Trump GA Indictment (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    Professional pride? Nobody wants to admit they lied about something like that to try to professionally hurt someone else.
    Not to mention a lawyer who admits under oath that they lied to other lawyers related to a case could face some professional issues in the future (at the very least loss of clients).
     
    Professional pride? Nobody wants to admit they lied about something like that to try to professionally hurt someone else.

    It just seems much more likely that he is lying now either to protect Willis and Wade (who he says he still considers a friend) or maybe even just to help protect the prosecution of Trump.
     
    Not to mention a lawyer who admits under oath that they lied to other lawyers related to a case could face some professional issues in the future (at the very least loss of clients).

    Well he's already admitted to giving up information that was part of attorney client privilige to Trump's attorney. That is the only reason he's on the stand today.

    I don't think he's every going to work as an attorney again. I am sure he already knows that.
     
    Yea he just said that, but i'm watching it live, he is clearly not telling the truth.
    With your ability to know definitively when someone is lying or telling the truth just by watching them in a video, you should be making millions as a consultant.
     
    Well he's already admitted to giving up information that was part of attorney client privilige to Trump's attorney. That is the only reason he's on the stand today.

    I don't think he's every going to work as an attorney again. I am sure he already knows that.
    I thought it was ruled that his “knowledge” of their relationship was ruled to not be covered by privilege?
     
    Because if he says how he knew it would make it clear that Willis and Wade started a relationship before Willis claimed on the stand. Him saying it was speculation now, gives them an out. Something he observed of that Wade said to him is most likely what led him to say that before, but he can't say that now, because it would get Wade and Willis in trouble.

    He is changing his story about several things from when he talked to Trump's attorney months ago.

    I have no idea why he's lying, but he was either lying then or he's lying now, and from what i can tell, he has more of a reason to lie now that he did then.
    Let me see if I got how you see it straight.

    When he initially talked to Trump's attorneys he was more than willing to speak truthfully about things that would be bad for Willis and Wade. Did he tell them to Trump's attorneys to be beneficial to Willis and Wade? Did he think telling Trump's attorneys would not end up being bad for Willis and Wade?

    Now that he's on the stand, he's not telling the truth now because he doesn't to cause a problem for Willis and Wade? If he didn't want to cause problems for Willis and Wade, why tell Trump's attorneys what he initially told them that lead to all these problems for Willis and Wade?

    What do you think changed for him that he wants to protect Willis and Wade now while under oath, but didn't care about protecting Willis and Wade when he initially spoke to Trump's attorneys while not under oath?

    I mean, other than the fact that when he first talked to Trump's attorneys he wasn't under oath so he couldn't get into trouble for lying and today he's under oath so get into trouble for lying. It' really weird to think that he was precioulsy willing to speak the truth to hurt Willis and Wade at first, but today he's lying to protect them when him lying today could get him into trouble.

    What do you see as his incentive to risk lying under oath to protect people who originally had no problem hurting?
     
    Professional pride? Nobody wants to admit they lied about something like that to try to professionally hurt someone else.
    I think it's more professional survival. He was Wade's divorce attorney and he spilled personal beans about his client to Trump's attorneys. That's going to hurt his ability to retain and acquire new clients.

    He's doing damage control today, but it's not for Willis's and Wade's sack, it's for his own legal career. That's likely also why he's not going to come right out and admit he was talking BS when talking to Trump's attorney. Admitting that would also be bad for his legal career.
     
    Let me see if I got how you see it straight.

    When he initially talked to Trump's attorneys he was more than willing to speak truthfully about things that would be bad for Willis and Wade. Did he tell them to Trump's attorneys to be beneficial to Willis and Wade? Did he think telling Trump's attorneys would not end up being bad for Willis and Wade?

    Now that he's on the stand, he's not telling the truth now because he doesn't to cause a problem for Willis and Wade? If he didn't want to cause problems for Willis and Wade, why tell Trump's attorneys what he initially told them that lead to all these problems for Willis and Wade?

    What do you think changed for him that he wants to protect Willis and Wade now while under oath, but didn't care about protecting Willis and Wade when he initially spoke to Trump's attorneys while not under oath?

    I mean, other than the fact that when he first talked to Trump's attorneys he wasn't under oath so he couldn't get into trouble for lying and today he's under oath so get into trouble for lying. It' really weird to think that he was precioulsy willing to speak the truth to hurt Willis and Wade at first, but today he's lying to protect them when him lying today could get him into trouble.

    What do you see as his incentive to risk lying under oath to protect people who originally had no problem hurting?

    Look, in a year, no one is going to be wondering if Fanni was lying.

    I have no interest in convincing you to agree with me.
     
    I thought it was ruled that his “knowledge” of their relationship was ruled to not be covered by privilege?

    yes, but he was arguing that it was.

    So based on his own intentions, he violated attorney client privilege, unless he was lying when he wanted to claim it was covered a few weeks ago.
     
    yes, but he was arguing that it was.

    So based on his own intentions, he violated attorney client privilege, unless he was lying when he wanted to claim it was covered a few weeks ago.
    I don’t think that when people have a disagreement about attorney-client privilege it’s clear that one side is lying about it. These things happen all the time. One side will try to say info is privileged and the other will say it wasn’t and the judge rules. That’s just the practice of law, IMO.
     
    The Georgia judge overseeing the election interference case against Donald Trump and his co-defendants has thrown out six charges from the original indictment, saying they lack detail and do not give defendants enough time to prepare intelligent defenses.

    On Wednesday, Judge Scott McAfee of the Fulton County Superior Court ruled that six of the charges, three of which apply to the former president, should be “quashed.”

    Those counts are numbers two, five, six, 23, 28 and 38. These all fall under “solicitation of violation of oath of office”.

    Judge McAfee said that while the state alleged “an abundance” of sufficient conduct, they failed to include enough detail to allow defendants to prepare, like failing to detail the nature of the commission.

    Only three of those – five, 28 and 38 – apply to the former president. The other apply to co-defendants Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Mark Meadows, Ray Smith or Robert Cheeley.

    Judge McAfee said the state could seek a reindictment to supplement the six counts.……



     
    The Georgia judge overseeing the election interference case against Donald Trump and his co-defendants has thrown out six charges from the original indictment, saying they lack detail and do not give defendants enough time to prepare intelligent defenses.

    On Wednesday, Judge Scott McAfee of the Fulton County Superior Court ruled that six of the charges, three of which apply to the former president, should be “quashed.”

    Those counts are numbers two, five, six, 23, 28 and 38. These all fall under “solicitation of violation of oath of office”.

    Judge McAfee said that while the state alleged “an abundance” of sufficient conduct, they failed to include enough detail to allow defendants to prepare, like failing to detail the nature of the commission.

    Only three of those – five, 28 and 38 – apply to the former president. The other apply to co-defendants Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Mark Meadows, Ray Smith or Robert Cheeley.

    Judge McAfee said the state could seek a reindictment to supplement the six counts.……



    How long will it take for the cult clowns to claim complete exoneration?
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom