[ClearCase_guy]

I feel like I understood almost none of this.

[lodi90]

Dems are trying to fill the news cycle with Trump 24/7/365 so the topic does not get to the Biden Crime Family.

[AndyTheBear]

Not sure if I understood any...maybe I understood a negative amount...

[Pres Raygun]

And you are the clear case guy. I couldn’t follow it either.

[Political Junkie Too]

It sounds to my non-lawyerly ears that the problem is this:

1. The population of lawyers in South Florida with the security clearances to work this case is small.
2. The prosecution and defense attorneys have prior representation histories with potential witnesses in this case.
3. The prosecution wanted to limit the defense's ability to call as witnesses someone whom the prosecution has a conflict of interest.
4. The prosecution wanted to limit the defense's ability to question the credibility of witnesses that the defense has a conflict of interest.
5. The defense refused to let the prosecution do anything to hinder the defense's ability to call witnesses and provide a "vigorous defense" of their client.
6. The prosecution and the judge argued that the defense would be waiving their ability to use the conflicts of interest as the basis of any appeals, and the defense agreed.
7. The judge wanted to make sure that the defendant understood the issues of conflict of interest and the limits on the appeals, and the defendant elected to keep his attorney.

-PJ

[FlyingEagle]

Agreed. Seems like the government case is:

The butler did it

In The library

With the candlestick.

Therefore crucify Trump.

[Cen-Tejas]

I read it 3 times and gave up.

[roving]

The prosecutors want to dismiss a couple of Trump’s lawyers. The judge said that he should have brought that up a long time ago.

[where's_the_Outrage?]

I agree, WTF is the bottom line?

[kvanbrunt2]

The defense attorneys for the two guys can’t attack their prior clients characters in court because they at one time represented them. I guess it would violate client privilege.