If he goes this route, he must take the stand to make his case. He can’t use proxies who make claims about him, because to claim it was the lawyer’s fault, he can’t use hearsay testimony.
That’ll open him up to cross examination by the feds on the stand and under oath. Can anyone who isn’t a MAGAt cultist think that would go well? He’ll be crushed and end up exposing just how weak and mentally limited he is. Add in the threat of purgury and it would make for an epic collapse.
The “I didn’t know because I was relying on my lawyers” defence is based in your own beliefs. If you don’t take the stand and testify under oath, then how do you make a strong case for your own beliefs? He’ll have to testify to be able to convince the jury.
They likely won’t go down this route in the end. At the moment they’re doing all this weird strategy selection by crowd sourcing. It’s a strange muddied online and via TV news discussion about how to do the defence. Then the echo chamber latches onto some ideas and the lawyers actually seem to take it seriously. That’s how they got the special master in the Judge Cannon case: Fox news pundits started demanding it so Trump’s lawyers went with it and since Judge Cannon is a right wing shill, she did too. It totally backfired since the special master was actually good at his job, but it all came together from this strange reality<=>social media feedback look the right has going on.
There was an article yesterday I read that talked about another implication of this defense: it opens up communications between Trump and his lawyers to discovery, I.E. it waives lawyer/client privilege. If he’s gonna go with “it was the lawyer’s idea!” he’d better hope he never sent any e-mails to the contrary.