exception. so if you use the attorney and the attorney advises in a way that furthers the crime, then awñi considers that not then privileged at all, that s why corcoran can be compelled to testif.w3 testif.w3 so theçó is suggesting thate1 counsel wa used in furtherance of crime or aw3 fraud. but corcoran did notlp plead th fifth,çó suggesting that he fee as though there s no liability for what he s going to share with the court. so the suggestion thatxd donald heqw3 could have told the president, sir, i don t think
information, and howell ruled on friday that he has to testify and he has to turn over any and all notes and documents related to that subject. presumably, if the reporting is correct, he is going to be saying and may have contemporaneous notes of it that he got that information from donald trump. it is a crime to lie to the department of justice. it is making a false statement. i have charged it in the past. and we ve gotten convictions on that. it is also obstruction of justice. that is also a federal crime. so there s a reason this is, i think you can correctly say a bomb shell, you could end up with evan corcoran as a key fundamental witness against donald trump, in an obstruction of justice case, and that is a really important distinguishing factor from everything we ve heard with respect to mike pence and the current president who also had documents in places they shouldn t have been, but there s no evidence that they obstructed justice.
commit a crime using your lawyer. that does not make something privileged, and so you would think donald trump could have looked at what happened with manafort, seen that the judge ordered the exact same thing and learned his lesson, apparently he didn t. what do you make to the reference to recordings? fascinating. so the reason i know a lot of people talked about did mr. corcoran make recordings, that wouldn t be, my understanding as a lawyer is that s not proper. you re not supposed to record people. those ethical prohibitions. the idea that mr. corcoran would have made these recordings seems unlikely. i think he s enough of a real lawyer not to be doing that. so the only other thing about is it possible that he actually is holding recordings in his possession that were made by others, and, for instance, by the former president or of the former president, so there could be something like that, if it s true, i mean, everyone of
last week, she had ordered last friday that the crime fraud exception was met and that evan corcoran needed to provide testimony or hand the documents to the department of justice and prosecutors. you heard that reporting from the washington post, talk to me about its significance. sure. i think there s significance and what s donald trump s next potential play here, since he s in to delay. first, the significance. evan corcoran drafted in june, a certification saying there are no more documents responsive to a subpoena at mar-a-lago. the government knows and we all know that s not true because a search was done, and guess what, there were tons of documents there. so what the government wants to find out from mr. corcoran is why did he write that? where did he get the
don t know how much litigation is going on behind closed doors about the crime, fraud exception. that is correct, katie. a lawyer and recess everyone needs to hold their horses a bit. in terms of how excited we get around these data points, we really don t know the degree of information being sought, revealed, and the focus of the information. i do think that s a good sign that the jackson event that they were tear doing a thorough job with the strength of the investigation, but that is to be expected. ultimately, how much this all matters remains to be seen. we really don t know the substance of the inquiries as well as what we re getting back from those questions. charles, i m gonna switch gears a little. the doj filing an amicus brief in the united states quarter of appeals, d.c. circuit. it said the following. no part of a presidents official responsibilities includes the incitement of imminent private violence. thereby squarely rejecting trump s claim of absolute immunity for