(09-12-2022 12:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 11:42 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 11:41 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 11:34 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(09-12-2022 11:32 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Done under oath it certainly does put it into play.

Had she simply handed over the redwell and said nothing, then no problem.

The second she hands over a letter to the DOJ, not just a letter but one under oath, that is on its surface a falsehood -- that implicates potentially at least 3 different criminal statutes.


It does so even more than the potential criminal implications. At the very least, given the finding of 100 or so classified documents, her false statement to the opposite absolutely puts her in the witness category. And, he r involvement with the documents in and around MaL absolutely does as well.


If I commit an overt act that forwards an underlying crime or fraud, the privilege is absolutely at stake in that aspect.


Once she delivers that false statement, if false that absolutely is an act that furthers at least two, if not all three, of the crimes listed in the warrant.

Play a stupid game, win a stupid prize.

You're making a lot of assumptions to get there that just aren't in the public record right now.

Have you seen the letter she sent? Were you there when she spoke with her client?

Well that is quite the turn from your original obstinate draw the line in the sand statements above that 'there is zero issue here'.

Seems to me there is enough heat here for Robb to skedaddle to the sidelines and get her own attorney. I wonder why that would be.

Because people with actual power share your excitement and penchant for creating a story better than Walt Disney.

You are aware the letter is in both the public and judicial record, right?

Please do tell where I am 'creating a story'.

Attorney signed a letter under oath.
Facts afterwards strongly indicate a falsehood to the sworn facts in the letter.
A crime is implicated by the client simply if the facts are false (i.e. the unlawfully holding defense information)
A series of crimes is implicated by the client by the letter (obstruction, false statement)
A series of crimes is implicated by the attorney by the letter (obstruction, false statement, accessory to obstruction, accessory to false statement, accessory to unlawful holding charge)
At the very least, the attorney states she did the now known to false letter with first hand facts, making her a witness to all of the above.
An action to further any crime removes the privilege.

I mean, this is kind of law school basic criminal law, ethics exam question level.

And somehow this is a 'story'. Got it. Seems basic business issues for an adept attorney. Play a stupid game, win a stupid prize ---Mangam Trump style.