General Discussion

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)

60. To be clear...

Tue Oct 8, 2019, 04:42 PM

Oct 2019

Lawyers don't often have the opportunity to lie in court.

It's okay not to know things, and if, for whatever reason, one is asked a factual question, then I'd first run through a mental inventory of whatever is in the record, and point to wherever in the record that answer might be. But if I didn't know to the best of my knowledge that I knew whether a fact was true or not, then wouldn't state it was true. If it was a matter of someone else having told me something, then I would represent that is what that person told me.

This question seems like something that came out of left field, and the lawyer wasn't going to take responsibility for something he may not have been fully informed about.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

64 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

DOJ lawyer can't tell judge the grand jury materials weren't shared with foreign governments [View all] StarfishSaver Oct 2019 OP

holy shit EveHammond13 Oct 2019 #1

This ScratchCat Oct 2019 #2

Wow. Congress can't see them but hey - Russia here you go! Claritie Pixie Oct 2019 #3

Putin had a need to know the contents of the documents. Maybe they reveal names NCjack Oct 2019 #47

What do you want to bet that Putin got a copy The Velveteen Ocelot Oct 2019 #4

Nobody is supposed to get them period ScratchCat Oct 2019 #9

Exactly. But especially not Putin. The Velveteen Ocelot Oct 2019 #53

I think Trump will somehow block him like he did the others. Congress would do well to subpoena Maraya1969 Oct 2019 #64

The Four Treasons, bringin' down the house FakeNoose Oct 2019 #50

Plus one . . . Iliyah Oct 2019 #54

JFC! fleur-de-lisa Oct 2019 #5

Shared with Russia but not with our own Congress. lagomorph777 Oct 2019 #6

This was totally buried way down in the story StarfishSaver Oct 2019 #7

Thanks for pointing it out! lagomorph777 Oct 2019 #8

I'm going to guess that the lawyer didn't know the answer, just as he/she stated. TidalWave46 Oct 2019 #10

Agree. Be cautious in assuming this means they were DrToast Oct 2019 #16

But the fact that the lawyer doesn't know is very troubling StarfishSaver Oct 2019 #19

Well the Judge wants an answer by Friday DrToast Oct 2019 #20

This lawyer shouldn't know. TidalWave46 Oct 2019 #25

The lawyer should know if it was shared with anyone StarfishSaver Oct 2019 #27

How would the lawyer know if, say, Barr shared it with someone? DrToast Oct 2019 #28

That's my point StarfishSaver Oct 2019 #30

Not in this situation. At all. TidalWave46 Oct 2019 #29

This! n/t MFGsunny Oct 2019 #52

Can you plead the 5th at a hearing? TrogL Oct 2019 #34

Lawyers can't plead the fifth..... getagrip_already Oct 2019 #35

Campaign law wouldn't require this lawyer to tell the FEC... TidalWave46 Oct 2019 #36

Lawyers don't "often lie in court" and lawyers lying in court is not "a time-honored tradition" StarfishSaver Oct 2019 #39

Judges rarely do anything about it. TidalWave46 Oct 2019 #41

I don't know where you practice law, but it sounds like some place out of a Grisham or Turow novel StarfishSaver Oct 2019 #42

This message was self-deleted by its author TidalWave46 Oct 2019 #43

I believe SS is a lawyer, and so am I (retired). The Velveteen Ocelot Oct 2019 #44

I fully accept the word "rarely" over the word I used, which was "often." TidalWave46 Oct 2019 #46

I have a law degree StarfishSaver Oct 2019 #45

I got mine at Costco jberryhill Oct 2019 #62

To be clear... jberryhill Oct 2019 #60

Thanks for the post. TidalWave46 Oct 2019 #61

True StarfishSaver Oct 2019 #63

"'I don't know the answer to that,'" dchill Oct 2019 #11

Thanks for posting this Midnightwalk Oct 2019 #12

I think a simple "No" would have been the proper response there... Wounded Bear Oct 2019 #13

We're going to need an answer, but it's possible the lawyer just didn't know DrToast Oct 2019 #15

I get what you're saying... Wounded Bear Oct 2019 #17

This is HUGE malaise Oct 2019 #14

Oh, and one more thing ScratchCat Oct 2019 #18

To ask that question, does the judge already have an idea of the answer ? OnDoutside Oct 2019 #21

It's very interesting the Judge asked it, yes! DrToast Oct 2019 #22

I wondered that myself. It was a really odd question StarfishSaver Oct 2019 #23

How did that question come up, right? Nevilledog Oct 2019 #24

Remember that the Grand Juries there BumRushDaShow Oct 2019 #37

Wish we knew what she knew! Nevilledog Oct 2019 #49

Honestly? I wouldn't want to be her! BumRushDaShow Oct 2019 #56

I was just thinking the same thing. StarfishSaver Oct 2019 #58

First question that jumped to my mind too! MadLinguist Oct 2019 #26

That would be nice !!! OnDoutside Oct 2019 #31

Oh, lookee here! VMA131Marine Oct 2019 #32

All in cahoots. eom sprinkleeninow Oct 2019 #48

No pulling the wool over that judge's eyes bucolic_frolic Oct 2019 #33

Foriegn governments, aka the co-conspiring country that aided tRump? Certanly. ffr Oct 2019 #38

If I was the lawyer unless I knew specifically the answer lettucebe Oct 2019 #40

The lawyer should have been better prepared . . . Iliyah Oct 2019 #51

OT: what does google.com have to do with cnbc.com? Hermit-The-Prog Oct 2019 #55

It's a CNBC story StarfishSaver Oct 2019 #57

if you click the OP link it goes to google which then goes to cnbc Hermit-The-Prog Oct 2019 #59