Jump to content

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

Francisco 2.0

By Francisco 2.0
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Sawbonz

Sawbonz 27562

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Here we go...the Feds are staging the shot of classified documents on the floor to make the public think that’s how they found them. Trump’s attorney (in the NY case) admits that they were in Trump’s office, that she’s been there, and he has frequent visitors to his office where he keeps our nation’s most classified secrets in his desk drawer.

 

She needs a lawyer now right? Anything she says publicly is no longer protected by atty client privilege correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 41.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • tx 3 putt

    1687

  • TwiceHorn

    1467

  • WhatTheBuck

    1322

  • atomheartbevo

    1315

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Beau Vine
Beau Vine

To be fair, President Trump’s four years in office weren’t so bad, except when when he incited an insurrection against the government, mismanaged a pandemic that killed nearly half a million Americans

Bama Chick
Bama Chick

Y’all about to get a great visual representation of Cullman, Alabama. Only good things to come out of Cullman are the Britt brothers (Roll Tide!) and orange rolls from All Steak restaurant. That pla

ChiTownDoc
ChiTownDoc

You seem really pissed off for a nontrumper.  Just laugh at the trumpers, bro.  They’re really gullible dumbfucks who worship this orange blob…you know, people completely unlike yourself.  

Posted Images

TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31472

Posted
Posted (edited)

I don't think she's done anything, yet, or that we know of, to put her in the crosshairs.  She's not helping Trump's cause though.

The bit about diligently searching his office for NY AG might pose a bit of a problem.  But that was for business-type records, the TS stuff would be non-responsive.  She's probably going to catch a grand jury subpoena though.

Q. So, Ms. Habba, you swore in this document that you had undertaken a diligent search of Mr. Trump's offices at Mar-A-Lago, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q.  Did you go through every box and every drawer and every file cabinet in the "45 Office"?  Is that what you meant by a "diligent search"?

A.  Yes.

Q.  Did you go through the boxes in the "Storage Room"?

A. Yes.

Q. At any time, during that search, did you encounter documents marked Top Secret  . . . .?

And any answer she gives is a problem for Trump, probably less so for herself, to the point I'm not sure she could plead da fif.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lemonlime

lemonlime 5503

Posted
Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

She needs a lawyer now right? Anything she says publicly is no longer protected by atty client privilege correct?

There's still attorney client privilege.  She may be disqualified from representing him, however, as she's now almost certainly a witness in the criminal case against him.  There's nothing privileged about who she saw entering his office at mar a lago, where he kept classified documents lying about.  If the FBI hasn't talked to her yet, I'm sure they will be now.

Edited by lemonlime
somehow posted same response twice
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31472

Posted
Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

There's still attorney client privilege.  She may be disqualified from representing him, however, as she's now almost certainly a witness in the criminal case against him.  There's nothing privileged about who she saw entering his office at mar a lago, where he kept classified documents lying about.  If the FBI hasn't talked to her yet, I'm sure they will be now.

Ethics puzzler.  Would being a material witness in a criminal case disqualify her from representing him in civil lolsuits?  AFAIK, that's all she's doing.

Being a trial witness tends to disqualify from being trial counsel in the same case, if the testimony would be adverse to the client.  Don't know about different cases.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beau Vine

Beau Vine 54230

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, YGIFS said:

That awkward moment when your lawyer hands you their card, says "Contact me day or night, you're my number one client", and the domain is a fucking gmail.com address. 

I know a guy in Houston whom I've done some consulting with, who started up his own risk remediation company, which was later bought by Goldman Sachs.  He still uses an aol.com email.  

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Horndog

Horndog 2228

Posted
Posted
44 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

There's still attorney client privilege.  She may be disqualified from representing him, however, as she's now almost certainly a witness in the criminal case against him.  There's nothing privileged about who she saw entering his office at mar a lago, where he kept classified documents lying about.  If the FBI hasn't talked to her yet, I'm sure they will be now.

The question was about her public statements. Those would not be privileged because by definition they are not communications between lawyer and client.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eskimohorn

Eskimohorn 5635

Posted
Posted

Trump and his team are not acting like anythings going to trial. This is about lobbying his base hard and oppressing his side to prevent the department of justice from prosecuting.

If it does go to trial, then making it a huge shit show and buying time until DeSantis can pardon Trump before serving time. DeSantis cant win shit without Trump.

This will not be normal.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beau Vine

Beau Vine 54230

Posted
Posted
49 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

There's still attorney client privilege.  She may be disqualified from representing him, however, as she's now almost certainly a witness in the criminal case against him.

Pleasepleaseplease let Trump dump her and hire Jeanine Pirro to represent him.

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RomaVicta

RomaVicta 29908

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, A-Tex Devil said:

I do think that the parts of the GOP is trial ballooning through Rove and others if they can pry the base back.  That they failed to do this with the "stolen election" claims makes me thing it's too late.  But it appears they are trying.  Mitch McConnell's silence is deafening.  Once he sees this effort tip back towards or away from Trump will be when he speaks up.  

Carl Rove and Mitch are part of the politics game happening in the stadium. The people outside the stadium playing war won't hear and won't care. Their leader is who they listen to. Their leader isn't playing the politics game either.

Trump choose GOP candidates to support his insurrection not to promote the GOP which is only useful to him if it's loyal.

The oldies watching FOX may be swayed to some degree, but they've been conditioned for a long time to follow their hate. FOX will be watching ratings and hiring lawyers. If there is a downtick in ratings or public criticsm, they'll be passive about Trump.

The GOP ceases to function as a viable party without the national plurality of Trumpist degenerates. I think they'll go rogue before they believe Fake News and RINOs condemning Trump. I don't see Mitch and the herd of shit-rollers in his party and on FOX developing any sense of conscience anytime soon or ever.

FOX and the GOP are stuck. Cue Gritty.

  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lemonlime

lemonlime 5503

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, Horndog said:

The question was about her public statements. Those would not be privileged because by definition they are not communications between lawyer and client.

I'm not sure what you're saying.  Attorney client privilege belongs to the client, not the attorney.  Only trump can waive the privilege.  The privilege also only applies to communications regarding legal advice.  Her spouting off on tv about the criminal case would never be subject to attorney client privilege.  Nor would her witnessing crimes her client was committing.  She presumably is providing (bad) legal advice in the NY AG case, and her conversations with trump about that case are privileged unless trump talks about them, which maybe he's stupid enough to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Homercles

Homercles 10205

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Interdasting.  I went to see the rest of that thread and then the replies.  He gets absolutely pantsed.  Nary a magat in sight to defend him.

They really got nothin here.

Holy fuck I never knew I needed that version of Hans Moleman / seed bell before in my life.  But I need it in my life.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28781

Posted
Posted
48 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Ethics puzzler.  Would being a material witness in a criminal case disqualify her from representing him in civil lolsuits?  AFAIK, that's all she's doing.

Being a trial witness tends to disqualify from being trial counsel in the same case, if the testimony would be adverse to the client.  Don't know about different cases.

I say let her represent him in as many cases as she wants.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RomaVicta

RomaVicta 29908

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Here we go...the Feds are staging the shot of classified documents on the floor to make the public think that’s how they found them. Trump’s attorney (in the NY case) admits that they were in Trump’s office, that she’s been there, and he has frequent visitors to his office where he keeps our nation’s most classified secrets in his desk drawer.

 

I lived at the murder scene! There were no numbered markers all over the place! 

spacer.png

It's a frame job!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31472

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

I say let her represent him in as many cases as she wants.

When I was a baby lawyer, the patent lawyer community was pretty small.  There was a high likelihood that the lawyers/law firm that prosecuted the patent would also sue over it.  That created a small likelihood, always overinflated by the opponent, that a lawyer from the firm who worked on the patent would be a trial witness.  This possibility led to a spate of disqualification motions by infringement defendants, mostly as a dilatory tactic to deter the plaintiff/patent owner.

When considering whether to play that game, my mentor wisely counseled:  Don't file a disqualification motion just because you can, they might hire someone actually good.

Wisdom for the ages.  RIP, Bob.

 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
YGIFS

YGIFS 19450

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

I lived at the murder scene! There were no numbered markers all over the place! 

spacer.png

It's a frame job!

walkenintrueromance, "And your son Clarence, fuckhead that he is.  Left his driver's license at the murder scene."  

I can't fucking believe I read, on Presidential Letterhead, that bullshit about FBI staged the papers on the floor after they wrongfully took them outta his desk.  I mean, his base watches enough CSI and true crime shows on CBS, they gotta remember at least one time when forensics was sweeping a room and moved the evidence to central location to inventory and photograph.  I guess you gotta fling shit on the walls until November.  Otherwise your base will think you quit on them.  They don't mind losers, but they can't stand quitters.  

His lawyer shouting about all the guests he had in and out of that office, which presumably contained a very large, fantastic, golden, UNLOCKED desk.  That was a turn of events I did not see coming.  So we're obviously just a matter of 36 hours away from MAGA nation believing that an FBI agent must have gone undercover as the +1 of one of those guests and left the documents behind in Trump's desk or carton when nobody was looking.  That's the next logical step, right?

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chad Fuck

Chad Fuck 17682

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

When I was a baby lawyer, the patent lawyer community was pretty small.  There was a high likelihood that the lawyers/law firm that prosecuted the patent would also sue over it.  That created a small likelihood, always overinflated by the opponent, that a lawyer from the firm who worked on the patent would be a trial witness.  This possibility led to a spate of disqualification motions by infringement defendants, mostly as a dilatory tactic to deter the plaintiff/patent owner.

When considering whether to play that game, my mentor wisely counseled:  Don't file a disqualification motion just because you can, they might hire someone actually good.

Wisdom for the ages.  RIP, Bob.

 

I had an uncle who was a Misty FAC flying F-100s in Vietnam.  He used to tell me the story of the Kid on the Karst, an unknown individual who manned an AA gun who they always had to pass by within AA range.  The Kid always shot at them, but never close enough to do any damage.  So no one fucked with the Kid.  One day, a newb got pissed at the Kid on the Karst shooting at him, and bombed the poor ineffective sob to smithereens.  The Kid was replaced with someone who was both motivated and able to use the AA gun.  Newb was persona non grata.  

Same story, different context.  

  • Hook 'Em 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Horndog

Horndog 2228

Posted
Posted
35 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

I'm not sure what you're saying.  Attorney client privilege belongs to the client, not the attorney.  Only trump can waive the privilege.  The privilege also only applies to communications regarding legal advice.  Her spouting off on tv about the criminal case would never be subject to attorney client privilege.  Nor would her witnessing crimes her client was committing.  She presumably is providing (bad) legal advice in the NY AG case, and her conversations with trump about that case are privileged unless trump talks about them, which maybe he's stupid enough to do.

The exact question posed was: "Anything she says publicly is no longer protected by atty client privilege correct?"

That question was specifically directed at this quote from a dotard lawyer: "Habba: I’m somebody who has been in his office.. I have firsthand knowledge. I have never seen that. That is not the way his office looks.. He has guests frequently there."

Those statements by Habba concern her own personal observations of the the dotard's office, not any communications between her and the dotard.  They are not privileged and never will be.   I agree that if a lawyer is stupid enough to repeat in public something that a client said to the lawyer during an attorney-client communication (e.g. the dotard told me he hid the documents in a toilet bowl tank), the privilege belongs to the client and is not waived by the lawyer's incompetence.  But that's not what we are talking about. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105142

Posted
Posted
44 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

 

Absolutely hanging himself by a legal admission by his agents in court.  But almost certainly because...

31 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'm fairly certain that if you asked Trump what "declassified" means, he'd say it means "I can do what I want with them," but that wouldn't apply to anyone else, like the mainstream media.

....this.  He truly has no idea what ANY of this, or any law, actually means.  He thinks there is one law:  "I was president, I get to do whatever I want, however and whenever I want, forever."

He's a fucking drooling moron.  MAGAs, THIS is your "alpha male."  Jesus, you people take "pathetic" places it didn't even know it could go.

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sbbruin

Sbbruin 21853

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Absolutely hanging himself by a legal admission by his agents in court.  But almost certainly because...

....this.  He truly has no idea what ANY of this, or any law, actually means.  He thinks there is one law:  "I was president, I get to do whatever I want, however and whenever I want, forever."

He's a fucking drooling moron.  MAGAs, THIS is your "alpha male."  Jesus, you people take "pathetic" places it didn't even know it could go.

He really thinks being President is like being Pharaoh or some other demigod role  Not a servant of the people.  The people are servants to him.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beau Vine

Beau Vine 54230

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, YGIFS said:

walkenintrueromance, "And your son Clarence, fuckhead that he is.  Left his driver's license at the murder scene."  

I can't fucking believe I read, on Presidential Letterhead, that bullshit about FBI staged the papers on the floor after they wrongfully took them outta his desk.  I mean, his base watches enough CSI and true crime shows on CBS, they gotta remember at least one time when forensics was sweeping a room and moved the evidence to central location to inventory and photograph.  I guess you gotta fling shit on the walls until November.  Otherwise your base will think you quit on them.  They don't mind losers, but they can't stand quitters.  

His lawyer shouting about all the guests he had in and out of that office, which presumably contained a very large, fantastic, golden, UNLOCKED desk.  That was a turn of events I did not see coming.  So we're obviously just a matter of 36 hours away from MAGA nation believing that an FBI agent must have gone undercover as the +1 of one of those guests and left the documents behind in Trump's desk or carton when nobody was looking.  That's the next logical step, right?

 

And it wasn't a real FBI agent!  It was a man posing as an FBI agent!  That man's name?  You guessed it -- Hunter Biden!

  • Haha 2
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bookman

Bookman 4639

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Interdasting.  I went to see the rest of that thread and then the replies.  He gets absolutely pantsed.  Nary a magat in sight to defend him.

They really got nothin here.

What if the fact that the document is top secret is itself top secret? Then wouldn't you have to hold the entire F.B.I. responsible for the behavior of a few, sick twisted individuals? For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole federal justice system? And if the whole federal justice system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our federal government in general? I put it to you -- isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to Trump, but I'm not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America! Gentlemen!

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eskimohorn

Eskimohorn 5635

Posted
Posted
When I was a baby lawyer, the patent lawyer community was pretty small.  There was a high likelihood that the lawyers/law firm that prosecuted the patent would also sue over it.  That created a small likelihood, always overinflated by the opponent, that a lawyer from the firm who worked on the patent would be a trial witness.  This possibility led to a spate of disqualification motions by infringement defendants, mostly as a dilatory tactic to deter the plaintiff/patent owner.
When considering whether to play that game, my mentor wisely counseled:  Don't file a disqualification motion just because you can, they might hire someone actually good.
Wisdom for the ages.  RIP, Bob.
 

Just like My Cousin Vinny. Prosecutor had no objections to letting Vinny practice law in Mississippi
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...