Every defendant deserves a fair trial and competent legal counsel. However, not every legal counsel gets a competent defendant to take to trial.

Sadow and Drew Findling clearly have their work cut out for them.

The answer lies in the Supreme Court's doctrine of willful blindness. A dozen years ago, in the case of Global-Tech Appliances v. SEB, Justice Samuel Alito, writing for all but one justice, ruled that proof of willful blindness is the legal equivalent of proving guilty knowledge.

As Justice Alito explained it, "Many criminal statutes require proof that a defendant acted knowingly or willfully, and courts applying the doctrine of willful blindness hold that defendants cannot escape the reach of these statutes by deliberately shielding themselves from clear evidence of critical facts that are strongly suggested by the circumstances."

In other words, when a defendant, like Mr. Trump, is on notice of the potential likelihood of an inconvenient fact (Mr. Biden's legitimate victory) and closes his eyes to overwhelming evidence of that fact, the willfully blind defendant is just as guilty as if he actually knew the fact. While this argument is not a slam dunk, there's an excellent chance that 12 jurors will find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Mr. Trump hid from the truth by adopting willful blindness.

If I were Drew, I would take a chunk of the money Trump paid him

Attorney John Eastman, an architect of Donald Trump's last-ditch bid to subvert the 2020 election, may not postpone his ongoing disbarment hearings just because he's been indicted in Georgia, a California judge ruled Friday.