A story about a pathetic man's downfall [34 Felony Convictions]

[Red Five 40895]

28 minutes ago, Chopper said:

Stolen documents can't get much more sus unless you're putting x marks on mailboxes and hiding them in a known drop spot.

Lulz. "Why didn't they just ask for the documents back???"

[TwiceHorn 31536]

1 hour ago, Chopper said:

Not conflating. You're confused. Do republicans believe a president is above the law when there's a Democratic president? Absolutely not. If you think a president is or should be above the law, then you would be better suited to practice law in Russia. What the fuck do you think the special counsel law is about, man?

I am far from confused.  The law of the land, as far as federal prosecution is concerned, since 1973, is that the sitting President may not be indicted.  That was the case for Nixon, then Clinton, then Trump, and anyone else along the line that may have done some crimes.

The appointment of a special counsel/prosecutor doesn't change that calculus.  Ask Ken Starr.

The point being that Trump, like all sitting Presidents after Nixon, enjoyed immunity from federal criminal prosecution.  To believe that Mueller or any other special counsel/prosecutor was going to indict the President was foolish and naive.

Edited August 31, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[Biff Tannen 45741]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

I am far from confused.  The law of the land, as far as federal prosecution is concerned, since 1973, is that the sitting President may not be indicted.  That was the case for Nixon, then Clinton, then Trump, and anyone else along the line that may have done some crimes.

The appointment of a special counsel/prosecutor doesn't change that calculus.  Ask Ken Starr.

Law of the land?  I thought it was just a handshake guideline?

[WhatTheBuck 28798]

4 minutes ago, Mdhorn said:

Whoever was sent to take the docs (Trump doesn't soil himself with his own dirty work) prob flipped and told of their location.  Why wouldn't they?  Can they be this ignorant to both Dotard and prosecution? And because they took the docs, they had to be in his inner circle since Dotard then had blackmail on them.  Doubt they have their orders in writing because that's not how Dotard operates, but someone with high clearance most likely had access.

Does the FBI have Jared’s prints on file?

[Brisketexan 105336]

1 hour ago, lemonlime said:

No.  I've never seen a lawyer sign a document as the "custodian of records" in the first instance.  That's just odd.  And I have never signed off on whether complete documents have been produced--my client does that.  And that's for legitimate organizations who aren't criming all over the place headed by pathological liars.  First, I would never certify to anything I don't have personal knowledge of.  I have no way of knowing whether a complete response has been produced.  Someone who works with those records specifically and has actual knowledge that complete records were produced has to sign off.  Second, if there was something not produced, and in my case it would almost certainly be an inadvertent error and not something like trump is doing, it would turn me into a witness against my own client.  I would have to testify as to why I signed off on completeness when it wasn't complete, whether I lied, who misled me, etc.

QFT.

I literally just filed a pleading that had a declaration making the "after diligent search, no such records were found" affirmation.  My client made that affirmation.  Because the records are my CLIENT'S records.  I didn't do the search.  My client did.  I informed the client of what that needed to entail, in case they ever get cross-examined on the point.  That is, it actually does have to be a diligent search, something like "there are only three places this sort of record could reasonably be.  I searched all three places -- in each room, I searched all the file drawers, even the ones that weren't likely to contain the records.  None were found."

I can't recall ever signing a "diligent search" declaration myself, except maybe in reference to discovery materials I received from the other side -- something like "I have conducted a diligent search of the records provided by Plaintiff in discovery, and my search found no memorandum referencing safe storage procedures for treatment chemicals," or what have you.  And even then, I'm ready to back it up by describing what I did to search, down to my visual review of actual documents to what search terms I used for an OCR search.

For an attorney to sign an affidavit representing a diligent search when she didn't actually undertake the search.....well, that's what criminals do.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

2 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Law of the land?  I thought it was just a handshake guideline?

It’s a policy, not a law. 

[cactusflinthead 27602]

As an aside on whether or not Trump gets jettisoned in the general election.

Behold how they scrub the stain of him.

Out damned spot!

 

[TwiceHorn 31536]

52 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

IF the DOJ criminally indicts him. Would this be the first time Trump was charged criminally?

 

I believe so, yes.

[YGIFS 19452]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I am far from confused.  The law of the land, as far as federal prosecution is concerned, since 1973, is that the sitting President may not be indicted.  That was the case for Nixon, then Clinton, then Trump, and anyone else along the line that may have done some crimes.

The appointment of a special counsel/prosecutor doesn't change that calculus.  Ask Ken Starr.

This.  The long-game goal here is twofold:

-Ensures Trump never gets to run for public office.  He will never see the inside of a jail cell but his ineligibility won't stop him from trying for the 2024 nomination.  It'll create a convention clusterfuck that'll make 1968 Chicago look like a group of lost tourists.  How do you, as a running Rep/Sen/Gov, support someone legally restricted from being elected without looking disloyal?  Trust me, this is what y'all want. 

-He won't get convicted of anything criminally.  Has to pay some fines he can't afford so there's public shaming about his wealth.  And best of all, some people very close to him get actually criminally convicted and has to testify about it.  If we play our cards right, we get to watch Donald Trump watch one his children/son-in-law die in prison.  That's pretty fucking awesome.   

I know y'all think this is worst case.  But it's a pretty fucking solid outcome if you think about it.  

[RomaVicta 30018]

2 hours ago, TXSG8R said:

She’s already dipped her toes into the RW media grift.  The money is probably better and it’s less work than lawyering, so I doubt she cares about her license if it translates into a permanent gig on FN. 

Or FP (Federal Prison)

1 hour ago, Chopper said:

First, if it was Christina Bobb who signed the certification, it's notable that she was also in the 1/6 war room. She is wholly invested in overthrowing the gov't. Also if her marching orders from trump were, under no circumstances let them look at anything else, as an attorney making a certification to the FBI under penalty of perjury, she would have been well-advised to avoid signing it. They just never dreamed the FBI would come with a search warrant.

She performed "a diligent search" but wouldn't let the fbi look in the other boxes, which were later found to contain classified info.

Very important reminder. Thanks!

25 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

You’re assuming the Murdochs won’t distance FNC from at least some of Trump’s minions if things continue on the current path.

You're also assuming that Trump won’t  throw her under the bus and try and make her take the fall.

FOX News is part of the GOP criminal organization. They will distance just like the other rats hoping to elude prosecution. FOX TV personalities formed Trump's kitchen cabinet and likely saw a great future in the new Reich.

------

I have never met my office or been in my office. I don't have an office. Whatever the so-called Office of Your Favorite President (me) did was without my knowledge. DO SOMETHING! 

 

 

[TwiceHorn 31536]

9 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Law of the land?  I thought it was just a handshake guideline?

Hence the use of "as far as federal prosecution is concerned."  The DOJ is not going to violate that policy. They could change it, but why would any administration do that and expose themselves?
 

I'm not arguing about whether it's right or wrong or binding or not binding.  I asserted earlier than from 2017 to 2021 Trump enjoyed immunity from federal prosecution because of those opinions. 

To believe that policy would change or be violated by the DOJ of a President being investigated for crimes is foolish.  The policy was "invented" by the Nixon administration and confirmed by the Clinton administration when the heads of those administrations were under investigation.  You think Trump's DOJ is going to let it change or be violated?  You're high as a kite.

It would be possibly the right thing to do for a POTUS and his AG to change that policy.  But politicians are allergic to doing that kind of right thing.

Edited August 31, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[ChiTownDoc 21154]

13 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Holy shit, you’re right.  Doocy went hard on Trump.

 

I’ll let you know where to send the 9.95.  

[HenryJames 66171]

[Chopper 17245]

7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Ask Ken Starr.

The point being that Trump, like all sitting Presidents after Nixon, enjoyed immunity from federal criminal prosecution.  To believe that Mueller or any other special counsel/prosecutor was going to indict the President was foolish and naive.

LOL you have no idea. Yet your certainty is amusing. Google Ken Starr memo about presidential immunity, read and weep. It's far from a novel interpretation that no man is above the law and that the reason for a special counsel was to ensure that. The drafters of that law didn't count on a corrupt Senate and AG to make that happen.

And assuming you find and read the Starr memo, ask yourself why Trump's AG felt the need to hide it given that, as you pathetically claim, the law on this has been settle for decades.

[CowboyFred 1151]

2 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

Is it common for lawyers to sign off on things as being true that they haven’t personally verified? Especially when their client is a known pathological liar?

You should read everything you sign, especially for a client such as trump. You should get no sympathy for being “misled.” She should suffer the consequences of her actions.

[Chopper 17245]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Hence the use of "as far as federal prosecution is concerned."  The DOJ is not going to violate that policy. They could change it, but why would any administration do that and expose themselves?

Oh, so it's not the law. It's just corruption. Yeah asshole that's what I wrote.

[Biff Tannen 45741]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Hence the use of "as far as federal prosecution is concerned."  The DOJ is not going to violate that policy. They could change it, but why would any administration do that and expose themselves?

So the argument is that future administrations want to be able to commit crimes also?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

They could change it, but why would any administration do that and expose themselves?

Because it’s the right thing to do? 

[C-Man 27262]

2 hours ago, Pig Bellmont said:

That explains the sealed entries on the docket 

Ah, yes, the fuck-around-and-find-out clause

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Pig Bellmont said:

lol - “Can you believe the FBI put all the drugs and guns on the floor before taking pictures? I never stored them like that! Also I definitely had and hid the drugs and guns”

 

59 minutes ago, TexEx15 said:

Lord knows I want this to be the end of Trump but based on history I’m sure someone takes the fall and somehow Trump insulates himself by blaming his “team” and he is never held responsible. 

Not even Giuliani is a big enough fish to take the fall for DOTARD here. "MAGA, your boy is going down. I can't stop that anymore."

 

 

27 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

Bobb seems like she's thoroughly turbo-fucked.

Trump, thinking about Bobb getting "turbo fucked."

[TwiceHorn 31536]

17 minutes ago, Chopper said:

LOL you have no idea. Yet your certainty is amusing. Google Ken Starr memo about presidential immunity, read and weep. It's far from a novel interpretation that no man is above the law and that the reason for a special counsel was to ensure that. The drafters of that law didn't count on a corrupt Senate and AG to make that happen.

And assuming you find and read the Starr memo, ask yourself why Trump's AG felt the need to hide it given that, as you pathetically claim, the law on this has been settle for decades.

You are being obtuse.

DId Ken Starr indict Bill Clinton?

Whether he may have thought he had the power or not, he didn't do it.  And his opinion doesn't govern the DOJ.  Starr, in fact, unlike Mueller, didn't serve at the pleasure of the AG as under the current rules.

Im not talking about the recent memo, you dumbshit. 

Edited August 31, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[cactusflinthead 27602]

C-man channelling his inner Phlegm

[Texas St. Armadillos 1381]

22 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

"The FBI threw the planted documents all over the floor and they all happened to land right-side up and in alignment because the Earth is flat!!!"  

-MAGA nation

Seriously, I'd laugh at this idiocy that makes my sister's Down's Syndrome seem like a blessing by comparison.  But then I remember, "Oh shit, they're also armed to the teeth and think they're send by God/Trump (one in the same to them) to save our nation.  Fucking fuck.  I literally picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue.

The Gravy Seals and Meal Team Six aren't the only folks who are armed.  FAFO indeed.

[C-Man 27262]

8 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

C-man channelling his inner Phlegm

This is what happens when you fall way behind on this thread. (And you're not wrong. 🤣)

[4th&Five 41590]

 

[Sbbruin 21888]

I don't think he has found a settle down mode yet. 

It's X, X, Y, A, B

[MC Fresh Breath 4074]

1 hour ago, Pig Bellmont said:

I firmly believe it’s malpractice for his attorneys failing to prevent him from speaking publicly about this. This isn’t a time to let your client tweet through it 

There was an article I skimmed a while back about his lawyers trying to deal with him during impeachment times.   One of the parts that stood out was them begging him not to tweet about something and getting his reassurance that he wouldn't.  After leaving they wouldn't get to the end of the driveway before their phones lit up with him tweeting exactly what they asked him not to discuss.

Edit: Found it.  I was wrong about the time frame but anyway (whole quote is worth it--last line seems to be prescient):

Quote

 

Another attorney recalled Trump's legal team urging him to avoid tweeting about the Mueller investigation early in his presidency only to see a tweet about it before they even got to the end of the White House driveway. "Several people said Trump was nearly impossible to represent and that it would be unclear if they would ever get paid," the Post reported.

"This is not good," one Trump confidant told the outlet. "Something big is going to pop. Somebody needs to be in charge."

 

https://www.salon.com/2022/08/17/everyones-saying-no-hires-florida-insurance-lawyer-as-top-attorneys-refuse-to-work-for-him/

Edited August 31, 2022 by MC Fresh Breath

[chainsaw 9873]

1 hour ago, Pig Bellmont said:

I agree- still though. It’s arguably the highest profile criminal investigation in our country’s history and the attorneys know any public statements are likely to screw him. Don’t represent him, or find a way to take his phone away

Is there any attorney in the history of attorneys who has said "wow I'm really glad I represented Donald Trump" because it sure seems like the answer is a resounding "fuck no!"

[lemonlime 5503]

27 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

QFT.

I literally just filed a pleading that had a declaration making the "after diligent search, no such records were found" affirmation.  My client made that affirmation.  Because the records are my CLIENT'S records.  I didn't do the search.  My client did.  I informed the client of what that needed to entail, in case they ever get cross-examined on the point.  That is, it actually does have to be a diligent search, something like "there are only three places this sort of record could reasonably be.  I searched all three places -- in each room, I searched all the file drawers, even the ones that weren't likely to contain the records.  None were found."

I can't recall ever signing a "diligent search" declaration myself, except maybe in reference to discovery materials I received from the other side -- something like "I have conducted a diligent search of the records provided by Plaintiff in discovery, and my search found no memorandum referencing safe storage procedures for treatment chemicals," or what have you.  And even then, I'm ready to back it up by describing what I did to search, down to my visual review of actual documents to what search terms I used for an OCR search.

For an attorney to sign an affidavit representing a diligent search when she didn't actually undertake the search.....well, that's what criminals do.

I haven't kept the saga of the trump lawyers straight.  But is Christina Bobb still representing him?  Because she's clearly disqualified now as she's either a coconspirator to obstruction of justice or at best (for her) a witness against her client for obstruction of justice and espionage.

[Red Five 40895]

2 minutes ago, MC Fresh Breath said:

There was an article I skimmed a while back about his lawyers trying to deal with him during impeachment times.   One of the parts that stood out was them begging him not to tweet about something and getting his reassurance that he wouldn't.  After leaving they wouldn't get to the end of the driveway before their phones lit up with him tweeting exactly what they asked him not to discuss.

If you start thinking of him as a 10 year-old in a 76 year old body, a lot of things start making sense. 

[lemonlime 5503]

1 minute ago, Red Five said:

If you start thinking of him as a 10 year-old in a 76 year old body, a lot of things start making sense. 

That's offensive to 10 year olds.  They have basic understanding of why bullying and lying is wrong.  I wouldn't go beyond age 2.

[The Original Greaser Bob 2848]

33 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Law of the land?  I thought it was just a handshake guideline?

To the cult, a handshake drug.

[cactusflinthead 27602]

Who took his phone early on? He has been a liability to himself on Twitter since he joined it. The handlers saw it and for a couple of miserable days he stopped. Subsequent episodes would be similar. Tweet up a firestorm and then have to be privately pissed off until he couldn't stand it any longer. Seemed to average 48-72 hrs. I think he went a whole fortnight once, not even a full Scaramucci.

He had to create his own shitty imitation of Twitter because he cannot abide being silenced. Is he gonna stop now? Ha. Not fucking likely.

[henrygandorf 29194]

43 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

As an aside on whether or not Trump gets jettisoned in the general election.

Behold how they scrub the stain of him.

Out damned spot!

 

it was obvious he was going to scrub all his aggy shit once he got home from his bama visit. 

[Brisketexan 105336]

24 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

Is there any attorney in the history of attorneys who has said "wow I'm really glad I represented Donald Trump" because it sure seems like the answer is a resounding "fuck no!"

I mean, if I'd represented him in exchange for payment of $20 million in cash, up front, I'd probably be glad I'd done so.  But that's about the only way.   And he'd never actually agree to those terms.  So, the answer remains the same -- fuck no.

[chainsaw 9873]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

I mean, if I'd represented him in exchange for payment of $20 million in cash, up front, I'd probably be glad I'd done so.  But that's about the only way.   And he'd never actually agree to those terms.  So, the answer remains the same -- fuck no.

20mil in exchange for certain disbarment, reputational ruin, and a chance of prison time? I'd rather make a comfortable living.

[Brisketexan 105336]

2 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

20mil in exchange for certain disbarment, reputational ruin, and a chance of prison time? I'd rather make a comfortable living.

Oh, I didn't say I'd represent him the way he'd WANT me to.  I'd represent him diligently and appropriately, consistent with my duties as an officer of the court.  Which means he would fire me by day 2 of my representation.

But I'd still have his $20 million.

Winning.

[C-Man 27262]

55 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

This.  The long-game goal here is twofold:

-Ensures Trump never gets to run for public office.  He will never see the inside of a jail cell but his ineligibility won't stop him from trying for the 2024 nomination.  It'll create a convention clusterfuck that'll make 1968 Chicago look like a group of lost tourists.  How do you, as a running Rep/Sen/Gov, support someone legally restricted from being elected without looking disloyal?  Trust me, this is what y'all want. 

-He won't get convicted of anything criminally.  Has to pay some fines he can't afford so there's public shaming about his wealth.  And best of all, some people very close to him get actually criminally convicted and has to testify about it.  If we play our cards right, we get to watch Donald Trump watch one his children/son-in-law die in prison.  That's pretty fucking awesome.   

I know y'all think this is worst case.  But it's a pretty fucking solid outcome if you think about it.  

[speed817 19463]

2 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Wish it was this instead....

[chainsaw 9873]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Oh, I didn't say I'd represent him the way he'd WANT me to.  I'd represent him diligently and appropriately, consistent with my duties as an officer of the court.  Which means he would fire me by day 2 of my representation.

But I'd still have his $20 million.

Winning.

Surely there have been other lawyers who noped after 2 days and were paid up front. I still don't think they don't regret it.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13587]

59 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

As an aside on whether or not Trump gets jettisoned in the general election.

Behold how they scrub the stain of him.

Out damned spot!

 

Smack dat Bo Hines

[C-Man 27262]

24 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

Who took his phone early on? He has been a liability to himself on Twitter since he joined it. The handlers saw it and for a couple of miserable days he stopped. Subsequent episodes would be similar. Tweet up a firestorm and then have to be privately pissed off until he couldn't stand it any longer. Seemed to average 48-72 hrs. I think he went a whole fortnight once, not even a full Scaramucci.

He had to create his own shitty imitation of Twitter because he cannot abide being silenced. Is he gonna stop now? Ha. Not fucking likely.

Yeah, but I might argue Twitter is what made him. It's how he's been able to brainwash the MAGA/Q-tard idiots with the same bullshit lies over and over and over. Lie repeatedly enough about "fake news" and this and that and soon everybody forgets what the truth is. Twitter built him up -- and might also be his downfall.

[kevwun 15897]

I would bet the only thing Donald Trump has paid upfront for is drugs and he probably hasn't done that since the 80's.

[lemonlime 5503]

6 minutes ago, kevwun said:

I would bet the only thing Donald Trump has paid upfront for is drugs and he probably hasn't done that since the 80's.

I wouldn't take that bet.  Sex.  No way anyone slept with that orange blob without upfront payment, or at least upfront payment to Jeffrey Epstein.

[MC Fresh Breath 4074]

19 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

20mil in exchange for certain disbarment, reputational ruin, and a chance of prison time? I'd rather make a comfortable living.

Not being Surly Elite, I'm pretty sure I could be very comfortable for the rest of my quiet, reputationally ruined life with 20 million smackers.

[kevwun 15897]

1 minute ago, lemonlime said:

I wouldn't take that bet.  Sex.  No way anyone slept with that orange blob without upfront payment, or at least upfront payment to Jeffrey Epstein.

Ok, 2 things.

Edited August 31, 2022 by kevwun

[Tuco 5077]

 

2 hours ago, lemonlime said:

No.  I've never seen a lawyer sign a document as the "custodian of records" in the first instance.  That's just odd.  And I have never signed off on whether complete documents have been produced--my client does that.  And that's for legitimate organizations who aren't criming all over the place headed by pathological liars.  First, I would never certify to anything I don't have personal knowledge of.  I have no way of knowing whether a complete response has been produced.  Someone who works with those records specifically and has actual knowledge that complete records were produced has to sign off.  Second, if there was something not produced, and in my case it would almost certainly be an inadvertent error and not something like trump is doing, it would turn me into a witness against my own client.  I would have to testify as to why I signed off on completeness when it wasn't complete, whether I lied, who misled me, etc.

 

1. It seems like she has a pretty massive disclaimer there: "Based upon the information that has been provided to me, I am authorized to certify, on behalf of the Office of Donald J. Trump.."

She's not saying she conducted a search.  She is not even saying you reviewed the document search methodology and found it reasonable.  Technically, with the tortured sentence structure, she isn't even saying that she received information regarding the search, only that she received information that she is authorized to make an affirmation that a search was done per the bullet points.  I can see where it would be considered non-responsive by the government and possibly piss of a judge.  But, I don't think it is something that would end her up in jail or even end her career.  She signed a meaningless statement.  

2. Your second point, about correcting the record, is interesting to me.  If she later found out that not all the records were returned, I imagine she would have an obligation to inform the government.  Making her an informant.  Sure, she could inform the government through formal filings, still advocating for her client and obscuring the details.  But, it's not just the affidavit, it's an on-going crime.   And it's unlikely Trump would agree with the more official ways of correcting the record.  Continuing to do Trump's bidding could cost her career and possibly her freedom.  

 

 

 

[Mdhorn 5987]

1 minute ago, lemonlime said:

I wouldn't take that bet.  Sex.  No way anyone slept with that orange blob without upfront payment, or at least upfront payment to Jeffrey Epstein.

He certainly paid for them to keep their mouths shut.  

[Born to Run 6569]

Wild how they were banking on the Hunter laptop scenario while in Trump's election run in 2016, he was paying hush money for sex, as well as potential rape.  But Hunter....  

Right! Even weirder is the fact that his voters are alleged conservatives that are supposed to really care about family values. Whereas Democrat voters should in theory, be more accepting of less traditional open marriages.
Of course it's well known any impropriety for a Democrat is a career ender, if your GOP it's a feature.

[lemonlime 5503]

3 minutes ago, Tuco said:

 

 

1. It seems like she has a pretty massive disclaimer there: "Based upon the information that has been provided to me, I am authorized to certify, on behalf of the Office of Donald J. Trump.."

She's not saying she conducted a search.  She is not even saying you reviewed the document search methodology and found it reasonable.  Technically, with the tortured sentence structure, she isn't even saying that she received information regarding the search, only that she received information that she is authorized to make an affirmation that a search was done per the bullet points.  I can see where it would be considered non-responsive by the government and possibly piss of a judge.  But, I don't think it is something that would end her up in jail or even end her career.  She signed a meaningless statement.  

2. Your second point, about correcting the record, is interesting to me.  If she later found out that not all the records were returned, I imagine she would have an obligation to inform the government.  Making her an informant.  Sure, she could inform the government through formal filings, still advocating for her client and obscuring the details.  But, it's not just the affidavit, it's an on-going crime.   And it's unlikely Trump would agree with the more official ways of correcting the record.  Continuing to do Trump's bidding could cost her career and possibly her freedom.  

 

 

 

And no reasonable lawyer would sign that certification.  As to the second point, if something is missing from the production, the lawyer is probably disqualified from representing her client.  It's not in the client's best interest to have a lawyer sign the certification unless the client wants to risk having to find a new lawyer.  The lawyer is now a witness as to possible tampering with or hiding of evidence.  Even in a totally normal scenario, with good faith actors, there are sometimes documents that are inadvertently not produced, say the client diligently searched for documents but forgot that a small subset of documents relating to x are kept at an offsite facility.  If the lawyer signs that certification, the lawyer is now a witness against her client as to why a false certification was submitted.  Did someone do a bad job searching?  Was something destroyed?  Did someone lie to the lawyer?   And that's with good faith actors.  I can't imagine the idiocy of Bobb signing this certification.

[Tuco 5077]

1 minute ago, lemonlime said:

And no reasonable lawyer would sign that certification.  

Do you think she would be disbarred over it?  Do you think she would be jailed over it?