Semantics.
ABL - Always Be Lying
Always be lying.
Always be lying.
Always be lying.
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.
Ah so it’s more like:
Step 1: attorney/client privilege no longer applies due to guilty plea.
Step 2: disown
I can’t see how it’d help him, though. She was in the meetings. She has (or at least had) the texts and emails. Her testimony could crucify Trump in court. Which would be fitting considering that the MAGA folks seem to think he’s the second coming.
Also, if she gives prosecutors a hard time and fails to turn over evidence or testify honestly, she could end up screwing up her bargain and be worse off than before.
Her testimony could crucify Trump in court.
I’m assuming this is what got her a plea deal, but of course I’m an internet rando and I don’t know for sure.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Former President Donald Trump claimed Sidney Powell was “never” his attorney in a social media post Sunday, three days after she pleaded guilty in the Georgia election subversion case.
Trump publicly announced on November 15, 2020, that he “added” Powell to his “truly great team” of lawyers working on the election.
And she met with Trump on multiple occasions, including a December 2020 White House meeting where he considered naming her as a special counsel to look for voter fraud.
This was the infamous meeting where there was discussion of declaring martial law and ordering the military to seize voting machines.
In her guilty plea, Powell admitted her role in the January 2021 breach of election systems in rural Coffee County, Georgia.
They did this after Trump declined to sign an executive order directing the Pentagon to seize voting machines.
The original article contains 440 words, the summary contains 140 words. Saved 68%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
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 John Bannon!
It’s John Baron, I believe.
I was pretty tired when I wrote that. Thanks
Steve McCarthy? Tim Apple?
It was the other president, Obama who won in 2016…
Well, there will be more than enough signed statements and other written communication to prove the contrary, I’m sure.
Fakenews amiright? /s
One book, “The Kraken Lady, 2020 Election Fraud And Me: This Sort of Thing Is My Bag, Baby”, written by Donald Trump.
It’s actually better if he sticks to that claim, that means he can’t claim any communications with her were privileged and thus inadmissible.
His claims will change to whatever he thinks is most advantageous in the moment.
If you present evidence of him claiming the contrary he’ll just say he never said that.
Works in the media, but you can’t do it in court.
“I don’t care about the truth! I have my own truth!“
“Sidney? I don’t even know the guy!”
I’m waiting for trump to insult her looks and say she’s not his type.
There is video of trump fondling his former attorney Rudy Giuliani.
It’s a classic. The level of hypocrisy from Republicans is just unreal. Politics has always been filled with hypocrisy and jadedness, but the current party just takes it to a level I haven’t seen in my life.
deleted by creator
Ahh - throwing out the “attorney/client privilege” defense?
Bold strategy.
was never his attorney because he never paid her bills?
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.
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?
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.
But if the attorney is party to the crimes then the discussion is not privileged (to my understanding).
Read my second paragraph, because I covered that already. The attorney can’t help you plan or execute future crimes, because that makes them a co-conspirator.
And from what I’ve read, that’s pretty much exactly what Trump tried to do. He apparently tried to use the “hypothetically if I were to commit this crime, what would be the best way to do it” method. The issue is that this is just a blatant attempt at getting around things, and courts don’t tend to like it when you try to skirt their rules.
To be pedantic, you specifically said future crimes. A discussion between a lawyer and a client, about past crimes where the lawyer was a participant in the crime are not covered.
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
He’s going to just say she’s fabricating everything. Probably will start insulting her about irrelevant things soon too.
She’s not my type, believe me folks
If he says this I have to assume they’ve fucked.
I would love to see it, as that would be a violation of his gag orders.
So in other words, he’ll definitely do it and face the serious consequences of the judge giving him a stern warning.
Have any of those been actually enforced yet?
Yes, he was fined $5K the other week and given further warning.
That’s like a judge fining me $1.
removed by mod
While I agree that he’s an idiot, I tend to think his disavowal has more to do with his malignant narcissism: he can’t accept being associated with people who others view as weak, and in his view taking a guilty plea means you’re weak. In his mind, saying he knows her and hired her means admitting he made a bad judgment call, and that’s simply not something he’s capable of admitting (even to himself.)
This here is the correct answer.
This seems easy to prove ether way. I would assume some paperwork exists with her listed as his legal representative.
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.
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.
Trump’s biggest defense against her testimony was attorney/client privilege.
And now he’s saying that didn’t exist.
I hope your making popcorn for all of us!
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.
deleted by creator
Stollen is legit though, highly recommend.
Stöllen is my favorite 80s metal band.
deleted by creator
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.
He did, and it was.
deleted by creator
Nice try
Thanks.
Edit: my app made it look like this was a reply to me lol
millions of people who thought, and in ever increasing numbers still think
Someone needs to tell these people that facts don’t care about feelings.
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.
He doesn’t want to ruin his chances with her.
