Cont: Breaking: Mueller Grand Jury charges filed, arrests as soon as Monday pt 2

[CapelDodger]

This is an interesting article. Thank you for the link.

And thanks for your very interesting post.

 

[BadBoy]

I must add that the color commentary is also very entertaining. Insightful at times, too.

 

[The Big Dog]

This is an interesting article. Thank you for the link.

However, it doesn't do what you seem to have intended it to do, which is to explain why and on what basis Trump's legal team has "debriefed all of Mueller's witnesses".

A "joint defense agreement" is usually an agreement between multiple lawyers and the defendants .

SCREEECCHHHHHH!

Hey you are welcome for the article! Gotta ask you a serious question.

Did you read it?

Because the article was talking about targets, not just defendants.

 

[quadraginta]

SCREEECCHHHHHH!

Hey you are welcome for the article! Gotta ask you a serious question.

Did you read it?

Yes, quite carefully. That's why I was able to select a quote from it

Because the article was talking about targets, not just defendants.

And witnesses. It also talked about witnesses. But it didn't seem to be particularly relevant to whatever point you were trying to make.

Maybe you should read it.

Aside from that, do you have any responses to the questions I raised?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Hoo boy, the Poet thinks it is odd that the subjects/targets of a federal investigation enter into a joint defense agreement?

No. Try reading what he wrote.

 

[Hellbound]

And here I thought "Twist and Shout" was just a song, not a strategy.

 

[The Big Dog]

Yes, quite carefully. That's why I was able to select a quote from it

Then why did you claim that such agreements "were usually an agreement between multiple lawyers and the defendants in a trial" which was directly inconsistent with the article.

Explain.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Trump Tweets

"I am on Air Force One flying to NATO and hear reports that the FBI lovers, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page are getting cold feet on testifying about the Rigged Witch Hunt headed by 13 Angry Democrats and people that worked for Obama for 8 years. Total disgrace!"

 

[Steve]

Trump Tweets

"I am on Air Force One flying to NATO and hear reports that the FBI lovers, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page are getting cold feet on testifying about the Rigged Witch Hunt headed by 13 Angry Democrats and people that worked for Obama for 8 years. Total disgrace!"

I can totally believe that one of his stooges told him that. Does not mean it has any connection to reality.

 

[Segnosaur]

Trump Tweets

"I am on Air Force One flying to NATO and hear reports that the FBI lovers, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page are getting cold feet on testifying about the Rigged Witch Hunt headed by 13 Angry Democrats and people that worked for Obama for 8 years. Total disgrace!"

Does anyone else find it a little hypocritical for Trump to be accusing others of having 'cold feet' when his own lawyer (Guiliani) is doing all he can to limit the chance of Trump testifying?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...obert-mueller-election-meddling-a8435961.html

 

[theprestige]

Does anyone else find it a little hypocritical for Trump to be accusing others of having 'cold feet' when his own lawyer (Guiliani) is doing all he can to limit the chance of Trump testifying?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...obert-mueller-election-meddling-a8435961.html

I find it extremely hypocritical.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Let's not forget that Strzok has already testified in a closed-door session. Then the Republicans leaked parts of his testimony, which made him look bad while saying that he doesn't believe in transparency. Strzok's lawyer then asked for all the testimony to be made public, in order for full transparency. When that didn't happen, Strzok's lawyer asked for Strzok to have a copy of the testimony so that he could prepare for the second session. Again, this didn't come to pass.

So I'm not altogether surprised Strzok is feeling a little less like testifying again than he otherwise might have been. Assuming that that's true, of course. Trump doesn't have a great track record when it comes to telling the truth.

 

[Arcade22]

Trump Tweets

"I am on Air Force One flying to NATO and hear reports that the FBI lovers, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page are getting cold feet on testifying about the Rigged Witch Hunt headed by 13 Angry Democrats and people that worked for Obama for 8 years. Total disgrace!"

It is totally disgraceful that he's flying in the Air Force One. Shameful display.

 

[Upchurch]

It is totally disgraceful that he's flying in the Air Force One. Shameful display.

It costs him less.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Flynn sentencing due in Aug.

Today: Michael Flynn is cooperating with Mueller and eager to have case wrap up, court hears

In a joint reply to the judge, prosecutor Brandon Van Grack and Flynn attorney Kelner had said that although they still wanted to postpone sentencing and could update Sullivan again about timing on Aug. 24, they had asked to launch the pre-sentence investigation because it would eventually help the court schedule move more quickly.

Prosecutors typically postpone sentencing for witnesses until their cooperation — including testimony before a grand jury or at trial — no longer is needed, and routinely do so jointly with cooperating defendants in submitting periodic status reports with a sentencing judge.

The August date "may come and go. That's fine as well, the court is not going to pressure parties to sentencing," Sullivan said. But whenever they did want to proceed, the judge said he could "schedule sentencing in 60 days, as opposed to the traditional 90 days."

"We would certainly welcome that, your honor," Kelner said.

"The government would welcome that too," Van Grack said.

If a 60-day clock for sentencing were to start on Aug. 24, that could see Flynn sentenced before November's Congressional elections.

 

[quadraginta]

Then why did you claim that such agreements "were usually an agreement between multiple lawyers and the defendants in a trial" which was directly inconsistent with the article.

I said it was "usually" defendants in a trial. Which is true. Also true for potential defendants.

Explain.

Perhaps you should go first, since you chose the article.

But I will offer this.

For starters, I also offered a citation in my response, one which more directly addressed the nature of a "joint defense agreement". That is an element which needs to be included.

As far as the article you cited is concerned, the entire thing is based on a hypothetical defense.

Reading down through it you will find this expansion on the constant theme, discussing in more depth the relevance of a "joint defense agreement";

As currently construed, so long as the parties have a common interest and have engaged in a joint effort to defend their clients in actual or potential litigation, the joint defense privilege permits them to share materials without losing the protections of the attorney-client or attorney work product privileges.

The benefits offered by a joint defense agreement can be significant. While client and counsel can gain access to facts, documents, experts and strategies to defend the case, the client is also assured that his or her attorney’s duty of undivided loyalty to the client continues. The client’s interest in confidentiality is protected because whatever materials are shared among the joint defense group cannot (theoretically) be disclosed to any third parties. Moreover, even if those joint defense materials are subpoenaed or sought through other compulsive means, the typical joint defense agreement requires the party receiving the subpoena to notify the other joint defense members and assert any rights and privileges that would protect the materials from disclosure. With those safeguards in place, sharing materials in a joint defense agreement should not make them significantly more vulnerable to disclosure than they otherwise would have been had they not been disclosed pursuant to that agreement.

Nowhere in the entire article is there any mention of witnesses being parties to a "joint defense agreement". In fact, the most prominent mention of witnesses is a warning that the lawyers involved in a "joint defense agreement" should exercise caution to ...

avoid even the appearance of witness tampering or obstruction of justice

... when interviewing witnesses.

A particular caution which has singular relevance to the subject under discussion.

Now it's your turn. Perhaps you will point specifically to the sections of the article you have chosen to cite which bear the most relevance to the assertions you are making.

Also, it would be interesting to see your responses to the questions I posed.

 

[The Big Dog]

I said it was "usually" defendants in a trial. Which is true. Also true for potential defendants.

I see that after I started typing my response you realized that Mueller's action was a criminal action and therefore edited your post. Good catch!

JDA's apply to targets, subjects and/or defendants in:

As currently construed, so long as the parties have a common interest and have engaged in a joint effort to defend their clients in actual or potential litigation

Thus under no circumstances is there a requirement that an indictment be returned. The article makes this spectacularly clear. Do you understand this? Yes or No.

I am not going to walk people through basic principles that have already been thoroughly explained.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Hannity: Trump is being framed after Clinton wasn't prosecuted, all a plot, the dossier, yada yada.

Ingraham comes on to defend Kavanaugh and accuse all liberal federal judges of legislating from the bench. She reads various Hollywood Tweets in a sarcastic voice.

It's insane.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Perhaps you should go first, since you chose the article.

Good luck. He can't even say what he thinks "debriefed" means in this context.

 

[phiwum]

That's what they say about him. I hate that term because it sounds almost benign, even charming. It's one thing to weave a tall tale. It's another to simply spout off something important that is as likely to be false as it might be true.

Trump is not a BSer. He's a liar. He deliberately tells falsehoods and he is totally reckless with the facts. It is not charming, it is disgusting. Trump is dishonest to the core.

I agree. BSer sounds rather more frivolous than this situation. Perhaps it's appropriate when we talk about someone who cares not a bit about truth down at the local pub, but this is the President of the United States. So-called BS is genuinely dangerous.