and they include arguments against indictment. they include attempts to poke holes in whatever prosecutorial theory they are advancing, they are their own critics as they present the case. that s right. that is actually something that i have always found my students, throughout the time i was teaching law, the best way to make an argument is to put yourself in the head of your opponent and make the best argument you can against your position. that is the only way you can really, thoroughly understand where a judge might be coming from, where a juror might be coming from. you don t want to be simply an advocate cutting corners, making the strongest argument, wearing blinders. that is what a good prosecution memo does. it explores all of the arguments pro and con, and that
i have always taught my students, throughout the time i was teaching law, the best way to make an argument is to put yourself in the head of your opponent and make the best argument you can against your position. that is the only way you can really, thoroughly understand where a judge might be coming from, where a juror might be coming from. you don t want to be simply an advocate cutting corners, making the strongest argument, wearing blinders. that is what a good prosecution memo does. it explores all of the arguments pro and con, and that is one reason why, in this case, almost 300 pages long. is there a strategic point for jack smith to consider to indict donald trump alone with no codefendants, because codefendants, on their own, can create their own delays in legal process?