Flynn Flipped: Prepared to testify that he was ordered contact Russian Govt
326 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Paramud;52945513]Something just occurred to me. If Trump sticks to his story that his lawyer wrote the tweet, and the lawyer doesn't deny it, wouldn't that make the tweet inadmissible as evidence regardless of how accurate the information is, as it's a breach of attorney-client privilege?[/QUOTE]
that's probably The Plan™, but surely it would ruin Dowd's career if he copped to implicating his own client in such a way? and that's assuming Dowd doesn't then get caught in the investigation anyway. if Trump forces it on him then he might just flip.
[QUOTE=Paramud;52945513]Something just occurred to me. If Trump sticks to his story that his lawyer wrote the tweet, and the lawyer doesn't deny it, wouldn't that make the tweet inadmissible as evidence regardless of how accurate the information is, as it's a breach of attorney-client privilege?[/QUOTE]
I'm no lawyer, so I could be wrong here, but attorneys can be compelled under court order to testify against their clients and/or release incriminating documentation against their clients under specific circumstances -- as seen with the lawyer for Manafort and Gates. From what I understand, this can only occur if the lawyer was witness to the crime being prosecuted, and/or was involved in the crime in some fashion.
[QUOTE=Paramud;52945513]Something just occurred to me. If Trump sticks to his story that his lawyer wrote the tweet, and the lawyer doesn't deny it, wouldn't that make the tweet inadmissible as evidence regardless of how accurate the information is, as it's a breach of attorney-client privilege?[/QUOTE]
That is not how client-attorney privilege works.
Client-attorney privilege protects [I]private[/I] communications [I]between[/I] the client and their legal counsel. Tweets are public communication, and this was (supposedly) an attorney speaking on behalf of their client, so there is no way it counts as privileged communication.
The purpose of client-attorney privilege is to allow a defendant to tell their attorney what happened without fear of it being used against them. So it protects that sort of conversation from being bugged or spied on by the prosecution, and requires the attorney to keep that information confidential - you can be disbarred if you go blabbering about what your client told you.
Also lying to your attorney is the fastest way to have them sink your case once they get blindsided by the truth.
[QUOTE=TheFilmSlacker;52944701]I just wanna hear his lawyer deny that he wrote it[/QUOTE]
Oh, he doesn't deny it. But what he claims is [U]even more ridiculous[/U] than him denying that he wrote it directly after stating that he wrote it.
[quote=Axios]John Dowd, President Trump's outside lawyer, outlined to me a new and highly controversial defense/theory in the Russia probe: [B]A president cannot be guilty of obstruction of justice[/B].
The "President cannot obstruct justice because he is the chief law enforcement officer under [the Constitution's Article II] and has every right to express his view of any case," Dowd claims.
Dowd says he drafted this weekend's Trump tweet that many thought strengthened the case for obstruction: The tweet suggested Trump knew Flynn had lied to the FBI when he was fired, raising new questions about the later firing of FBI Director James Comey.
Dowd: "The tweet did not admit obstruction. That is an ignorant and arrogant assertion."[/quote]
([url=https://www.axios.com/exclusive-trump-lawyer-claims-the-president-cannot-obstruct-justice-2514742663.html]Source[/url])
In other words:
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiHN3IJ_j8A[/media]
Here's what people thought of what Nixon said right there after that interview aired:
[quote]A Gallup poll conducted after the interviews aired showed that 69 percent of the public thought that Nixon was still trying to cover up, 72 percent still thought he was guilty of obstruction of justice, and 75 percent thought he deserved no further role in public life.[/quote]
So surely it's a [B]winning[/B] defense by a very competent lawyer, most certainly.
[QUOTE=Fort83;52946266]I'm surprised she would say such a thing about Trump.[/QUOTE]
"But it's not a criminal investigation. It's a security review being headed by a rogue prosecutor and a corrupt FBI!"
[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52946291]"But it's not a criminal investigation. It's a security review being headed by a rogue prosecutor and a corrupt FBI!"[/QUOTE]
"It's a counter-intelligence probe!"
Pardon the cross-post, but this is relevant here, too.
[media]https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/937502428722880512[/media]
[media]https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/937701481331023873[/media]
[media]https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/937742305590693888[/media]
[media]https://twitter.com/AggressiveDem/status/937743996629086209[/media]
[media]https://twitter.com/AggressiveDem/status/937746141088595968[/media]
it really makes you think :thinking:
[media]https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/937504551762001920[/media]
:bullshit:
Wow that contempt of Congress shit combined with Trump's tweets really seem like the start of a big authoritarian move to shut down the whole investigation
[QUOTE=Fort83;52946266]I'm surprised she would say such a thing about Trump.[/QUOTE]
Look at the date.
Trump attempting to sweep out the FBI leadership to kill this investigation, with the support of his GOP cronies, would be nothing less than a coup by a tyrant, and the only appropriate response would be open nationwide revolt. As a nation, we cannot abide such an assault on the checks and balances put in place to prevent just this scenario from occurring.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52946491]Trump attempting to sweep out the FBI leadership to kill this investigation, with the support of his GOP cronies, would be nothing less than a coup by a tyrant, and the only appropriate response would be open nationwide revolt. As a nation, we cannot abide such an assault on the checks and balances put in place to prevent just this scenario from occurring.[/QUOTE]
It really wouldn't surprise me if they try to cancel the 2020 election.
