Yep. I was talking the head dude- FBI 'natch- a Joint Organized Task Force , and he told me that they had indictments for murder, racketeering kidnapping, etc etc etc- but after witness murder and intimidation they were depending on the “99 counts of wire fraud and money laundering”.
Sad but true. They seem to love being conned by this con-man.
In case anyone thinks this is an exaggeration or a paraphrase, no. It’s a direct quote.
For context, this was during the Republican primaries in 2016. He’s in Nevada speaking in February of that year, discussing how he won the caucuses in that state decisively.
“We won the evangelicals. We won with young. We won with old. We won with highly educated. We won with poorly educated - I love the poorly educated. We’re the smartest people, we’re the most loyal people. And you know what I’m really happy about? Because I’ve been saying it for a long time. 46% were the Hispanics! 46%! Number One with Hispanics.”
That’s a transcription from the 30 second clip after listening to its entirety. There’s the whole context. Draw your own conclusions.
In a second post, Mr Trump added: “Attorney General Letitia ‘Peekaboo’ James, a total crime fighting disaster in New York, is spending all of her time fighting for very powerful and well-represented banks and insurance companies, who were fully paid, made a lot of money, and never had a complaint about me, instead of fighting murder and violent crime, which is killing New York State.”
Apart from the fact that it’s the most overtly bigoted thing he ever said, and he has said many, how dumb do you have to be to misspell that word?
He can claim that, but there’s also an opportunity to rebut that claim. If there was ever a lawyer who told him that what they were doing was illegal, that kind of knocks out his argument. He can’t claim ignorance if he was told about this, even if he disagreed with the expert who told him it was illegal. As you pointed out, he’s the decider, and he decided to go with the illegal advice, rather than the legal advice.
The Cheeto tweets it out on his Truth Social account?
“My lawyers kept telling me this was not something to be doing, but I know lawyering, maybe better than anybody and I told them they were wrong. This is business and I’m very much a genius about business, just look at all my money!”
If he reveals it, it’s no longer privileged, correct?
I meant, one of the other two. Essentially there would be two clients - can one client waive the privilege over the objections of the other client?
There has to be a way for this to happen. If I was your employee, there’s no way you could be allowed to prevent me from ratting you out for a planned crime just by having your lawyer sit in with us every time we have a meeting.
Those exceptions apply where the lawyer is participating in the proposed crime or fraud.
If a lawyer in good faith gives an opinion that conduct X would be illegal, and advises against X, without any suggestion that the lawyer is involved in the illegal activity or is trying to find a way to help the client do the illegal activity, future crime exception to privilege wouldn’t apply to that advice.
I’m not a lawyer so I may be wrong, but my understanding would be that the confidentiality only extends between the client and the lawyer and not between the two clients.
So if in a meeting between the two clients and a lawyer, if client A said something incriminating, client B freely could rat on him to the Feds, but the lawyer could not confirm or deny client B’s accusations. However I don’t think client B could be subpoenaed to testify against client A against his will because that meeting would still fall under client B’s attorney client privilege.