571
What's the strategy in that? Claiming she was never his attorney forfeits what shreds of privilege might be left of their communications and is also one less person he can blame "advice of counsel" on.
Nothing really counts anyway as I'm betting nearly all of their discussions involved crimes, which aren't protected by attorney client privilege.
It's funny though, trump acting like there isn't record of their relationship.
Minor correction: Admitting you committed a crime in the past is protected. The attorney can still tiptoe around the fact that they know you committed it, by defending you on procedural or clerical grounds. For instance, they can attack the evidence that has been submitted against you, because it was mishandled, or because the equipment used to gather it hadn’t been calibrated recently enough, or for any number of reasons. Even if they know you committed the crime, they can still ensure that your court proceedings are fair.
Admitting that you plan on committing future crimes is not covered. The attorney can’t be party to future crimes, and admitting you plan on committing crimes makes them a co-conspirator if they don’t rat you out.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Was mostly gone when she signed the plea deal. Crime-Fraud Exemption kicks in.
To be clear, attorney-client privilege does not exist when the client and the attorney collaborated on committing a crime.
Bets on him claiming that she was never his lawyer and yet attorney client privilege still applies for some reason?
He’s going to just say she’s fabricating everything. Probably will start insulting her about irrelevant things soon too.
load more comments
(5 replies)
Because his legal defense wasn't based on claiming attorney-client; it was based on the idea that he was just asking legal hypotheticals to / legal advice from legal experts
Now two of these lawyers have taken plea deals to (presumably) testify against Trump. Also, by virtue of the guilty plea in this case where Trump is a codefendant, that privilege would likely be voided anyway
Sidney Powell was one of millions and millions of people who thought, and in ever increasing numbers still think, correctly, that the 2020 Presidential Election was RIGGED & STOLLEN, AND OUR COUNTRY IS BEING ABSOLUTELY DESTROYED BECAUSE OF IT!!! MS. POWELL WAS NOT MY ATTORNEY, AND NEVER WAS. In fact, she would have been conflicted,
That was a challenging first sentence to read.
I haven't listened to Trump speak since 2015. It's not worth it.
I'll DM you the audio recording from my last exceedingly challenging bowl movement. That will be a close approximation of the real thing.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Moreover, Trump himself on Nov. 14th, 2020, identified Powell as being part of his legal team by tweeting, “I look forward to Mayor Giuliani spearheading the legal effort to defend OUR RIGHT to FREE and FAIR ELECTIONS! Rudy Giuliani, Joseph diGenova, Victoria Toensing, Sidney Powell, and Jenna Ellis, a truly great team, added to our other wonderful lawyers and representatives!”‘
He is truly his own worst enemy.
He is truly his own worst enemy.
And everyone else's
There really is a Trump tweet for everything
Step 1 - "She was never my attorney."
Step 2 - "All our conversations are confidential attorney/client privelege."
Yeah, she just pleaded guilty to criminal conspiracy with him. That confession alone voids attorney/client privilege.
load more comments
(3 replies)
When he finally ends up in prison where he belongs, he'll claim he was never Donald Trump.
"You can't convict me of trying to overturn the election as President because I was never the President and wasn't a candidate!"
It was the other president, Obama who won in 2016...
man he's got such a distinct firehose of words constantly incriminating himself but also trying to cover up incriminating himself. 'I dont even know this girl, she's a criminal that's never worked for me, but her only crime is saying what I've been saying this entire time, the election was stolen and I support everything she does, amazing woman, I have nothing to do with her'
It's his Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Everybody slings that term around like it's widely applicable. It's not. People that meet the DSM V "rules" are fairly rare. Trump knocks it out the park like no human I've ever heard of, let alone met IRL.
Here's his thinking on this one:
- Powell is a bad person because she betrayed me.
- I don't hire bad people, or make mistakes at all, ever, therefore she was never my attorney.
He's not lying, he truly believes the shit he says. Mom was like this. She would say shit that was demonstrably false, did not matter, she was right. Ever known another human for 50 years and never heard them admit fault, even a tiny, tiny bit? It's straight freaky.
load more comments
(3 replies)
This is very very bad for Trump because Powell is also a defendant in Jack Smith's federal case being tried under Judge Chutkan.
Powell obviously knows that her guilty plea in Georgia can and will be used by Smith in the federal case, so what it basically says is that she's going to be a cooperating witness (she really has no choice) for Smith as well.
Powell was there at the infamous December 18th meeting wherein things like shutting down all voting and declaring martial law were allegedly discussed. This in turn means that she can provide convincing and potentially damning evidence as to Trump's knowledge of and intent with regard to how the election had actually played out, and specifically with regard to his desire to overturn it.
There's a lot more to be said about this, but I have to go make dinner.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Lol. These asshats waste no time throwing each other under the bus. 🍿
They have a bus driving around picking those up who were thrown inder the bus. Like a wheel, it doesn't end.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Well, there will be more than enough signed statements and other written communication to prove the contrary, I'm sure.
One book, "The Kraken Lady, 2020 Election Fraud And Me: This Sort of Thing Is My Bag, Baby", written by Donald Trump.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
She has literal receipts though. Because she's one of the few people he actually paid.
What a joke of a man he his.
was never his attorney because he never paid her bills?
Well kids. This is why we pay our co-conspirator's legal bills. And our own legal bills. And why we listen to advice of counsel. And why we remain loyal to those who are loyal to us.
Oh yeah, and skipping on the crimes helps as well.
Ah, so what you're saying is that attorney-client privilege doesn't apply to your communications with her, since she was never your attorney, right?
He can't just go one day without throwing everything under a bus can he lol. Is the only person he hasn't his daughter (who he wants to bang) or has he done the same to her yet lol.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Nice try fuck face. You're literally on TV talking to, about, and with her. Fuck, this guy is insufferable. I'd go to church everyday and pray to whatever God would end his existence* so we don't have to listen to this shit anyone.
*not condoning any violence against another human being by a human being; only divine intervention which seems to be a thing people believe in and how it can happen by magic sky daddies
I’m waiting for him to claim that he’s lactose-intolerant now that Chesebro has also flipped.
"Sidney? I don't even know the guy!"
I'm waiting for trump to insult her looks and say she's not his type.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Well, at least he seems to know who she is this time.
Not exactly “I don’t know her” but close enough for government work.
Also, “STOLLEN, Part Deux”
Uh oh, I think donnie the Nepo Baby is getting nervous about someone flipping.
Trying to Mariah Carey his way out of his troubles...
Ahh - throwing out the "attorney/client privilege" defense?
Bold strategy.
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2023
571 points (97.7% liked)
politics
19170 readers
4592 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS