The court previously allowed attorney-client privilege to be pierced due to the crime-fraud exception. If that testimony is excluded, how damaging would it be to the government’s burden of proving mens rea? Also, is it clear that it was appropriate to allow the grand jury testimony? You are allowed to ask your attorney if something is illegal or if you can take some action. Would it be the case that some but not all of the testimony be thrown out?
[Moderating]
This is a subjective enough question that I think it’d be better in IMHO than FQ.
I don’t think the damage would be too great. At a minimum, we have the document he had one lawyer write up that asserted that they’d turned over all the documents, when we know that he hadn’t done that. This is, by its nature, a publicly available document, and not covered by any privilege, but which is also pretty good evidence of his intent to lie to the government about the documents.