- Joined
- Dec 12, 2019
- Messages
- 30,488
- Reaction score
- 8,841
- Location
- Flaw-i-duh
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
Didn't someone report they were forced to stop working for Trump the Terrorist?
I am betting that they quit because you just cannot deal with a client who wants you to break the law for them. He better move quickly to find another attorney...
Yes! Corcoran and Christina Bobb(?) are the ones I was trying to remember!This is in reference to Corocoran. And it's not proof that it happened. Or that Rowly and Trusty were "forced to testify".
I cannot help but think that this is a ploy just to delay the trial as new any hearings will be postponed due to new attorneys being brought up to speed.
I have no faith in Judge Cannon either that this will be a speedy trial but rather rulings that would have to be appealed and just run out the clock
tRump is master at this
I might be wrong, but I don't think Trusty and Rowley are the attorney's who had to testify. I think we're talking about two separate sets here. I think the ones that were cleared to testify are the ones who originally created the false statement to the FBI that all the documents were returned, when they weren't.
I think Trusty and Rowley got into a big fight with Trump when Trump thought his money was supposed to keep him from getting indicted and it didn't. That--and the lawyers found out what was in the indictment and were pissed that they didn't know the stuff Trump kept from them at the start.
I could be wrong though, but if my timelines are right, it makes more sense
you keep referring to Corcoran....none of this has anything to do with Trusty or RowleyA crime-fraud exception is what Smith claimed to convince the judge to allow the lawyers to be questioned. There's no indication there was any criminal conduct by the lawyers and they haven't been charged.
Smith referenced their testimony in his indictment and that forced the lawyers to resign because they are now considered material witnesses...even though there's no guarantee they'll ever be called as witnesses.
This was nothing more than a tactic to get those two lawyers removed.
Lawfare at its finest.
Wonder if Trusty's and Rowley's checks bouncedyou keep referring to Corcoran....none of this has anything to do with Trusty or Rowley
The why is very clear...to those who understand.
Those two lawyers were forced to testify. Their testimony was used in the indictment. They cannot legally work for someone under that situation. They HAD to resign whether they wanted to or not.
You might have heard that two of Trump’s lawyers, Jim Trusty and John Rowley, quit today. The media wants to use their exit as a point to indicate Trump is in legal jeopardy; however, that’s not the case.As soon as Trusty and Rowley saw their forced testimony was used in the indictment, they had no option except to exit the case. Despite the lawyers providing no damaging information against Trump, the DOJ used language in the indictment to turn Trump’s lawyers into material witnesses. Weissmann’s Lawfare tactic create a conflict, forcing the two Trump lawyers to depart.
The DOJ has taken similar corrupt action against Nauta.
Weissmann, Eisen and Smith are using lawfare in the indictment to put the interests of Trump and his aide Walt Nauta against each other. Obviously, Nauta would not turn on Trump, so the prosecution made Nauta a target for a federal 1001 charge of lying to investigators and will pressure him throughout the case to take a plea in exchange for testimony against Trump. Nauta is the baseline of the “Conspiracy Elements” which require two or more people. Again, pure Lawfare.
Strategic Lawfare at Work, They Didn't Resign - Jack Smith Takes Down Two Trump Lawyers Using Compelled Testimony, Creating Witnesses Within Indictment - The Last Refuge
Good news, bad news and granular news.. First, the good news. The judge assigned to the Trump documents case is U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon. She is the same judge who handled the lawsuit last year after the FBI raided Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate. Judge Cannon was the judge who...theconservativetreehouse.com
so basically Smith gets to bypass atty/client privileged communication. Smith is a master in creating a "speaking indictment "The why is very clear...to those who understand.
Those two lawyers were forced to testify. Their testimony was used in the indictment. They cannot legally work for someone under that situation. They HAD to resign whether they wanted to or not.
You might have heard that two of Trump’s lawyers, Jim Trusty and John Rowley, quit today. The media wants to use their exit as a point to indicate Trump is in legal jeopardy; however, that’s not the case.As soon as Trusty and Rowley saw their forced testimony was used in the indictment, they had no option except to exit the case. Despite the lawyers providing no damaging information against Trump, the DOJ used language in the indictment to turn Trump’s lawyers into material witnesses. Weissmann’s Lawfare tactic create a conflict, forcing the two Trump lawyers to depart.
The DOJ has taken similar corrupt action against Nauta.
Weissmann, Eisen and Smith are using lawfare in the indictment to put the interests of Trump and his aide Walt Nauta against each other. Obviously, Nauta would not turn on Trump, so the prosecution made Nauta a target for a federal 1001 charge of lying to investigators and will pressure him throughout the case to take a plea in exchange for testimony against Trump. Nauta is the baseline of the “Conspiracy Elements” which require two or more people. Again, pure Lawfare.
Strategic Lawfare at Work, They Didn't Resign - Jack Smith Takes Down Two Trump Lawyers Using Compelled Testimony, Creating Witnesses Within Indictment - The Last Refuge
Good news, bad news and granular news.. First, the good news. The judge assigned to the Trump documents case is U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon. She is the same judge who handled the lawsuit last year after the FBI raided Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate. Judge Cannon was the judge who...theconservativetreehouse.com
Wait, Mycroft made it up? Is this like the time made up a crackpot theory that Donald Trump was the true winner of the 2020 election? I’m shocked, I tell you. Shocked.
I assume because he lied and did not tell them all the stuff he did, then they see the indictment and are like.They just keep leaving him. Can't imagine why.
Trump loses 2 lawyers just hours after being indicted
Jim Trusty and John Rowley announced they’d resigned. Meanwhile, a Trump aide also has been indicted, according to Trump.news.yahoo.com
a judge ruled that the wall of attorney client privilege had been pierced....and it was held up on appeal. Corcoran fought it and lost.so basically Smith gets to bypass atty/client privileged communication. Smith is a master in creating a "speaking indictment "
( count stacking) as well as overcharging, and now the fascists at DOJ get to ignore atty/client communication
Mycroft's fairy tale is dead wrong. Rowley and Trusty were not forced to testify. He is confusing them with Corcoran, another beleaguered Trump attorney. Or he's being willfully ignorant.so basically Smith gets to bypass atty/client privileged communication. Smith is a master in creating a "speaking indictment "
( count stacking) as well as overcharging, and now the fascists at DOJ get to ignore atty/client communication
I dont see that ANYWHERE -cite pleasea judge ruled that the wall of attorney client privilege had been pierced....and it was held up on appeal. Corcoran fought it and lost.
You didn't look very hard.I dont see that ANYWHERE -cite please
Trump loses 2 lawyers just hours after being indicted
Jim Trusty and John Rowley announced they’d resigned. Meanwhile, a Trump aide also has been indicted, according to Trump.www.politico.com
You didn't look very hard.
because it has nothing to do with the thread topic?You didn't look very hard.
Appeals court rules against Trump attorney, ordering him to comply with subpoena in classified documents case
Trump's legal team had appealed a lower court ruling that attorney-client privilege should not shield attorney from interview by special counsel investigators.www.cbsnews.com
a neat trick, claim a conspiracy to compel testimony. what did Shrub say?ruled the so-called "crime-fraud exception" should be applied to Corcoran's testimony on specific issues
you tried to claim that it was a violation of attorney client privilege that Corcoran was forced to testify....you are wrong...and now that you were proven wrong you now are claiming it has nothing to do with the thread title ? lmao. Just admit you were wrong and move along.because it has nothing to do with the thread topic?
Do you not know what the word "if" means?Who says the lawyers were complicit in a crime?
Seriously...are you just making shit up?
Bye.
MAGAs are not allowed to admit any wrong. They are however permitted to either deny reality, deflect or go silent and rise a few hours later with a new polemic against the leftist filth, groomers and globalists.Do you not know what the word "if" means?
Your posts are definitely the worst on this message board.
You tried to claim that it was a violation of attorney client privilege that Corcoran was forced to testify. You are wrong, and now that you were proven wrong you now are claiming it has nothing to do with the thread title? Just admit you were wrong and move along.
not true...attorneys for the accused do not have to testify, even before a grand jury...the only way they would is if the attorney client privilege is removed due to criminal conduct that the attorney and client were involved in or the client spoke to the attorney about during the process of committing a crime.He is like all other MAGA morons: totally ignoring the undeniable proof he is wrong by choosing not to click on the link to the website that provides it. They do whatever it takes to avoid seeing and hearing any corrections.
Being forced to testify had nothing to do with attorney-client privilege and everything do with the Fifth Amendment's grand jury trial exception. Everyone who graduated from high school knows at all grand jury trials, anyone can be forced to testify.
Not true. Attorneys for the accused do not have to testify, even before a grand jury. The only way they would is if the attorney client privilege is removed due to criminal conduct that the attorney and client were involved in or the client spoke to the attorney about during the process of committing a crime.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;
Corcoran was Trump's attorney. He was either unwittingly involved in or willingly involved in crimes that Trump committed. That pierces the attorney client privilege.Where do you see that in the Fifth Amendment?
The specific constitutional language is:
It is possible Corcoran will end up being charged of crimes and he unknowingly testified against himself.
If they were smart, they would have asked for a whole bunch of money up front. Trump is infamous for stiffing people on the bill.Trump the Terrorist probably paid them a lot of money.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?