Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Egnever

(21,506 posts)

4. Pretty clear the attorneys did not want him to be responsible for the contents.

Reply to justiceischeap (Original post)

Fri May 19, 2017, 12:42 PM

May 2017

now he is on record saying it is true and accurate and if it turns out it is not he has again put himself into a compromised position he did not need to.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

11 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Can someone explain why this is a "massive, massive red flag?" [View all] justiceischeap May 2017 OP

Schmergury of Law, I schmuppose. nt Tommy_Carcetti May 2017 #1

Signing a false financial statement as "accurate"... Wounded Bear May 2017 #2

pretty much admitting his financial disclosure forms are knowingly inaccurate unblock May 2017 #3

Pretty clear the attorneys did not want him to be responsible for the contents. Egnever May 2017 #4

uhh Eliot Rosewater May 2017 #5

A. Makes him look guilty if something B. Having worked in auditing underpants May 2017 #6

Two ways to look at it. NCTraveler May 2017 #7

As an attorney, this is a nothingburger to me. geek tragedy May 2017 #8

Thanks! nt justiceischeap May 2017 #11

If he signs, it's an official document subjecting him to the legal punishment if it's false. haele May 2017 #9

Thanks! nt justiceischeap May 2017 #10