Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Finally!

Daylight between Trump and the RNC, and the most important kind: separate finances.

That won’t last.
They will cave as long as Trump can hold the base.

We’ll see. This could be a sign they Trump could have significant criminal culpability here and they don’t want to risk entangling themselves with it and bring more scrutiny on their own involvement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Finally!

Daylight between Trump and the RNC, and the most important kind: separate finances.

That won’t last.
They will cave as long as Trump can hold the base.

Maybe he can’t hold the base without their help.

When has that ever been the case?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Finally!

Daylight between Trump and the RNC, and the most important kind: separate finances.

That won’t last.
They will cave as long as Trump can hold the base.

Maybe he can’t hold the base without their help.

Anonymous wrote:

Finally!

Daylight between Trump and the RNC, and the most important kind: separate finances.

That won’t last.
They will cave as long as Trump can hold the base.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's hard to imagine anyone taking Trump at face value about anything he says, I think is the issue. So he tells the lawyers that there's no more documents - except he's a notorious liar. So if they say "my client says there are no more documents," that seems a safe thing to say - but if they haven't verified there are no documents, then it seems like them saying "there are no documents" is willful blindness at best, and is them trying to cover up a lie, more realistically.

I think.

Attorneys have an ethical obligation to verify those kinds of statements before making them, especially if the client is known to lie. Courts tend to have very tolerance for attorneys hiding behind “I was just reporting what my client told me” when there are clear indications that the client is not to be trusted.

DP. And either way it puts them in the hot seat—they have to testify that their client made certai. Representations that were false (thus implicating them in a crime) or that they themselves did (implicating themselves).

Couldn’t pay me to represent a client like him—which makes me wonder how he’s gotten anyone to do it. Blackmail?

Anonymous wrote:It's hard to imagine anyone taking Trump at face value about anything he says, I think is the issue. So he tells the lawyers that there's no more documents - except he's a notorious liar. So if they say "my client says there are no more documents," that seems a safe thing to say - but if they haven't verified there are no documents, then it seems like them saying "there are no documents" is willful blindness at best, and is them trying to cover up a lie, more realistically.

I think.

Attorneys have an ethical obligation to verify those kinds of statements before making them, especially if the client is known to lie. Courts tend to have very tolerance for attorneys hiding behind “I was just reporting what my client told me” when there are clear indications that the client is not to be trusted.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s crimes all the way down!

Shouldn’t his lawyers ask to be excused at this point? Don’t they have conflicts now because it appears they also engaged in obstruction? Is there anyone around him who doesn’t have criminal exposure at this point??

Wow is all I can say.

I think DOJ had an obligation before filing that brief last night to inform Trump's lawyers that they're in legal jeopardy or at the very least, material witnesses. That's why the new guy - who appears to be a good lawyer - was announced yesterday.

Ah. Got it. The new guy may decide he doesn’t want this case now. Yikes.

Also the RNC isn’t paying, so who knows if Trump will pay him.

Will he have to get a court appointed lawyer if no one will take the case? I can’t imagine wanting to take the case given he’s shown himself willing to lie to his lawyers and potentially land them in jail.

The guy coming on is a former Solicitor General of Florida, so presumably he’s above the normal clown show.

DP. It sounds like it was quite the negotiation to get him on board, and I have to think it includes advance payment of legal fees. Especially since Kise had to leave Foley & Lardner to take on the representation (and good on Foley for having none of this nonsense).

It's hard to imagine anyone taking Trump at face value about anything he says, I think is the issue. So he tells the lawyers that there's no more documents - except he's a notorious liar. So if they say "my client says there are no more documents," that seems a safe thing to say - but if they haven't verified there are no documents, then it seems like them saying "there are no documents" is willful blindness at best, and is them trying to cover up a lie, more realistically.

I think.

Related note, yesterday Merrick Garland announced a new policy prohibiting all DOJ political appointees from attending any campaign events in any capacity. The policy used to be that political appointees could attend fundraisers and other campaign events as long as they only participated passively and got prior approval, but now it’s a total ban on participating in any public or non-public partisan events in any capacity. This even includes campaign events for close family members, and ends the exception for attending campaign events on Election Day nights.

This is a really good move by Garland to avoid giving the appearance of political influence on DOJ.

Anonymous wrote:How are lawyers at fault if the client is lying to them?
- question from music major

From the DOJ filing - they threw in this little nugget about the June document retrieval at MAL, which seems to indicate they think at least one lawyer was in on it.

After producing the Redweld, counsel for the former President represented that all the records that had come from the White House were stored in one location—a storage room at
the Premises (hereinafter, the “Storage Room”), and the boxes of records in the Storage Room were “the remaining repository” of records from the White House. Counsel further represented that there were no other records stored in any private office space or other location at the Premises and that all available boxes were searched. As the former President’s filing
indicates, the FBI agents and DOJ attorney were permitted to visit the storage room. See D.E. 1 at 5-6. Critically, however, the former President’s counsel explicitly prohibited government personnel from opening or looking inside any of the boxes that remained in the storage room, giving no opportunity for the government to confirm that no documents with classification markings remained.

Anonymous wrote:How are lawyers at fault if the client is lying to them?
- question from music major

So in this case—if Trump snuck down and took some documents and put them in his desk before letting his lawyers search the boxes…. It looks really bad for them, when they certify that there was no classified documents left on the premises. Or if he put some BACK in the boxes after they searched them. Remember, the lawyers also didn’t let investigators look in the boxes. Makes them look reallllllly guilty.

But they could have also just lied without being made to look like liars. Either way, now they’re under federal investigation.

How are lawyers at fault if the client is lying to them?
- question from music major

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s crimes all the way down!

Shouldn’t his lawyers ask to be excused at this point? Don’t they have conflicts now because it appears they also engaged in obstruction? Is there anyone around him who doesn’t have criminal exposure at this point??

Wow is all I can say.

I think DOJ had an obligation before filing that brief last night to inform Trump's lawyers that they're in legal jeopardy or at the very least, material witnesses. That's why the new guy - who appears to be a good lawyer - was announced yesterday.

Ah. Got it. The new guy may decide he doesn’t want this case now. Yikes.

Also the RNC isn’t paying, so who knows if Trump will pay him.

Will he have to get a court appointed lawyer if no one will take the case? I can’t imagine wanting to take the case given he’s shown himself willing to lie to his lawyers and potentially land them in jail.

The guy coming on is a former Solicitor General of Florida, so presumably he’s above the normal clown show.

He lies to everyone. I can't imagine any lawyer taking him on thought otherwise. They just believed they were immune. Maybe not so much anymore.

Finally!

Daylight between Trump and the RNC, and the most important kind: separate finances.