Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
CALL: You’ll find out soon.
-----------------------------------------------------------RESPONSE: What does that mean?
Would you articulate for the forum just exactly what you are suggesting with that allegation?
I believe this is more about obstruction of justice then handling of classified materials.Waste of taxpayers dollars. With all we have learned the last few months on how politicians routinely mishandle classified information, nothing is going to be done here.
If a client uses his lawyers to commit crimes for them, then the lawyers can be forced to testify.Can you imagine if the Republicans ever separated Hillary or the Biden Crime Families from their attorneys?
Derp points for not reading the OP...In other words they have nothing, so they are trying to force the lawyer to testify against his own client, which is illegal in this country.
How do you know the president didn't declassify the ones you can't prove were stolen by Biden?1. Trump had the authority to declassify the documents he took. So Trump may not have taken classified documents.
2. Biden had NO such authority. He clearly stole classified documents. Did he sell them for profit?
The special counsel apparently seeks to invade the attorney client privilege by claiming that the (otherwise) privileged communication falls outside of the attorney client privilege since it involves criminality in and of itself.The special counsel investigating Donald Trump’s handling of classified documents is seeking to compel a lawyer for the former president to testify before a grand jury, a source familiar with the matter said. Prosecutors allege in a sealed filing that they have evidence that some of Trump’s conversations with the attorney were in furtherance of a crime, the source said.
In a sign of an aggressive new legal strategy, first reported by The New York Times, the source said special counsel Jack Smith has asked a judge to allow prosecutors to invoke what’s known as the crime-fraud exception, which would let them sidestep protections afforded to Trump lawyer Evan Corcoran through attorney-client privilege. The source did not say what questions the government is trying to force Corcoran to answer.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/ju...mp-lawyer-prosecutors-allege-eviden-rcna70711
For those unfamiliar with the term "crime fraud exception" it's exactly what the name implies. Attorney client privilege is waved if the advice the client is getting is in service of a crime. It doesn't take much to connect the dots here. Corcoran is the lawyer who wrote the letter claiming there were no more classified docs in Trump's possession. Ooops.
If Corcoran wrote the letter at Don's direction or with his knowledge that is obstruction of justice. Something Don is well practiced at according to Mueller's report.
Obstruction of Justice in the Mueller Report: A Heat Map
The Mueller report describes numerous instances in which President Trump may have obstructed justice. A few days ago, I threw together a quick spreadsheet on Twitter to assess how Special Counsel Robert Mueller seemed to assess the evidence.www.lawfareblog.com
Noper. I don't.
Don't be girlishly coy.
Spit it out if you actually know what you, yourself, means.
This is Adult Swim, poster Patriot.
Remove your water-wings and jump into the deep end.
The water is fine.
If a client uses his lawyers to commit crimes for them, then the lawyers can be forced to testify.
Attorney client privilege has limits. It cannot be used as a shield to conceal crimes.
This belongs in Conspiracy theories.The special counsel investigating Donald Trump’s handling of classified documents is seeking to compel a lawyer for the former president to testify before a grand jury, a source familiar with the matter said. Prosecutors allege in a sealed filing that they have evidence that some of Trump’s conversations with the attorney were in furtherance of a crime, the source said.
In a sign of an aggressive new legal strategy, first reported by The New York Times, the source said special counsel Jack Smith has asked a judge to allow prosecutors to invoke what’s known as the crime-fraud exception, which would let them sidestep protections afforded to Trump lawyer Evan Corcoran through attorney-client privilege. The source did not say what questions the government is trying to force Corcoran to answer.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/ju...mp-lawyer-prosecutors-allege-eviden-rcna70711
For those unfamiliar with the term "crime fraud exception" it's exactly what the name implies. Attorney client privilege is waved if the advice the client is getting is in service of a crime. It doesn't take much to connect the dots here. Corcoran is the lawyer who wrote the letter claiming there were no more classified docs in Trump's possession. Ooops.
If Corcoran wrote the letter at Don's direction or with his knowledge that is obstruction of justice. Something Don is well practiced at according to Mueller's report.
Obstruction of Justice in the Mueller Report: A Heat Map
The Mueller report describes numerous instances in which President Trump may have obstructed justice. A few days ago, I threw together a quick spreadsheet on Twitter to assess how Special Counsel Robert Mueller seemed to assess the evidence.
People like yourself love inventing “crimes” that only rider in your heads.So anyone working for the Biden Crime Family is de facto committing a crime
People like yourself love inventing “crimes” that only rider in your heads.
The court will be very cautious, I agree.The special counsel apparently seeks to invade the attorney client privilege by claiming that the (otherwise) privileged communication falls outside of the attorney client privilege since it involves criminality in and of itself.
It is true that an attorney is not permitted a client on how to commit a crime. And it is further true that such a communication would therefore not be legally recognizable as being “privileged.”
But it takes a great deal more than just making that claim to override attorney client privilege. This particular prosecutorial strategy is consistent with the overarching problem with the entire “case.” Trampling upon crucial legal principles to achieve the partisan political end, here, is outrageous. It not only serves to potentially violate attorney/client privilege as it pertains to President Trump, but it serves to dilute attorney/client privilege for everyone.
The court should be extremely skeptical of this maneuver.
How did you discover this was an intentional act?Brandon has been stealing documents from the USA for decades
Look up crime fraud exception then return with more of your bullshit.In other words they have nothing, so they are trying to force the lawyer to testify against his own client, which is illegal in this country.
So now ignorance is an acceptable form of defense? I don't excuse Trump or Biden.There is no evidence I'm aware of that Joe knew the docs were there. That is not the case with Trump, who directed that the docs be taken from the WH to MAL.
So now ignorance is an acceptable form of defense? I don't excuse Trump or Biden.
It can be...and what YOU accept means shitSo now ignorance is an acceptable form of defense? I don't excuse Trump or Biden.
Him too, I have no problem prosecuting any of them.But Pence?
