Trump attorney openly admits to judge under penalty of perjury that there's no election fraud

[UCmeNdc]

Link to tweet

[Cirque du So-What]

1. I've seen this posted many times today

Did the judge say GTFO or what? It would be good to hear the rest of the story.

[jpljr77]

2. Promised a ruling by the end of the week, possibly tomorrow. n/t

[bluestarone]

3. THIS question needs to be asked by

EVERY judge in EVERY state!! BEFORE they go any further with the hearing!!

[rsdsharp]

4. I don't think it was under penalty of perjury.

He would be subject to sanction for making a false statement to the court, including fines, and possible license suspension for violation of ethical rules.

[Dream Girl]

5. Why don't you think it was under penalty of perjury?

[unblock]

7. see below. lawyers usually aren't making statements under oath/affirmation.

[Thomas Hurt]

8. It was the attorney, not a witness under oath...

[rsdsharp]

9. He wasn't under oath.

Attorneys are officers of the court. They are subject to the ethical rules of practice in their state of license or where they are admitted pro hac vice. They are also subject to the local rules of court, and the applicable procedural rules.

FRCP 11, and similar rules in all states, make counsel responsible for the factual representations they make orally or in writing. Violation of their responsibilities make them (and their clients) subject to sanctions. Violation of the governing rules, without more, are not crimes.

[unblock]

6. right, lawyers make arguments and allegations which they may support with others' evidence.

they aren't making statements under oath/affirmation and so aren't usually subject to perjury laws in their capacity as a lawyer.

note also that a lawyer would typically say something like "we intent to demonstrate to the court that there was fraud" or "we believe the evidence we present will be sufficient for a finding of fraud" rather than make a statement of fact such as "there was fraud".