January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

[Typical Lax Dad]

A guy filming is a terrorist? Anyone know more about this guy in red?

https://x.com/brandonstraka/status/1725 ... a82I2GssRg

Yeah.

He stole a photo off of the desk of the Speaker of the House, and took a wallet in the process. He got 51 months, and killed himself prior to starting his sentence. But over the weekend, with the Mike Johnson release of the J6 tapes, the right started a conspiracy that this guy was just a regular dude filming an important event. Mental health the issue? Nope; the issue these soulless f*cks bring up is that J6 was just a patriotic act of expression, and they are all political prisoners. And YA, predictably and led by the reins of the algo, delivers it here.

Thanks, and it's why I brought it here...I do not follow it nowhere as close you and others. appreciate the popshot.

Thanks for disseminating lies. You not knowing it’s a lie is what the people spreading this stuff is banking on.

I’ll spread what I hope to be true but has to be a lie some more because I really want it to be true. I heard a while back that in movies is Scarlett Johansson liked the guy for intimate scenes she’d tell the guy “it’s ok you can stick it in”. I pray this is true. Im sure Colin jost prays the opposite everyday day/

I would ask Scarlett to just let me put the tip in……

[Farfromgeneva]

A guy filming is a terrorist? Anyone know more about this guy in red?

https://x.com/brandonstraka/status/1725 ... a82I2GssRg

Yeah.

He stole a photo off of the desk of the Speaker of the House, and took a wallet in the process. He got 51 months, and killed himself prior to starting his sentence. But over the weekend, with the Mike Johnson release of the J6 tapes, the right started a conspiracy that this guy was just a regular dude filming an important event. Mental health the issue? Nope; the issue these soulless f*cks bring up is that J6 was just a patriotic act of expression, and they are all political prisoners. And YA, predictably and led by the reins of the algo, delivers it here.

Thanks, and it's why I brought it here...I do not follow it nowhere as close you and others. appreciate the popshot.

Thanks for disseminating lies. You not knowing it’s a lie is what the people spreading this stuff is banking on.

I’ll spread what I hope to be true but has to be a lie some more because I really want it to be true. I heard a while back that in movies is Scarlett Johansson liked the guy for intimate scenes she’d tell the guy “it’s ok you can stick it in”. I pray this is true. Im sure Colin jost prays the opposite everyday day/

I would ask Scarlett to just let me put the tip in……

Patent pending patent pending on that methodology! I will sue you!

[youthathletics]

A guy filming is a terrorist? Anyone know more about this guy in red?

https://x.com/brandonstraka/status/1725 ... a82I2GssRg

Yeah.

He stole a photo off of the desk of the Speaker of the House, and took a wallet in the process. He got 51 months, and killed himself prior to starting his sentence. But over the weekend, with the Mike Johnson release of the J6 tapes, the right started a conspiracy that this guy was just a regular dude filming an important event. Mental health the issue? Nope; the issue these soulless f*cks bring up is that J6 was just a patriotic act of expression, and they are all political prisoners. And YA, predictably and led by the reins of the algo, delivers it here.

Thanks, and it's why I brought it here...I do not follow it nowhere as close you and others. appreciate the popshot.

Respectfully, the "popshot" is because you are better and smarter than the misinformation carrier pigeon you have become, following Collin Rugg and other ninkompoops whose entire lives seem to be devoted to springing and spreading falsehoods. The J6 business is serious: a crowd of citizens, angered at the outcome of a fair election and incited by their leader to go to the Capitol and disrupt one of the steps in the orderly transfer of power from one President to a new President, entered the building, Congressional offices and the Speaker's Office, destroyed and stole things. The effort to normalize that behavior is Reichstag Fire stuff. The effort to make criminals into heroes of the resistance is Horst Wessel stuff. The effort to put the former President back in office is Hitler stuff. FFS, stop being a part of it, even, as you suggest, an unwitting part of it.

I honestly had zero idea who this guy was, did not investigate it myself at all, and I knew you guys are locked in those stuff. My post asked a direct question regarding a charge or 'terrorism', and yes....I could have worded it a bit better.

Why would they seek terrorism, legally speaking? I just did a quick search....and found this, as if this is uncharted territory: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/ja ... egislation

[Typical Lax Dad]

A guy filming is a terrorist? Anyone know more about this guy in red?

https://x.com/brandonstraka/status/1725 ... a82I2GssRg

Yeah.

He stole a photo off of the desk of the Speaker of the House, and took a wallet in the process. He got 51 months, and killed himself prior to starting his sentence. But over the weekend, with the Mike Johnson release of the J6 tapes, the right started a conspiracy that this guy was just a regular dude filming an important event. Mental health the issue? Nope; the issue these soulless f*cks bring up is that J6 was just a patriotic act of expression, and they are all political prisoners. And YA, predictably and led by the reins of the algo, delivers it here.

Thanks, and it's why I brought it here...I do not follow it nowhere as close you and others. appreciate the popshot.

Respectfully, the "popshot" is because you are better and smarter than the misinformation carrier pigeon you have become, following Collin Rugg and other ninkompoops whose entire lives seem to be devoted to springing and spreading falsehoods. The J6 business is serious: a crowd of citizens, angered at the outcome of a fair election and incited by their leader to go to the Capitol and disrupt one of the steps in the orderly transfer of power from one President to a new President, entered the building, Congressional offices and the Speaker's Office, destroyed and stole things. The effort to normalize that behavior is Reichstag Fire stuff. The effort to make criminals into heroes of the resistance is Horst Wessel stuff. The effort to put the former President back in office is Hitler stuff. FFS, stop being a part of it, even, as you suggest, an unwitting part of it.

I honestly had zero idea who this guy was, did not investigate it myself at all, and I knew you guys are locked in those stuff. My post asked a direct question regarding a charge or 'terrorism', and yes....I could have worded it a bit better.

Why would they seek terrorism, legally speaking? I just did a quick search....and found this, as if this is uncharted territory: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/ja ... egislation

Why do you care what the charges are?

[Typical Lax Dad]

The sky is blue

[dislaxxic]

Has this been discussed in these parts yet??

Judge Rules Trump Had The Purpose of Inciting Insurrection on January 6

Thus far, I haven’t engaged with the lawsuits attempting to keep Trump off the ballot under the Fourteenth Amendment. I think people absolutely have the right to make the case Trump’s actions on January 6 disqualify him from being President. But the only decisions that will matter on this front are what various Supreme Courts have to say and whether the Republican Party chooses to nominate Trump notwithstanding the risk he’ll be disqualified (to say nothing of whether Trump is disqualified in one of the six states that will really decide the election).

But Colorado Judge Sarah Wallace’s opinion finding that Trump did engage in incitement, but can’t be disqualified because the President is not clearly an “officer” under the Fourteenth Amendment, is worth reading.

Further...

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Wallace’s ruling is that she found, over and over, that Trump’s side did not present evidence to fight the claim of insurrection. Trump’s legal expert, Robert Delahunty (who contributed to some of the most outrageous War on Terror OLC opinions), presented no definition of insurrection that wouldn’t include January 6. Kash Patel presented no evidence to back his claim that Trump intended to call out 10,000 members of the National Guard. Trump presented no evidence that criminal conviction was required before disqualification. There was no evidence presented that Trump did not support the mob’s purpose.

Once Wallace dismissed Kash (and Katrina Pierson’s) claims that Trump intended to call the National Guard, all Trump had left was Brandenburg: a claim that his speech did not count as incitement, the same claim Trump has made in his efforts to defeat gags, the same claim Trump attempted to use to get Judge Chutkan to throw out any reference of the mob in his January 6 indictment.

Wallace used three things to show that Trump did intend to incite the mob.

First, she relied heavily on the testimony of Chapman University (!!!) professor Peter Simi, who described how Trump used the coded language of the far right to endorse violence. She mapped out what Trump added into his January 6 speech. And she talked about how Trump’s later statements — about Pence, and telling the mob he loved them — ratified their violence (an argument Amit Mehta also made), which Wallace used to distinguish Trump from Charles Evers.

As I have shown, Trump has tried to simply wish away the role of the mob in his indictment, a wish that Tanya Chutkan already rejected. Judge Wallace’s opinion makes it clear that’s all Trump has.

..

[Seacoaster(1)]

Has this been discussed in these parts yet??

Judge Rules Trump Had The Purpose of Inciting Insurrection on January 6

Thus far, I haven’t engaged with the lawsuits attempting to keep Trump off the ballot under the Fourteenth Amendment. I think people absolutely have the right to make the case Trump’s actions on January 6 disqualify him from being President. But the only decisions that will matter on this front are what various Supreme Courts have to say and whether the Republican Party chooses to nominate Trump notwithstanding the risk he’ll be disqualified (to say nothing of whether Trump is disqualified in one of the six states that will really decide the election).

But Colorado Judge Sarah Wallace’s opinion finding that Trump did engage in incitement, but can’t be disqualified because the President is not clearly an “officer” under the Fourteenth Amendment, is worth reading.

Further...

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Wallace’s ruling is that she found, over and over, that Trump’s side did not present evidence to fight the claim of insurrection. Trump’s legal expert, Robert Delahunty (who contributed to some of the most outrageous War on Terror OLC opinions), presented no definition of insurrection that wouldn’t include January 6. Kash Patel presented no evidence to back his claim that Trump intended to call out 10,000 members of the National Guard. Trump presented no evidence that criminal conviction was required before disqualification. There was no evidence presented that Trump did not support the mob’s purpose.

Once Wallace dismissed Kash (and Katrina Pierson’s) claims that Trump intended to call the National Guard, all Trump had left was Brandenburg: a claim that his speech did not count as incitement, the same claim Trump has made in his efforts to defeat gags, the same claim Trump attempted to use to get Judge Chutkan to throw out any reference of the mob in his January 6 indictment.

Wallace used three things to show that Trump did intend to incite the mob.

First, she relied heavily on the testimony of Chapman University (!!!) professor Peter Simi, who described how Trump used the coded language of the far right to endorse violence. She mapped out what Trump added into his January 6 speech. And she talked about how Trump’s later statements — about Pence, and telling the mob he loved them — ratified their violence (an argument Amit Mehta also made), which Wallace used to distinguish Trump from Charles Evers.

As I have shown, Trump has tried to simply wish away the role of the mob in his indictment, a wish that Tanya Chutkan already rejected. Judge Wallace’s opinion makes it clear that’s all Trump has.

..

Here is the opening appellate brief for the Petitioners, who lost the case in the trial court:

https://www.citizensforethics.org/wp-co ... dacted.pdf

The argument is pretty straightforward. The Presidency is an "office under the United States," or we are living in crazytown.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Has this been discussed in these parts yet??

Judge Rules Trump Had The Purpose of Inciting Insurrection on January 6

Thus far, I haven’t engaged with the lawsuits attempting to keep Trump off the ballot under the Fourteenth Amendment. I think people absolutely have the right to make the case Trump’s actions on January 6 disqualify him from being President. But the only decisions that will matter on this front are what various Supreme Courts have to say and whether the Republican Party chooses to nominate Trump notwithstanding the risk he’ll be disqualified (to say nothing of whether Trump is disqualified in one of the six states that will really decide the election).

But Colorado Judge Sarah Wallace’s opinion finding that Trump did engage in incitement, but can’t be disqualified because the President is not clearly an “officer” under the Fourteenth Amendment, is worth reading.

Further...

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Wallace’s ruling is that she found, over and over, that Trump’s side did not present evidence to fight the claim of insurrection. Trump’s legal expert, Robert Delahunty (who contributed to some of the most outrageous War on Terror OLC opinions), presented no definition of insurrection that wouldn’t include January 6. Kash Patel presented no evidence to back his claim that Trump intended to call out 10,000 members of the National Guard. Trump presented no evidence that criminal conviction was required before disqualification. There was no evidence presented that Trump did not support the mob’s purpose.

Once Wallace dismissed Kash (and Katrina Pierson’s) claims that Trump intended to call the National Guard, all Trump had left was Brandenburg: a claim that his speech did not count as incitement, the same claim Trump has made in his efforts to defeat gags, the same claim Trump attempted to use to get Judge Chutkan to throw out any reference of the mob in his January 6 indictment.

Wallace used three things to show that Trump did intend to incite the mob.

First, she relied heavily on the testimony of Chapman University (!!!) professor Peter Simi, who described how Trump used the coded language of the far right to endorse violence. She mapped out what Trump added into his January 6 speech. And she talked about how Trump’s later statements — about Pence, and telling the mob he loved them — ratified their violence (an argument Amit Mehta also made), which Wallace used to distinguish Trump from Charles Evers.

As I have shown, Trump has tried to simply wish away the role of the mob in his indictment, a wish that Tanya Chutkan already rejected. Judge Wallace’s opinion makes it clear that’s all Trump has.

..

Here is the opening appellate brief for the Petitioners, who lost the case in the trial court:

https://www.citizensforethics.org/wp-co ... dacted.pdf

The argument is pretty straightforward. The Presidency is an "office under the United States," or we are living in crazytown.

A banana republic

[Brooklyn]

The sky is blue

Thanks for sharing that important video. It strengthens a point I made on another thread: that with the majority of Americans now opposed to further financing of intervention in the Middle East, will the government manufacture a FALSE FLAG operation in order to "justify" further interventionism and war?

Will the government conspire with Israel to create such a thing?

When you consider Gulf of Tonkin, WMD mythology, and cases such as that above, it would come as no surprise to see more, much more, of these.

[Typical Lax Dad]

The sky is blue

Thanks for sharing that important video. It strengthens a point I made on another thread: that with the majority of Americans now opposed to further financing of intervention in the Middle East, will the government manufacture a FALSE FLAG operation in order to "justify" further interventionism and war?

Will the government conspire with Israel to create such a thing?

When you consider Gulf of Tonkin, WMD mythology, and cases such as that above, it would come as no surprise to see more, much more, of these.

YA would have more sympathy had these dupes plotted against Nancy, Joe, and Chuck and were roaming the Capitol on Jan 6th looking for them while trying to stop the certification of votes. Don’t recall him asking if these guys were “terrorists”….

[a fan]

Has this been discussed in these parts yet??

Judge Rules Trump Had The Purpose of Inciting Insurrection on January 6

Thus far, I haven’t engaged with the lawsuits attempting to keep Trump off the ballot under the Fourteenth Amendment. I think people absolutely have the right to make the case Trump’s actions on January 6 disqualify him from being President. But the only decisions that will matter on this front are what various Supreme Courts have to say and whether the Republican Party chooses to nominate Trump notwithstanding the risk he’ll be disqualified (to say nothing of whether Trump is disqualified in one of the six states that will really decide the election).

But Colorado Judge Sarah Wallace’s opinion finding that Trump did engage in incitement, but can’t be disqualified because the President is not clearly an “officer” under the Fourteenth Amendment, is worth reading.

Further...

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Wallace’s ruling is that she found, over and over, that Trump’s side did not present evidence to fight the claim of insurrection. Trump’s legal expert, Robert Delahunty (who contributed to some of the most outrageous War on Terror OLC opinions), presented no definition of insurrection that wouldn’t include January 6. Kash Patel presented no evidence to back his claim that Trump intended to call out 10,000 members of the National Guard. Trump presented no evidence that criminal conviction was required before disqualification. There was no evidence presented that Trump did not support the mob’s purpose.

Once Wallace dismissed Kash (and Katrina Pierson’s) claims that Trump intended to call the National Guard, all Trump had left was Brandenburg: a claim that his speech did not count as incitement, the same claim Trump has made in his efforts to defeat gags, the same claim Trump attempted to use to get Judge Chutkan to throw out any reference of the mob in his January 6 indictment.

Wallace used three things to show that Trump did intend to incite the mob.

First, she relied heavily on the testimony of Chapman University (!!!) professor Peter Simi, who described how Trump used the coded language of the far right to endorse violence. She mapped out what Trump added into his January 6 speech. And she talked about how Trump’s later statements — about Pence, and telling the mob he loved them — ratified their violence (an argument Amit Mehta also made), which Wallace used to distinguish Trump from Charles Evers.

As I have shown, Trump has tried to simply wish away the role of the mob in his indictment, a wish that Tanya Chutkan already rejected. Judge Wallace’s opinion makes it clear that’s all Trump has.

..

Here is the opening appellate brief for the Petitioners, who lost the case in the trial court:

https://www.citizensforethics.org/wp-co ... dacted.pdf

The argument is pretty straightforward. The Presidency is an "office under the United States," or we are living in crazytown.

A banana republic

And a corporation is a person. The logic is just.....breathtaking. Nice job, American lawyers.

She's saying that everyone except the leader of the free world needs to follow laws. Neat-0. What could possibly go wrong?

[Seacoaster(1)]

Sherrilyn Ifill, in the Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... t-radical/

"Why are U.S. courts so determined to dilute the 14th Amendment?

Consider the recent ruling upholding former president Donald Trump’s appearance on Colorado’s 2024 presidential ballot. Here we have the latest entry in a dismaying 155-year tradition of American judges stripping that radical amendment to the U.S. Constitution of its intended power.

Judge Sarah B. Wallace’s decision that Trump engaged in insurrection but is nevertheless qualified to run for office is emblematic of the often outright resistance courts have shown to the 14th Amendment’s guarantees and protections. This instance applies to Section 3, which bars any participant in a rebellion against the government of the United States from holding public office. But almost from its inception, all the amendment’s radical provisions have inspired fear and timidity in jurists of every stripe.

I use the word “radical” deliberately. The 14th Amendment was conceived of and pushed by the “Radical Republicans” in Congress after the Civil War. They were so named because of their commitment to eradicating slavery and its vestiges from American political life. A number had been abolitionists, and all had seen the threat that white supremacist ideology and the spirit of insurrection posed to the survival of the United States as a republic. Although the South had been soundly defeated on the battlefield, the belief among most Southerners that insurrection was a worthy and noble cause, and that Black people — even if no longer enslaved — were meant to be subjugated to the demands of Whites, was still firmly held.

The 14th Amendment was meant to protect Black people against that belief, and the nation against insurrection, which was understood to constitute an ongoing threat to the future of our country. Frederick Douglass, the formerly enslaved abolitionist who rose to become one of the most prominent voices of the Reconstruction period, had no illusions about the persistence of the “malignant spirit” of the “traitors.” He predicted that it would be passed “from sire to son.” It “will not die out in a year,” he foretold, “it will not die out in an age.”

It was of this understanding that Section 3 was born. Most lawyers never learn about Section 3 during law school or thereafter. The recent scholarly duels that have emerged over its meaning reflect its surprise introduction to many seasoned constitutional scholars. But there is little room for confusion in interpreting it.

The language is clear: “No person shall … hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who having previously taken an oath as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States … shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same.” William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen, widely respected conservative constitutional legal scholars, have combed through the legislative history to answer the question of whether the president is to be considered an “officer of the United States.” Their exhaustive research points inexorably toward the conclusion that Section 3 is meant to cover both the president and vice president as well as other federal and state officials. They note the “absurdity” of imagining that the Reconstruction Congress would include all other officers, yet exclude those two.

Wallace’s decision is of a piece with courts’ frequent unwillingness to contend honestly with all the radical demands of the 14th Amendment. During Reconstruction and the first half of the 20th century, it was the Supreme Court that left unprotected Southern Black people seeking to vote and engage in the political process in the face of deadly violence by White mobs seeking to disenfranchise them (United States v. Cruikshank, 1875). It was the Supreme Court that held that the 14th Amendment did not protect Black citizens from discriminatory conduct by private actors (Civil Rights Cases of 1883). And it was the Supreme Court that endorsed a system of Jim Crow segregation that essentially nullified the 14th Amendment for Black people in the South for nearly 100 years after its ratification (Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896). Later, the court created onerous burdens to prevailing in discrimination cases brought under the 14th Amendment.

In short, post-Reconstruction courts have rarely upheld or applied in full the ambitious demands of the 14th Amendment. Instead, its guarantees have been watered down to accommodate the political forces of the day or repurposed to serve powerful interests (such as the dubious determination that corporations are “persons” entitled to its protections), or treated like an a la carte menu, in which some items — such as the guarantee of privileges and immunities and all of Section 2 (which would reduce state representation as punishment for voter suppression) — are essentially ignored.

The 14th Amendment is treated as a suggestion, but rarely imposed in full measure when the status quo will be upended. This was perhaps most famously on display in 1955, in the case of Brown II, when the Supreme Court undercut its majestic decision of a year earlier in Brown v. Board of Education, by hedging on the immediate end to segregated schools and counseling instead that local officials should move with “all deliberate speed.”

The Colorado court’s approach to Section 3 continues this tradition. To find that a president incited a violent insurrection against the United States, but to hold that such a president can still run for public office — indeed to return to the presidency itself — could not stand in starker opposition to the words and spirit of Section 3.

The 14th Amendment has once again proven too bold for the judges empowered to interpret it. Political forces are at play again, this time fearful of a backlash if Trump is removed from the ballot. As this case makes its way through the appellate process and, most likely, to the Supreme Court, it should be understood in the context of how the timidity and unwillingness of judges to acquiesce to the judgment of the 14th Amendment’s framers effectively derailed our democracy’s promise after Reconstruction and until the mid-20th century. We must ensure that it does not do the same in the 21st."

[Seacoaster(1)]

From the comments to the article I just posted:

"Per the notes from the original drafting - They also moved to limit sharply the power of former Confederate elites by proposing that they be banned from voting or holding office.

"During the debate on Section Three, one Senator asked why ex-Confederates “may be elected President or Vice President of the United States, and why did you all omit to exclude them? I do not understand them to be excluded from the privilege of holding the two highest offices in the gift of the nation.” Another Senator replied that the lack of specific language on the Presidency and Vice Presidency was irrelevant: “Let me call the Senator’s attention to the words ‘or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States.’”

"Practically speaking, Congress did not intend (nor would the public have understood) that Jefferson Davis could not be a Representative or a Senator but could be President.

There is no doubt the 14th amendment bars insurrectionists from all offices and this is why the right wings is arguing now that the President is not an office.

To that I ask all to read Washington's farewell address:

"The acceptance of, and continuance hitherto in, the office to which your suffrages have twice called me have been a uniform sacrifice of inclination to the opinion of duty and to a deference for what appeared to be your desire."

G. Washington"

[MDlaxfan76]

Seems obvious doesn't it?

Of course, Joe and outta would probably call that a "narrow-minded" view...

[WaffleTwineFaceoff]

Judge Sarah B. Wallace’s decision that Trump engaged in insurrection but is nevertheless qualified to run for office is emblematic of the often outright resistance courts have shown to the 14th Amendment’s guarantees and protections. This instance applies to Section 3, which bars any participant in a rebellion against the government of the United States from holding public office.

Question for the lawyers and judges here: from a legal standpoint (vis-a-vis due process, jury of one's peers, innocent until proven guilty, accused but not convicted, etc.) is the judge's decision/opinion referenced above one that meets constitutional scrutiny? I don't have a WaPo subscription, so paywall blocks what I assume was an explanation of the Deuce of Orange's consequences/sentence once the judge found him guilty of insurrection? Will we be seeing Orange wearing Orange? Please enlighten. Thanks.

[Farfromgeneva]

Friend has a cabin in a rabun gap, beautiful area. Not where I’d be shopping for my lawyers however…


Rudy Giuliani, Hard Up for Cash, Lands a New Georgia Lawyer

Allyn Stockton says he will be paid and won’t make any plea deals for former Trump attorney and New York mayor

Mariah Timms

“I’ve been asked, have you had a high-profile case like this before? And, well, I don’t know that anybody has,” Stockton said in an interview.

Advertisement - Scroll to Continue

Giuliani, a former New York City mayor and lawyer for former President Donald Trump, was indicted in August alongside Trump and 17 other co-defendants in the Georgia racketeering case alleging a criminal scheme to subvert the 2020 presidential election.

Four of Giuliani’s co-defendants since have taken plea deals, agreeing to testify against others in the case in exchange for no-jail sentences. Giuliani has pleaded not guilty, as have the remaining 13 defendants, including Trump.


Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani was indicted alongside Donald Trump and 17 others in the Georgia case alleging a criminal scheme to subvert the 2020 election. Photo: LEAH MILLIS/REUTERS
Meanwhile, Giuliani’s ability to pay for legal representation has come into question. In early August one of his lawyers, Joseph Sibley, said in a court filing that his client was having “financial difficulties,” and in September Giuliani’s longtime lawyer Robert Costello sued him in New York, claiming roughly $1.36 million in unpaid legal fees.

On Sept. 18, Georgia lawyer David Wolfe informed the court he would no longer represent Giuliani. Wolfe didn’t respond to a request for comment.

A spokesman for Giuliani didn’t respond to a request for comment. In September Giuliani said he was “personally hurt” by Costello’s lawsuit, adding the bill was “way in excess to anything approaching legitimate fees.”

Advertisement - Scroll to Continue

Advertisement

Scroll to continue with content

Asked if he was being paid, Stockton, Giuliani’s new lawyer, said: “I am. We have an arrangement that I’m satisfied with, that they’re satisfied with.”

Stockton said he has no intention of taking a plea deal on behalf of his high-profile client.

“No offer has been sought, nor is one expected,” he said.

Stockton, 55 years old, has a country lawyer’s resume. In nearly 30 years as a trial lawyer in Georgia, he has represented death-row inmates and taken on cases ranging from DUI and traffic tickets to murder charges. A graduate of Atlanta’s John Marshall Law School, he has served as the county attorney for Rabun County, where he lives and works, for 23 years.

Advertisement - Scroll to Continue

Rabun County, population 16,883, lies where Georgia meets both Carolinas—nestled between national forests at the southern end of the Appalachian Mountains.

Three-quarters of registered voters in the county’s sole precinct cast ballots in the 2020 presidential election, and 78% of them voted for Trump. On Monday, a large Trump 2024 banner hung in Clayton, the county seat.

It was in the wooded mountains along the state line that a joint operation involving state and federal wildlife agencies ran “Operation Something Bruin” from 2009 to 2013 to break up an alleged illegal bear-hunting ring across western North Carolina and northern Georgia.


L. Allyn Stockton Jr. has worked for nearly three decades as a trial lawyer in Georgia. Photo: L. Allyn Stockton Jr.
It became a debacle. Overtime and operational costs stacked up, undercover officers killed several bears themselves, and dozens of trackers, hunt organizers and barely connected locals were arrested on state and federal charges.

Eventually, Mark Meadows, then a Republican House member for North Carolina, convened a congressional hearing into claims of entrapment and overreach. Meadows, who was Trump’s last White House chief of staff, has been charged alongside Giuliani and Trump in the Fulton County racketeering case and has also pleaded not guilty.

Stockton persuaded a jury to lower several clients’ felony charges to misdemeanor convictions that carried no prison time in the bear-hunting case. He testified before the North Carolina congressman in 2015 and submitted a lengthy written statement on their behalf, arguing the government overcharged the defendants and overstepped its authority in the yearslong sting.

Advertisement - Scroll to Continue

Today, Stockton only hesitatingly calls himself a Republican. He followed in his father’s footsteps to an appointment on the Rabun County school board this year, and he plans to run to keep the seat next year. He said he hopes to do right by the four generations of his family that have attended district schools so far.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

What defense do you expect Stockton will mount on behalf of Giuliani? Join the conversation below.

“If I identify politically, it would be as a Republican, but there have been occasions when I have voted for Democrats. It’s not infrequent,” he said.

Stockton said while he was still becoming acquainted with the case, he thought the racketeering charges against his client and others are on shaky ground.

“It’s not going to be a whodunit,” he said. “There’s recordings of what they’re accusing them of doing, it’s just going to be whether or not that constitutes a crime. Which, everything I’ve reviewed so far, I just don’t believe it does.”

Advertisement - Scroll to Continue

The trial will be a huge and cumbersome undertaking, Stockton said, as it could feature more than a dozen defense lawyers cross-examining every witness. That demanding schedule is what prompted Giuliani’s previous representation to step away, according to Stockton.

A trial date has yet to be set for Giuliani, Trump and the other remaining defendants; Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis last week asked the judge to set one for Aug. 5, 2024, and her office said the trial could last at least four months.

Stepping into a role that will draw scrutiny, Stockton said he intends to keep the government accountable.

“I kind of feel like when John Adams defended the British soldiers,” he said. “Everybody gets a defense, and the government is not always right.”

—Cameron McWhirter contributed to this article.

Write to Mariah Timms at [email protected]

Advertisement - Scroll to Continue

[PizzaSnake]

Friend has a cabin in a rabun gap, beautiful area. Not where I’d be shopping for my lawyers however…


Rudy Giuliani, Hard Up for Cash, Lands a New Georgia Lawyer

Allyn Stockton says he will be paid and won’t make any plea deals for former Trump attorney and New York mayor

Mariah Timms

“I’ve been asked, have you had a high-profile case like this before? And, well, I don’t know that anybody has,” Stockton said in an interview.

Advertisement - Scroll to Continue

Giuliani, a former New York City mayor and lawyer for former President Donald Trump, was indicted in August alongside Trump and 17 other co-defendants in the Georgia racketeering case alleging a criminal scheme to subvert the 2020 presidential election.

Four of Giuliani’s co-defendants since have taken plea deals, agreeing to testify against others in the case in exchange for no-jail sentences. Giuliani has pleaded not guilty, as have the remaining 13 defendants, including Trump.


Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani was indicted alongside Donald Trump and 17 others in the Georgia case alleging a criminal scheme to subvert the 2020 election. Photo: LEAH MILLIS/REUTERS
Meanwhile, Giuliani’s ability to pay for legal representation has come into question. In early August one of his lawyers, Joseph Sibley, said in a court filing that his client was having “financial difficulties,” and in September Giuliani’s longtime lawyer Robert Costello sued him in New York, claiming roughly $1.36 million in unpaid legal fees.

On Sept. 18, Georgia lawyer David Wolfe informed the court he would no longer represent Giuliani. Wolfe didn’t respond to a request for comment.

A spokesman for Giuliani didn’t respond to a request for comment. In September Giuliani said he was “personally hurt” by Costello’s lawsuit, adding the bill was “way in excess to anything approaching legitimate fees.”

Advertisement - Scroll to Continue

Advertisement

Scroll to continue with content

Asked if he was being paid, Stockton, Giuliani’s new lawyer, said: “I am. We have an arrangement that I’m satisfied with, that they’re satisfied with.”

Stockton said he has no intention of taking a plea deal on behalf of his high-profile client.

“No offer has been sought, nor is one expected,” he said.

Stockton, 55 years old, has a country lawyer’s resume. In nearly 30 years as a trial lawyer in Georgia, he has represented death-row inmates and taken on cases ranging from DUI and traffic tickets to murder charges. A graduate of Atlanta’s John Marshall Law School, he has served as the county attorney for Rabun County, where he lives and works, for 23 years.

Advertisement - Scroll to Continue

Rabun County, population 16,883, lies where Georgia meets both Carolinas—nestled between national forests at the southern end of the Appalachian Mountains.

Three-quarters of registered voters in the county’s sole precinct cast ballots in the 2020 presidential election, and 78% of them voted for Trump. On Monday, a large Trump 2024 banner hung in Clayton, the county seat.

It was in the wooded mountains along the state line that a joint operation involving state and federal wildlife agencies ran “Operation Something Bruin” from 2009 to 2013 to break up an alleged illegal bear-hunting ring across western North Carolina and northern Georgia.


L. Allyn Stockton Jr. has worked for nearly three decades as a trial lawyer in Georgia. Photo: L. Allyn Stockton Jr.
It became a debacle. Overtime and operational costs stacked up, undercover officers killed several bears themselves, and dozens of trackers, hunt organizers and barely connected locals were arrested on state and federal charges.

Eventually, Mark Meadows, then a Republican House member for North Carolina, convened a congressional hearing into claims of entrapment and overreach. Meadows, who was Trump’s last White House chief of staff, has been charged alongside Giuliani and Trump in the Fulton County racketeering case and has also pleaded not guilty.

Stockton persuaded a jury to lower several clients’ felony charges to misdemeanor convictions that carried no prison time in the bear-hunting case. He testified before the North Carolina congressman in 2015 and submitted a lengthy written statement on their behalf, arguing the government overcharged the defendants and overstepped its authority in the yearslong sting.

Advertisement - Scroll to Continue

Today, Stockton only hesitatingly calls himself a Republican. He followed in his father’s footsteps to an appointment on the Rabun County school board this year, and he plans to run to keep the seat next year. He said he hopes to do right by the four generations of his family that have attended district schools so far.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

What defense do you expect Stockton will mount on behalf of Giuliani? Join the conversation below.

“If I identify politically, it would be as a Republican, but there have been occasions when I have voted for Democrats. It’s not infrequent,” he said.

Stockton said while he was still becoming acquainted with the case, he thought the racketeering charges against his client and others are on shaky ground.

“It’s not going to be a whodunit,” he said. “There’s recordings of what they’re accusing them of doing, it’s just going to be whether or not that constitutes a crime. Which, everything I’ve reviewed so far, I just don’t believe it does.”

Advertisement - Scroll to Continue

The trial will be a huge and cumbersome undertaking, Stockton said, as it could feature more than a dozen defense lawyers cross-examining every witness. That demanding schedule is what prompted Giuliani’s previous representation to step away, according to Stockton.

A trial date has yet to be set for Giuliani, Trump and the other remaining defendants; Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis last week asked the judge to set one for Aug. 5, 2024, and her office said the trial could last at least four months.

Stepping into a role that will draw scrutiny, Stockton said he intends to keep the government accountable.

“I kind of feel like when John Adams defended the British soldiers,” he said. “Everybody gets a defense, and the government is not always right.”

—Cameron McWhirter contributed to this article.

Write to Mariah Timms at [email protected]

Advertisement - Scroll to Continue

Like an inverted “My Cousin Vinny.”

[Farfromgeneva]

Friend has a cabin in a rabun gap, beautiful area. Not where I’d be shopping for my lawyers however…


Rudy Giuliani, Hard Up for Cash, Lands a New Georgia Lawyer

Allyn Stockton says he will be paid and won’t make any plea deals for former Trump attorney and New York mayor

Mariah Timms

“I’ve been asked, have you had a high-profile case like this before? And, well, I don’t know that anybody has,” Stockton said in an interview.

Advertisement - Scroll to Continue

Giuliani, a former New York City mayor and lawyer for former President Donald Trump, was indicted in August alongside Trump and 17 other co-defendants in the Georgia racketeering case alleging a criminal scheme to subvert the 2020 presidential election.

Four of Giuliani’s co-defendants since have taken plea deals, agreeing to testify against others in the case in exchange for no-jail sentences. Giuliani has pleaded not guilty, as have the remaining 13 defendants, including Trump.


Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani was indicted alongside Donald Trump and 17 others in the Georgia case alleging a criminal scheme to subvert the 2020 election. Photo: LEAH MILLIS/REUTERS
Meanwhile, Giuliani’s ability to pay for legal representation has come into question. In early August one of his lawyers, Joseph Sibley, said in a court filing that his client was having “financial difficulties,” and in September Giuliani’s longtime lawyer Robert Costello sued him in New York, claiming roughly $1.36 million in unpaid legal fees.

On Sept. 18, Georgia lawyer David Wolfe informed the court he would no longer represent Giuliani. Wolfe didn’t respond to a request for comment.

A spokesman for Giuliani didn’t respond to a request for comment. In September Giuliani said he was “personally hurt” by Costello’s lawsuit, adding the bill was “way in excess to anything approaching legitimate fees.”

Advertisement - Scroll to Continue

Advertisement

Scroll to continue with content

Asked if he was being paid, Stockton, Giuliani’s new lawyer, said: “I am. We have an arrangement that I’m satisfied with, that they’re satisfied with.”

Stockton said he has no intention of taking a plea deal on behalf of his high-profile client.

“No offer has been sought, nor is one expected,” he said.

Stockton, 55 years old, has a country lawyer’s resume. In nearly 30 years as a trial lawyer in Georgia, he has represented death-row inmates and taken on cases ranging from DUI and traffic tickets to murder charges. A graduate of Atlanta’s John Marshall Law School, he has served as the county attorney for Rabun County, where he lives and works, for 23 years.

Advertisement - Scroll to Continue

Rabun County, population 16,883, lies where Georgia meets both Carolinas—nestled between national forests at the southern end of the Appalachian Mountains.

Three-quarters of registered voters in the county’s sole precinct cast ballots in the 2020 presidential election, and 78% of them voted for Trump. On Monday, a large Trump 2024 banner hung in Clayton, the county seat.

It was in the wooded mountains along the state line that a joint operation involving state and federal wildlife agencies ran “Operation Something Bruin” from 2009 to 2013 to break up an alleged illegal bear-hunting ring across western North Carolina and northern Georgia.


L. Allyn Stockton Jr. has worked for nearly three decades as a trial lawyer in Georgia. Photo: L. Allyn Stockton Jr.
It became a debacle. Overtime and operational costs stacked up, undercover officers killed several bears themselves, and dozens of trackers, hunt organizers and barely connected locals were arrested on state and federal charges.

Eventually, Mark Meadows, then a Republican House member for North Carolina, convened a congressional hearing into claims of entrapment and overreach. Meadows, who was Trump’s last White House chief of staff, has been charged alongside Giuliani and Trump in the Fulton County racketeering case and has also pleaded not guilty.

Stockton persuaded a jury to lower several clients’ felony charges to misdemeanor convictions that carried no prison time in the bear-hunting case. He testified before the North Carolina congressman in 2015 and submitted a lengthy written statement on their behalf, arguing the government overcharged the defendants and overstepped its authority in the yearslong sting.

Advertisement - Scroll to Continue

Today, Stockton only hesitatingly calls himself a Republican. He followed in his father’s footsteps to an appointment on the Rabun County school board this year, and he plans to run to keep the seat next year. He said he hopes to do right by the four generations of his family that have attended district schools so far.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

What defense do you expect Stockton will mount on behalf of Giuliani? Join the conversation below.

“If I identify politically, it would be as a Republican, but there have been occasions when I have voted for Democrats. It’s not infrequent,” he said.

Stockton said while he was still becoming acquainted with the case, he thought the racketeering charges against his client and others are on shaky ground.

“It’s not going to be a whodunit,” he said. “There’s recordings of what they’re accusing them of doing, it’s just going to be whether or not that constitutes a crime. Which, everything I’ve reviewed so far, I just don’t believe it does.”

Advertisement - Scroll to Continue

The trial will be a huge and cumbersome undertaking, Stockton said, as it could feature more than a dozen defense lawyers cross-examining every witness. That demanding schedule is what prompted Giuliani’s previous representation to step away, according to Stockton.

A trial date has yet to be set for Giuliani, Trump and the other remaining defendants; Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis last week asked the judge to set one for Aug. 5, 2024, and her office said the trial could last at least four months.

Stepping into a role that will draw scrutiny, Stockton said he intends to keep the government accountable.

“I kind of feel like when John Adams defended the British soldiers,” he said. “Everybody gets a defense, and the government is not always right.”

—Cameron McWhirter contributed to this article.

Write to Mariah Timms at [email protected]

Advertisement - Scroll to Continue

Like an inverted “My Cousin Vinny.”

Yeah except I like Joe Pesci. And Marisa? Well let’s just say “restraining orderrrrr”.

[PizzaSnake]

Friend has a cabin in a rabun gap, beautiful area. Not where I’d be shopping for my lawyers however…


Rudy Giuliani, Hard Up for Cash, Lands a New Georgia Lawyer

Allyn Stockton says he will be paid and won’t make any plea deals for former Trump attorney and New York mayor

Mariah Timms

“I’ve been asked, have you had a high-profile case like this before? And, well, I don’t know that anybody has,” Stockton said in an interview.

Advertisement - Scroll to Continue

Giuliani, a former New York City mayor and lawyer for former President Donald Trump, was indicted in August alongside Trump and 17 other co-defendants in the Georgia racketeering case alleging a criminal scheme to subvert the 2020 presidential election.

Four of Giuliani’s co-defendants since have taken plea deals, agreeing to testify against others in the case in exchange for no-jail sentences. Giuliani has pleaded not guilty, as have the remaining 13 defendants, including Trump.


Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani was indicted alongside Donald Trump and 17 others in the Georgia case alleging a criminal scheme to subvert the 2020 election. Photo: LEAH MILLIS/REUTERS
Meanwhile, Giuliani’s ability to pay for legal representation has come into question. In early August one of his lawyers, Joseph Sibley, said in a court filing that his client was having “financial difficulties,” and in September Giuliani’s longtime lawyer Robert Costello sued him in New York, claiming roughly $1.36 million in unpaid legal fees.

On Sept. 18, Georgia lawyer David Wolfe informed the court he would no longer represent Giuliani. Wolfe didn’t respond to a request for comment.

A spokesman for Giuliani didn’t respond to a request for comment. In September Giuliani said he was “personally hurt” by Costello’s lawsuit, adding the bill was “way in excess to anything approaching legitimate fees.”

Advertisement - Scroll to Continue

Advertisement

Scroll to continue with content

Asked if he was being paid, Stockton, Giuliani’s new lawyer, said: “I am. We have an arrangement that I’m satisfied with, that they’re satisfied with.”

Stockton said he has no intention of taking a plea deal on behalf of his high-profile client.

“No offer has been sought, nor is one expected,” he said.

Stockton, 55 years old, has a country lawyer’s resume. In nearly 30 years as a trial lawyer in Georgia, he has represented death-row inmates and taken on cases ranging from DUI and traffic tickets to murder charges. A graduate of Atlanta’s John Marshall Law School, he has served as the county attorney for Rabun County, where he lives and works, for 23 years.

Advertisement - Scroll to Continue

Rabun County, population 16,883, lies where Georgia meets both Carolinas—nestled between national forests at the southern end of the Appalachian Mountains.

Three-quarters of registered voters in the county’s sole precinct cast ballots in the 2020 presidential election, and 78% of them voted for Trump. On Monday, a large Trump 2024 banner hung in Clayton, the county seat.

It was in the wooded mountains along the state line that a joint operation involving state and federal wildlife agencies ran “Operation Something Bruin” from 2009 to 2013 to break up an alleged illegal bear-hunting ring across western North Carolina and northern Georgia.


L. Allyn Stockton Jr. has worked for nearly three decades as a trial lawyer in Georgia. Photo: L. Allyn Stockton Jr.
It became a debacle. Overtime and operational costs stacked up, undercover officers killed several bears themselves, and dozens of trackers, hunt organizers and barely connected locals were arrested on state and federal charges.

Eventually, Mark Meadows, then a Republican House member for North Carolina, convened a congressional hearing into claims of entrapment and overreach. Meadows, who was Trump’s last White House chief of staff, has been charged alongside Giuliani and Trump in the Fulton County racketeering case and has also pleaded not guilty.

Stockton persuaded a jury to lower several clients’ felony charges to misdemeanor convictions that carried no prison time in the bear-hunting case. He testified before the North Carolina congressman in 2015 and submitted a lengthy written statement on their behalf, arguing the government overcharged the defendants and overstepped its authority in the yearslong sting.

Advertisement - Scroll to Continue

Today, Stockton only hesitatingly calls himself a Republican. He followed in his father’s footsteps to an appointment on the Rabun County school board this year, and he plans to run to keep the seat next year. He said he hopes to do right by the four generations of his family that have attended district schools so far.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

What defense do you expect Stockton will mount on behalf of Giuliani? Join the conversation below.

“If I identify politically, it would be as a Republican, but there have been occasions when I have voted for Democrats. It’s not infrequent,” he said.

Stockton said while he was still becoming acquainted with the case, he thought the racketeering charges against his client and others are on shaky ground.

“It’s not going to be a whodunit,” he said. “There’s recordings of what they’re accusing them of doing, it’s just going to be whether or not that constitutes a crime. Which, everything I’ve reviewed so far, I just don’t believe it does.”

Advertisement - Scroll to Continue

The trial will be a huge and cumbersome undertaking, Stockton said, as it could feature more than a dozen defense lawyers cross-examining every witness. That demanding schedule is what prompted Giuliani’s previous representation to step away, according to Stockton.

A trial date has yet to be set for Giuliani, Trump and the other remaining defendants; Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis last week asked the judge to set one for Aug. 5, 2024, and her office said the trial could last at least four months.

Stepping into a role that will draw scrutiny, Stockton said he intends to keep the government accountable.

“I kind of feel like when John Adams defended the British soldiers,” he said. “Everybody gets a defense, and the government is not always right.”

—Cameron McWhirter contributed to this article.

Write to Mariah Timms at [email protected]

Advertisement - Scroll to Continue

Like an inverted “My Cousin Vinny.”

Yeah except I like Joe Pesci. And Marisa? Well let’s just say “restraining orderrrrr”.

“You blend.”

[Farfromgeneva]

Friend has a cabin in a rabun gap, beautiful area. Not where I’d be shopping for my lawyers however…


Rudy Giuliani, Hard Up for Cash, Lands a New Georgia Lawyer

Allyn Stockton says he will be paid and won’t make any plea deals for former Trump attorney and New York mayor

Mariah Timms

“I’ve been asked, have you had a high-profile case like this before? And, well, I don’t know that anybody has,” Stockton said in an interview.

Advertisement - Scroll to Continue

Giuliani, a former New York City mayor and lawyer for former President Donald Trump, was indicted in August alongside Trump and 17 other co-defendants in the Georgia racketeering case alleging a criminal scheme to subvert the 2020 presidential election.

Four of Giuliani’s co-defendants since have taken plea deals, agreeing to testify against others in the case in exchange for no-jail sentences. Giuliani has pleaded not guilty, as have the remaining 13 defendants, including Trump.


Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani was indicted alongside Donald Trump and 17 others in the Georgia case alleging a criminal scheme to subvert the 2020 election. Photo: LEAH MILLIS/REUTERS
Meanwhile, Giuliani’s ability to pay for legal representation has come into question. In early August one of his lawyers, Joseph Sibley, said in a court filing that his client was having “financial difficulties,” and in September Giuliani’s longtime lawyer Robert Costello sued him in New York, claiming roughly $1.36 million in unpaid legal fees.

On Sept. 18, Georgia lawyer David Wolfe informed the court he would no longer represent Giuliani. Wolfe didn’t respond to a request for comment.

A spokesman for Giuliani didn’t respond to a request for comment. In September Giuliani said he was “personally hurt” by Costello’s lawsuit, adding the bill was “way in excess to anything approaching legitimate fees.”

Advertisement - Scroll to Continue

Advertisement

Scroll to continue with content

Asked if he was being paid, Stockton, Giuliani’s new lawyer, said: “I am. We have an arrangement that I’m satisfied with, that they’re satisfied with.”

Stockton said he has no intention of taking a plea deal on behalf of his high-profile client.

“No offer has been sought, nor is one expected,” he said.

Stockton, 55 years old, has a country lawyer’s resume. In nearly 30 years as a trial lawyer in Georgia, he has represented death-row inmates and taken on cases ranging from DUI and traffic tickets to murder charges. A graduate of Atlanta’s John Marshall Law School, he has served as the county attorney for Rabun County, where he lives and works, for 23 years.

Advertisement - Scroll to Continue

Rabun County, population 16,883, lies where Georgia meets both Carolinas—nestled between national forests at the southern end of the Appalachian Mountains.

Three-quarters of registered voters in the county’s sole precinct cast ballots in the 2020 presidential election, and 78% of them voted for Trump. On Monday, a large Trump 2024 banner hung in Clayton, the county seat.

It was in the wooded mountains along the state line that a joint operation involving state and federal wildlife agencies ran “Operation Something Bruin” from 2009 to 2013 to break up an alleged illegal bear-hunting ring across western North Carolina and northern Georgia.


L. Allyn Stockton Jr. has worked for nearly three decades as a trial lawyer in Georgia. Photo: L. Allyn Stockton Jr.
It became a debacle. Overtime and operational costs stacked up, undercover officers killed several bears themselves, and dozens of trackers, hunt organizers and barely connected locals were arrested on state and federal charges.

Eventually, Mark Meadows, then a Republican House member for North Carolina, convened a congressional hearing into claims of entrapment and overreach. Meadows, who was Trump’s last White House chief of staff, has been charged alongside Giuliani and Trump in the Fulton County racketeering case and has also pleaded not guilty.

Stockton persuaded a jury to lower several clients’ felony charges to misdemeanor convictions that carried no prison time in the bear-hunting case. He testified before the North Carolina congressman in 2015 and submitted a lengthy written statement on their behalf, arguing the government overcharged the defendants and overstepped its authority in the yearslong sting.

Advertisement - Scroll to Continue

Today, Stockton only hesitatingly calls himself a Republican. He followed in his father’s footsteps to an appointment on the Rabun County school board this year, and he plans to run to keep the seat next year. He said he hopes to do right by the four generations of his family that have attended district schools so far.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

What defense do you expect Stockton will mount on behalf of Giuliani? Join the conversation below.

“If I identify politically, it would be as a Republican, but there have been occasions when I have voted for Democrats. It’s not infrequent,” he said.

Stockton said while he was still becoming acquainted with the case, he thought the racketeering charges against his client and others are on shaky ground.

“It’s not going to be a whodunit,” he said. “There’s recordings of what they’re accusing them of doing, it’s just going to be whether or not that constitutes a crime. Which, everything I’ve reviewed so far, I just don’t believe it does.”

Advertisement - Scroll to Continue

The trial will be a huge and cumbersome undertaking, Stockton said, as it could feature more than a dozen defense lawyers cross-examining every witness. That demanding schedule is what prompted Giuliani’s previous representation to step away, according to Stockton.

A trial date has yet to be set for Giuliani, Trump and the other remaining defendants; Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis last week asked the judge to set one for Aug. 5, 2024, and her office said the trial could last at least four months.

Stepping into a role that will draw scrutiny, Stockton said he intends to keep the government accountable.

“I kind of feel like when John Adams defended the British soldiers,” he said. “Everybody gets a defense, and the government is not always right.”

—Cameron McWhirter contributed to this article.

Write to Mariah Timms at [email protected]

Advertisement - Scroll to Continue

Like an inverted “My Cousin Vinny.”

Yeah except I like Joe Pesci. And Marisa? Well let’s just say “restraining orderrrrr”.

“You blend.”

I’m more of a Hunter the Hungry type but have spent plenty of time suited and booted in tiny rural towns for business.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vnGhwRqoHgs