Another question... It's my understanding from listening to you, Andrew, and other lawyers on MSNBC, the fact that someone (DJT in this case) removes classified documents from the security of where they are stored, is breaking the law and punishable by up to x years in prison. I've heard former CIA director John Brennan say if he had done so, he be in custody immediately. WHY is this not the case for DJT? Is the DOJ looking for a "higher" crime with which to charge him?
Always appreciate your comments when you appear on MSNBC.
If I remember correctly, Christina Bobb's affidavit last June written by someone else stated she had been 'informed' that no further materials remained at M-a-L. (1) Injudicious on her part at the very least, but if she had no reason to believe the assertion was false, did she save herself from crossing the ethical line by the disclaimer? (2) Have you heard anything about whether she will be questioned by the FBI, setting her up as a potential witness against the person who falsely informed her that all documents had been returned?
My go-to for legal advice: the law firm of Vance, Weissman, Katyal, Rosenberg, McQuade, Wine-Banks, Tribe & Associates
Thank you so much for your expert summary -- a 10-minute master class. I feel duly armed if the subject were to arise with friends or family. That's such a helpful tool in trying to ground fractious conversations in reality. Saving each of your running commentaries. But, but, but ... What to do about Judge Cannon's aberant rulings remains a burning question in my mind. Last night on MSNBC, Andrew Weissmann repeatedly refered to Cannon as "the root of the problem," i.e. inserting boomerangs into DOJ's investigation. Can't she be removed from the case? or the bench? What would it take?
And in terms of Chris Kise, it appears that he had a strategy that made the most sense for Trump in the long run to minimize his liability in this documents case, but Trump only knows the rules he learned from Ray Cohn: attack, attack, attack, and never admit that you are wrong no matter how obvious it is. It appears that the entire Republican party has adopted this strategy: We will keep lying so long that (too) many people will believe our lies and our phony outrage at being accused in the first place.
Thanks so much, Joyce. Your wisdom and knowledge is helping me get through these terrible times. I have every copy of your "Civil Discourses"! Enjoying watching you on the nightly news as well!
Thank you so much for this Joyce. It explains where ethical lawyers can set their boundaries.
A question I keep asking (which really can’t be answered with just legal knowledge I guess), is why oh why do lawyers still get sucked in to working for this notorious client?? Surely they see what everyone else sees? I guess it goes down the rabbit hole of what they are looking for. Fame maybe or infamy😲
Thank you Joyce. You bring clarity for me in a very murky historical moment. The amazing thing to me is how many people are turned to the “dark side” by association with DJT. I may see it intellectually but at heart, cannot fathom the attraction. Maybe that is how evil works?
Thank you! We can always count on you to give us a thorough and understandable answer to those of us who are not lawyers. I never miss a program that I know you will be on. Thanks again!
I am so grateful for the work you and your colleagues are doing to explain the implications of Trump’s legal actions.
We rely on professional organizations to provide oversight of those professions. The medical profession does a pretty lousy job of sanctioning incompetent physicians. I’m not getting a warm feeling about whether there is any oversight of the judiciary. I anticipate websites with ratings of judges so rich people can shop for judges most likely to give them what they want, along with satisfied “customers” attesting to how a judge made their legal troubles go away.
This is very interesting. And what of Supreme Court Judges who lie in their Confirmation Hearings?
Another question... It's my understanding from listening to you, Andrew, and other lawyers on MSNBC, the fact that someone (DJT in this case) removes classified documents from the security of where they are stored, is breaking the law and punishable by up to x years in prison. I've heard former CIA director John Brennan say if he had done so, he be in custody immediately. WHY is this not the case for DJT? Is the DOJ looking for a "higher" crime with which to charge him?
Always appreciate your comments when you appear on MSNBC.
If I remember correctly, Christina Bobb's affidavit last June written by someone else stated she had been 'informed' that no further materials remained at M-a-L. (1) Injudicious on her part at the very least, but if she had no reason to believe the assertion was false, did she save herself from crossing the ethical line by the disclaimer? (2) Have you heard anything about whether she will be questioned by the FBI, setting her up as a potential witness against the person who falsely informed her that all documents had been returned?
My go-to for legal advice: the law firm of Vance, Weissman, Katyal, Rosenberg, McQuade, Wine-Banks, Tribe & Associates
Thank you so much for your expert summary -- a 10-minute master class. I feel duly armed if the subject were to arise with friends or family. That's such a helpful tool in trying to ground fractious conversations in reality. Saving each of your running commentaries. But, but, but ... What to do about Judge Cannon's aberant rulings remains a burning question in my mind. Last night on MSNBC, Andrew Weissmann repeatedly refered to Cannon as "the root of the problem," i.e. inserting boomerangs into DOJ's investigation. Can't she be removed from the case? or the bench? What would it take?
Your timing in this piece is perfect! It hits me, that more than anything, I’m tired of terrible human beings continuing to lie.....
And in terms of Chris Kise, it appears that he had a strategy that made the most sense for Trump in the long run to minimize his liability in this documents case, but Trump only knows the rules he learned from Ray Cohn: attack, attack, attack, and never admit that you are wrong no matter how obvious it is. It appears that the entire Republican party has adopted this strategy: We will keep lying so long that (too) many people will believe our lies and our phony outrage at being accused in the first place.
Tom Taft
Thanks so much, Joyce. Your wisdom and knowledge is helping me get through these terrible times. I have every copy of your "Civil Discourses"! Enjoying watching you on the nightly news as well!
“a lying liar”:)
Thank you so much for this Joyce. It explains where ethical lawyers can set their boundaries.
A question I keep asking (which really can’t be answered with just legal knowledge I guess), is why oh why do lawyers still get sucked in to working for this notorious client?? Surely they see what everyone else sees? I guess it goes down the rabbit hole of what they are looking for. Fame maybe or infamy😲
Thank you Joyce. You bring clarity for me in a very murky historical moment. The amazing thing to me is how many people are turned to the “dark side” by association with DJT. I may see it intellectually but at heart, cannot fathom the attraction. Maybe that is how evil works?
Thank you for marshaling your colleagues to answer this question. So helpful!
Thank you! We can always count on you to give us a thorough and understandable answer to those of us who are not lawyers. I never miss a program that I know you will be on. Thanks again!
This is great--thank you.
Wonderfully refreshing to read about ethics! Ethical behavior…WOW! What a concept!
Your last paragraph illustrates perfectly Rick Wilson's assertion: "Everything Trump Touches Dies."
I am so grateful for the work you and your colleagues are doing to explain the implications of Trump’s legal actions.
We rely on professional organizations to provide oversight of those professions. The medical profession does a pretty lousy job of sanctioning incompetent physicians. I’m not getting a warm feeling about whether there is any oversight of the judiciary. I anticipate websites with ratings of judges so rich people can shop for judges most likely to give them what they want, along with satisfied “customers” attesting to how a judge made their legal troubles go away.