- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Trump: Sidney Powell was never my attorney
Posted on 10/23/23 at 12:39 pm to RammerJammer91
Posted on 10/23/23 at 12:39 pm to RammerJammer91
quote:Technically true.
She represented my interests and coordinated with me and my campaign in every way, but dammit she never signed a pleading on behalf of me as an individual.
Does he really expect his followers to accept this sort of facile position?
Yeah, he is probably correct.
This post was edited on 10/23/23 at 12:43 pm
2
Posted on 10/23/23 at 12:43 pm to BamaGradinTn
quote:
Shouldn't Trump want to claim her as his attorney, making all of their conversations privileged? If she never was his attorney, every conversation between them, she can be compelled to repeat in court.
First, it’s not a disqualification in GA. There would only be a privilege on communication regarding what the client said in confidence and the attorneys opinions. Facts aren’t subject to the privilege so she could still be asked to testify on some facts even if she was counsel
Also GA has a crime/fraud exception. If a client is using legal advice and services to further a criminal or fraudulent enterprise, the “privilege takes flight,” regardless of whether the attorney is aware or ignorant of a client’s intentions or misuse of the attorney’s services. If Powell has admitted a crime it likely takes away a lot of the privilege
Trump may also wish to waive privilege in some suits. There were discussions that he would proffer a defense test his actions were based on instructions from counsel. Thus, he may want some of that in the record
This post was edited on 10/23/23 at 12:45 pm
Posted on 10/23/23 at 12:48 pm to NC_Tigah
So he didn’t lie. He said she wasn’t his lawyer. He probably doesn’t want to talk about that.
Posted on 10/23/23 at 12:55 pm to PaperTiger
For context, Powell is an unindicted co-conspirator in the Federal J6 case and the indictment alleges that Powell was taking orders from Trump about filing lawsuits and his melt is him trying to distance himself from their relationship and the conduct for which she's already pled guilty.
quote:
On November 16, 2020, on the Defendant’s behalf, his executive assistant sent CoConspirator 3 and others a document containing bullet points critical of a certain voting machine company, writing, “See attached – Please include as is, or almost as is, in lawsuit.”
CoConspirator 3 responded nine minutes later, writing, “IT MUST GO IN ALL SUITS IN GA AND PA IMMEDIATELY WITH A FRAUD CLAIM THAT REQUIRES THE ENTIRE ELECTION TO BE SET ASIDE in those states and machines impounded for non-partisan professional inspection.”
On November 25, Co-Conspirator 3 filed a lawsuit against the Governor of Georgia falsely alleging “massive election fraud” accomplished through the voting machine company’s election software and hardware. Before the lawsuit was even filed, the Defendant retweeted a post promoting it. The Defendant did this despite the fact that when he had discussed CoConspirator 3’s far-fetched public claims regarding the voting machine company in private with advisors, the Defendant had conceded that they were unsupported and that Co-Conspirator 3 sounded “crazy.” Co-Conspirator 3’s Georgia lawsuit was dismissed on December 7.
This post was edited on 10/23/23 at 12:56 pm
Posted on 10/23/23 at 1:00 pm to Antoninus
quote:
Does he really expect his followers to accept this sort of facile position?
I see you’re new here 
Posted on 10/23/23 at 1:04 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
I see you’re new here
Your recognition skills be sucking.
FTR, boosiebadazz was never my attorney.
Posted on 10/23/23 at 1:16 pm to Flats
quote:
boosiebadazz was never my attorney.
Unless you slipped and fell in walmarks, you won’t need him.
Posted on 10/23/23 at 1:18 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
unindicted co-conspirator
Posted on 10/23/23 at 1:20 pm to Antoninus
quote:
Does he really expect his followers to accept this sort of facile position?
Did she bill him? This should be really easy to figure out.
Posted on 10/23/23 at 1:20 pm to roadGator
#everyonetrumptouchesdies
Who in their right mind would work for him in a second term
Who in their right mind would work for him in a second term
Posted on 10/23/23 at 1:21 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
I see you’re new here
Posted on 10/23/23 at 1:21 pm to BBONDS25
Your posts have this energy:
Posted on 10/23/23 at 1:26 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Acting on behalf of the campaign =/= Trump's personal attorney
A pretty swampy distinction but it is a true statement.
Posted on 10/23/23 at 1:28 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
Does he really expect his followers to accept this sort of facile position?
quote:
I see you’re new here
Posted on 10/23/23 at 1:31 pm to roadGator
quote:
Unless you slipped and fell in walmarks, you won’t need him.
Muh back pain?
Posted on 10/23/23 at 1:31 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
Your posts have this energy:
Well, you are regurgitating made up phrases that are nowhere in the legal lexicon outside of a grand jury saying “they may have been involved” and then refusing to bring charges. Do you know how easy it is to get an indictment. Can you imagine how little evidence of involvement there must be for someone to not be indicted? It’s a made up phrase so prosecutors can imply some wrongdoing, and useless idiots will use it to confirm their own bias.
If you have a “unindocted co-conspirator” the evidence was so weak they wouldn’t true bill. That should tell you something. You can true bill a ham sandwich. Now that you know this I am positive you will ignore it and continue to post as if an indicted co-conspirator is something bad instead of someone they couldn’t indict. Which is really hard to do.
This post was edited on 10/23/23 at 1:36 pm
Posted on 10/23/23 at 1:32 pm to Adam Banks
quote:
A pretty swampy distinction but it is a true statement.
Why is it relevant if she's personally on record representing him? She's still taking his bullet points and putting them in her lawsuits anyway. They have the emails and can match them to the lawsuits.
Posted on 10/23/23 at 1:33 pm to BBONDS25
The language in the text is "coconspirator". Perhaps our internet judge will allow me to use that for the purposes of the internet courtroom?
Posted on 10/23/23 at 1:35 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
Why is it relevant if she's personally on record representing him?
I’m not the one arguing that it is.
Page 7 of 8
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News