Trump's lawyers are not arguing the merits. They are arguing he should not be tried at all.
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I don't think we are in disagreement. I didn't mean morally good or bad. I mean good and bad arguments/deliveries.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
But if the advocate with the meritorious argument can’t articulate it in a way that others can understand, then the other argument might hold sway. Not bc it was “better” or “worse,” but less persuasive.
-
And anyway, in this instance, it’s not as if there was really an open constitutional question. Just a pretend one to avoid discussing the merits.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
That only works if the bad advocate can clearly and coherently present the meritorious facts. If they bungle it, it remains unavailable to the jury.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
“bad advocates” often lack a meritorious case because they don’t know how to build it. Advocacy is far more than mere presentation.
-
Also, that’s not how persuasion works with human beings.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Still (and IANAL) but i imagine it’s gotta be easier to be a good advocate when your case is meritorious.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
But how can you know it’s a good case if the advocate is so bad that they don’t present evidence?! The jury can’t say “well we know - independent of the lawyers’ presentation - who should win, so we will vote that way.”
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.