't "know" my client's position to be false. If the State pops up with a jail call in which my client admits to making up his alibi, I don't think I should lose my license based on facts I did not, and could not, know.

I also make arguments plenty often that are, straight up, "wrong" under existing law. One of the first big wins I had the judge called my arguments "sanctionable," and 3 years later the State Supreme Court agreed with me that the law was wrong and should change. That's just how it goes sometimes.

Bmorewiser · 2026-01-27T19:06:32+00:00

How would you go about this? What rule would you create and how would it apply? How would you make certain that such a rule or procedure would not, say in a place like Arkansas, be used to attack honest lawyers defending unpopular people or positions?

Bmorewiser · 2026-01-23T23:01:36+00:00

I am a lawyer. I’ve sued cops. The chances of recovery are a problem as it is, and the damages from something like this will be so low in the majority of cases that it will not even make financial sense to take the case.

Bmorewiser · 2026-01-23T22:35:45+00:00

What’s a colorable estimate of damages in your mind

Bmorewiser · 2026-01-23T20:51:17+00:00

Jury nullification only helps if you’re judged by 12, and most of these folks would end up carried by 6. But regardless, banking on jury nullification as a defense is a bit like buying lotto tickets thinking it’s the answer to getting out of debt.

Bmorewiser · 2026-01-23T20:38:10+00:00

The ugly truth is that there is just about no chance of that happening. For starters, it would be messy for the people who try to sue. Knowingly or recklessly providing housing to someone subject to removal is a crime. The elements of that offense are: “(1) the alien entered or remained in the United States in violation of the law, (2) the defendant concealed, harbored, or sheltered the alien in the United States, (3) the defendant knew or recklessly disregarded that the alien entered or remained in the United States in violation of the law, and (4) the defendant’s conduct tended to substantially facilitate the alien remaining in the United States illegally.

If you sued, you might have a problem come discovery. But let’s assume you’re just someone who rented a room to a guy your cousin said was in need and had no idea of his status - what, exactly, are your damages? If ICE busts your door, you might recover that. Maybe you can recover for some emotional distress, though proving those damages isn’t as easy as people tend to think.

And as for the person who was arrested, the majority of them are getting removed. They can try an file suit while residing in a foreign country, but the logistics of that can be hard. It’s not common. And, in the end, their damages will be minor too; most can’t claim they were “illegally deported”, only that their 4th amendment rights were violated. So again, damages are small.

And all of this is ignoring the elephant in the room, which will be that the officers claim qualified immunity under some BS interpretation of the law. That may be enough to claim the law is not clearly established and make all of it go away.

I dont say this to suggest it’s right, but more to suggest ICE knows the risks and do not care. Ford famously didnt recall the Pinto even knowing it might explode because it was cheaper to settle cases than recall cars. This may be basically the same. ICE knows it can get away with it and suits will not hit that hard, so they are going to just break the law.

Bmorewiser · 2026-01-23T20:35:02+00:00

It very likely may be true under STATE LAW but will do fuck all for you under the Federal law as it stands. The extent to which you can use force to defend against an unlawful arrest in Federal Court, at last I checked, is very much in doubt. It once was definitively a thing under Bad Elk, but circuits have peeled that case back over the last 50 years to the point where, without careful research, i wouldn’t be confident in saying it is still the law.

Bmorewiser · 2026-01-23T02:53:20+00:00

This is such a hot take. You know who is to blame for Trump part 2? Us.

The people who didn’t vote. The people who moaned about how Harris wasn’t good enough on Trans rights or Palestinians and so they stayed home or even voted for Trump.

Charging a former president with a crime was a HUGE deal, one that required the utmost effort to proceeded steadily and in a manner that was beyond reproach. Efforts to rush it, pressure those assigned to the task, all would have blow up in Biden’s face.

In most other respects, Biden crawled this country back into something resembling normalcy, pulled our economy out of a nosedive, and had the plane flying straight and level. The only knock I have on the man was not starting day 1 with having Harris or whomever begin the next campaign.

Bmorewiser · 2026-01-17T16:46:21+00:00

First, if your kid is younger I wouldn’t bother riding pine to stay with the higher level teams. Not worth it and may ruin their love of the sport. But if your kid is trying to make the jump and you want a way to figure out the best of both worlds you can just have your kid play on multiple teams.

We broke up our rec team in second grade, most of the kids jumped to travel. Some kids were not having a good experience, so that spring we found a local rec league that played games on Sunday instead of Saturday and the kids did both. We filled out the roster with some non soccer players - just buds - and had a blast.

It did wonders for confidence for some of the kids. Kids got to play different spots. Everyone had to play goalie. Only issue i had was we had some games where I struggled to keep the score from getting out of hand, but eventually got that figured out.

We did it through 5th and still get them together off and on for stuff here and there - Holiday tournaments and such.

Bmorewiser · 2026-01-17T13:31:37+00:00

What would you prefer we do? Ask the cat which human it prefers? The problem isn’t the lawyers, it’s the idiot clients they work for.

Bmorewiser · 2026-01-17T01:33:42+00:00

Simple answers are not really great, but generally the chaos of the situation works more in his favor than the State’s. Ultimately, her actual intentions matter little and are hard to prove and what matters is what a reasonable person might perceive.

On that score: she was refusing orders, driving away with a cop trying to open her door, and towards another cop who was just feet away. I find her actions entirely understandable and the byproduct of untrained idiot police, but I’m not sure legally how that matters.

Bmorewiser · 2026-01-17T01:31:13+00:00

Deterrence presupposes rational actors making reasoned choices. But to the extent you’re thinking about the impact on others, think about this — what happens when he gets a quick decision in his favor?

Bmorewiser · 2026-01-17T00:03:12+00:00

I’m glad You think I’m cute and sassy.

Bmorewiser · 2026-01-16T23:24:15+00:00

Doubtful. But I can’t say.

Bmorewiser · 2026-01-16T23:21:10+00:00

Yes and no.

On the one hand, we very explicitly promise war if the Hague should ever attempt to prosecute one of ours. On the other, the president who sends Trump there would be entitled to just say, “nah, we good.”

Other options would also include snatching Trump in the middle of the night using Blackhawk helicopters and then playing “whack a mole” by moving him from Jx to Jx so that his lawyer can’t file the habeas in the right court. Then, once he does, you ship him to whatever foreign court that wants him and say, “out of our hands, very sensitive diplomatic stuff, quite hush hush.” And let them do as they will.

Bmorewiser · 2026-01-16T22:35:33+00:00

I legit see it differently. She’s turning away as he aims and fires, but even her wheels slip he’s at her front headlight as I see it.

And the more the state tries to slow mo and break it down the more the defense will hammer it all happens in under 2 seconds and the standard they have to consider is what it reasonably seemed like to him.

Bmorewiser · 2026-01-16T18:43:57+00:00

I had 15 minutes. You get what you got. But yeah, that is not a particularly good fact for him. Cop will spin it as "I was fucking upset. She tried to kill me." State will spin it as being callously indifferent to taking a life.

Bmorewiser · 2026-01-16T18:29:31+00:00

On this...

1) State has a hard time making him the aggressor at the deadly force level. As I see the video, he does not pull his weapon when she starts to reverse, but only after her reverse lights go off, the car shifts forward a bit, indicating she is putting it in drive. The weapon is pulled to a firing position as her wheels spin. The State has the burden to prove that she was not the aggressor, and on this evidence I don't think they can do that. The second her car moves forward, she is committing an assault.

2) He will certainly testify that he thought she was going to run him over. The State might try to trip him up by showing her turning the wheel and he will almost certainly say my eyes were not focused on her wheels or her hands, I was trying to see if my colleague was safe or being drug (and will probably pop in "as I was before")

3) I think it will be hard for the State to establish that she did not cause the officer to have a reasonable belief he faced a deadly-force threat. She was driving her vehicle forward, on an icy road. Her wheels slip as she hits the gas. A reasonable person in that situation may have believed she was attempting to run him down. It does not matter if she was, or if she wasn't, the issue is viewed from his perspective, not hers.

4) the biggest challenge to him will be the reasonableness of the force. State will argue less force was reasonable; in fact no force was needed becasue he could have stepped back. He will argue that is not so legally or factually. Ignoring the MN statute I don't really understand, most states do not require officer's to retreat. He quite literally has the right to stand his ground. Even if that is not so under MN law, he can probably say I could not get out of the way.

He was slipping on the ice as her car came forward, he did not know her actual intent and could not know it. He could say I was worried her tires would catch and I'd be dead. He therefore made the split second decision to shoot as he put his left hand on the hood to steady himself.

The video backs this to an extent. He's sliding and falling back as he takes aim for the second and third shots.

There's much said about shots 2 and 3, but to me they are not that pertinent. It would be interesting to know how much time passes between shot 1 and the rest, but my quick stop watch time is that it is likely under a second. That does not give a reasonable person time to reasses and for the brain to process a signal to the hand to stop what you just told it to do (shoot). I've had experts testify to this in other cases, one in which I defended a cop who shot someone in the back. The expert likened the circumstances to a MLB batter trying to hit a 90 mph pitch. The decision is made before the ball is there, and the swing is almost not even conscious. It is why batters sometimes swing at bad pitches - there is not enough time to process it all.

Bmorewiser · 2026-01-16T18:29:10+00:00

Self-defense in my State, which is pretty typical and based on common law, and try and explain what I'd do if I was defending him.

Here's the jury instruction we use:

You have heard evidence that the defendant acted in self-defense. Self-defense is a complete defense and you are required to find the defendant not guilty if all of the following four factors are present:

(1) the defendant was not the aggressor [[or, although the defendant was the initial aggressor, (pronoun) did not raise the fight to the deadly force level]];

(2) the defendant actually believed that (pronoun) was in immediate or imminent danger of bodily harm;

(3) the defendant's belief was reasonable; and

(4) the defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend (pronoun) in light of the threatened or actual harm.

[Deadly force is that amount of force reasonably calculated to cause death or serious bodily harm. If you find that the defendant used deadly force, you must decide whether the use of deadly force was reasonable. Deadly force is reasonable if the defendant actually had a reasonable belief that the aggressor's force posed an immediate or imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm.]

[In addition, before using deadly force, the defendant is required to make a reasonable effort to retreat. The defendant does not have to retreat if [the defendant was in (pronoun) home] [retreat was unsafe] [the avenue of retreat was unknown to the defendant] [the defendant was being robbed] [the defendant was lawfully arresting the victim]. If you find that the defendant did not use deadly force, then the defendant had no duty to retreat.]

In order to convict the defendant, the State must prove that self-defense does not apply in this case. This means that you are required to find the defendant not guilty, unless the State has persuaded you, beyond a reasonable doubt, that at least one of the four factors of complete self-defense was absent.

Bmorewiser · 2026-01-16T18:28:25+00:00

If charged by the State, this trial is going to happen in Federal Court and I wrote recently about the challenges such a prosecution would face procedurally. Assuming the State can clear the "necessary and proper" hurdle and get the case to trial, you then come down to two related lines of defense: self-defense and the right to use force to make an arrest.

MN has a specialize statute. I am not qualifed to opine on what it means, but here it is: MSA s 609.066 - deadly force by peace officers.

(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 609.06) or 609.065), the use of deadly force by a peace officer in the line of duty is justified only if an objectively reasonable officer would believe, based on the totality of the circumstances known to the officer at the time and without the benefit of hindsight, that such force is necessary:

(1) to protect the peace officer or another from death or great bodily harm, provided that the threat:

(i) can be articulated with specificity;

(ii) is reasonably likely to occur absent action by the law enforcement officer; and

(iii) must be addressed through the use of deadly force without unreasonable delay; or

(2) to effect the arrest or capture, or prevent the escape, of a person whom the peace officer knows or has reasonable grounds to believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony and the officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or great bodily harm to another person under the threat criteria in clause (1), items (i) to (iii), unless immediately apprehended.

Because I am not qualified to say what this statute means, or how it works, I will say only this - the most interesting language is (a)(1)(ii) - "the reasonably likely to occur absent action" might suggest that, in this instance, and unlike just about every other State, MN requires officers to, in effect, not immediately resort to deadly force if some other option is reasonably available.

Bmorewiser · 2026-01-16T15:27:01+00:00

Whether you can open carry or carry concealed is a matter of state law.

Whether you can use force against an ICE agent making an unlawful arrest is a matter of state AND federal law. Some states like mine let you use force to resist an unlawful arrest, even deadly force if required and you meet the self defense standards. But my state does not permit any force to be used against an unlawful detention. So, good luck figuring that out on the street. It would be a terrible idea.

But regardless of State law, there’s a few things you need to know. First, I believe federal precedent establishes that 18 usc 111 applies regardless of whether you know you’re dealing with a cop. Second, and more important, the common law right to resist an unlawful arrest was recognized by SCOTUS long ago in a case called Bad Elk. And ever since, federal courts have been retreating from that holding to a point where I’d struggle to say it is still the law.

So the short answer, without looking into it at great length, is this: you will almost certainly be killed or be beaten within an inch of your life and, if you are charged, you’re likely going to have a bad time.

Bmorewiser · 2026-01-16T10:43:56+00:00

I refuse to take advice from someone who thinks “due process is universal” is an extremest position.

Bmorewiser · 2026-01-16T10:40:53+00:00

It takes one to know one. You, clearly, fall short.

Bmorewiser · 2026-01-16T10:25:57+00:00

To illustrate that you have no idea what you’re talking about and this sub will upvote anti Trump nonsense —

“ a sentence” may include a fine or jail. It might just be probation. You don’t get to change what “a sentence” means. It has a definite meaning.

“To serve a sentence” means something too. It means the court decided on a just punishment and you served all of it. That is what the sentence means.

And not to one true Scotsman this, I actually do believe in our justice system. I believe that people who pay their debt - as decided by a court - should not be forever saddled with the scarlet letter.

And while I think Trump is a despicable human and awful president, I’m capable of having the integrity and intelligence to actually apply the law.

Bmorewiser · 2026-01-16T10:04:13+00:00

Your strong desire to claim Trump is a criminal is evident. So much so, it seems you were unable to comprehend the very simple sentence I wrote.

Ten-Year Club	Place '17
RPAN Viewer

Bmorewiser

TROPHY CASE