If Trump's lawyers know that he is withholding classified documents...?

[kentuck]

Do they have the right to withhold that information from the DOJ?

Can they be held criminally liable, the same as their client?

What should we make of the story that the DOJ has informed the lawyers that they believe there are more classified documents?

From a distance, this looks like this story has turned a corner.

There is no doubt but that the former president is obstructing the DOJ investigation. He has made no effort to help the government retrieve these secret documents. Actually, quite the opposite.

He has put the DOJ in the corner and left them no option but to indict on obstruction and espionage charges.

He has bought himself a little time by going to the Supreme Court, but unless they decide to take the side of the Traitor Trump, this crime spree is about to end.

[marble falls]

1. If they are defending 45's claim he owns them, they are hoping to bargain the return.

[Effete Snob]

2. It's still legal for criminals to have lawyers

And, no, lawyers do not have a duty to turn in their clients for crimes.

There are limits when the lawyers themselves commit crimes, but until we repeal the Sixth Amendment we are going to have to deal with the fact that criminals are entitled to defend themselves and to have lawyers represent them. I know it chafes.

[kentuck]

3. At what point do they become accessories?

If the Supreme Court rules that all classified documents must be turned over to the DOJ?

Can he still argue that he "de-classified" all of them?

[Effete Snob]

6. I genuinely don't understand the question

Your lawyer is not some extension of the police or some kind of substitute parent.

If you steal something and don't give it back, you are entitled to have a lawyer represent you in court. If you lose and don't give whatever it is back, it is not the lawyer's problem.

People never want criminals to have lawyers. That's why we made it a Constitutional right.

You don't have a Constitutional right to a doctor, a place to live, or damned near anything else of value, but you do have a right to a lawyer to defend you if you are accused of a crime. That really pisses people off for some reason.

[kentuck]

7. I guess it does.

I understand that if he is charged with espionage or obstruction, he has a right to a lawyer.

But if he is hiding classified documents, which is presently illegal, and they know about it, is that legal or ethical for a lawyer to do?

[Effete Snob]

8. Is what legal or ethical for a lawyer to do?

Is it legal or ethical for them to know about it? Yes.

Good golly, if lawyers were somehow required to report their clients for crimes, then NOBODY would hire a lawyer. Why would anyone do that?

I once had someone consult with me about a contract dispute. As "proof" of the other guy's bad faith, they made a recording of a telephone conversation with that other party. Now, it turns out that the party being recorded was in a two-party consent state, and the prospective client had, in fact, committed a crime by making that recording without telling the other party.

You are saying that I should have ended the call and called the police? No, it simply does not work that way. I educated him on the subject of the relevant law and advised him not to do that sort of thing. Whether a client follows advice is their problem, not the lawyers.

People are entitled to hire lawyers and consult with them confidentially. Do you think Catholic priests are required to turn in their parishioners for crimes too?

So, here's one. A ten year old girl is abducted, sexually assaulted, murdered and left in a ditch. A cop thinks Joe Blow did it, so he breaks into Joe Blow's house, finds pictures of the crime being committed, and arrests Joe Blow.

Joe Blow hires a lawyer. Joe Blow says to the lawyer "I did it. I enjoyed it, and I look forward to doing more of it. In fact, I did it a bunch of times before and have pictures of them to, but the cop didn't find them. Here, take look!" Joe Blow shows the lawyer a picture of the lawyer's neighbor's daughter who went missing two years ago.

That lawyer's DUTY is to move to exclude the illegally-obtained evidence and to get the case dismissed because the arrest was based on illegally obtained evidence. Period. End of story.

Everybody loves the Constitution and rule of law until they suddenly don't.

[kentuck]

9. Doesn't sound like the Constitution...

....sounds like a suicide pact.

If he sold the documents to Russia and that is why Russia is now threatening the use of nuclear weapons, I do not believe a real lawyer, that believes in the Constitution, would hang with that?

It sounds like the lawyer has joined the gang.

[Effete Snob]

10. Sure, why wait for an enemy

...when there are so many people right here already that want to trash the Constitution.

Aside from your moving the goal posts from the OP, people charged with espionage get lawyers. Even German saboteurs caught entering the US during WWII were entitled to lawyers. Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, who gave nuclear secrets to the Russians, got lawyers.

Terrorists get lawyers.

Rustlers, cut throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, shit-kickers and Methodists all get lawyers.

We might as well toss the Sixth Amendment right now if it isn't even supported on "D"U.

[Effete Snob]

18. Well, attacking liberal ideas is nothing new

https://politicaldictionary.com/words/effete-snobs/

“Effete snobs” was a phrase used by Vice President Spiro Agnew to denounce anti-war protesters, and young intellectuals in general, during the Vietnam era. The phrase quickly caught on and was adopted as a slogan by the anti-war movement.



----

I'm a big fan of the Constitution and the rule of law.

Criminals are entitled to legal representation.

That also used to be something liberals supported.

So, would you like to make a thread about attacking me, or do you want to discuss the Sixth Amendment?

[kentuck]

20. I would prefer to discuss justice.

Or how to mock the justice system to escape accountability.

Trump is trying to indict the government for his crimes.

[exboyfil]

11. It has been an area of controversy

But national security has trumped certain civil rights in the past. Lawyer access to client spies for example. The Court has ruled that US citizens can be sent to Guantánamo as another example.

“There is no bar to this Nation’s holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant.”

I do agree that a lawyer could only get in trouble if they actually took into possession a classified document or arranged for its handling outside turning it over to the US government.

Attorney-client privilege is sacrosanct but the Constitution is not a suicide pact. Everyone is entitled to competent defense though.

[Effete Snob]

12. The goal posts are zooming into the distance

Trump isn't even charged with a crime and the OP wants to lock up his lawyers.

Good to know that nobody here fell for that Barack Obama crap about civil rights and shutting down the Guantanamo prison.

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/02/23/remarks-president-plan-close-prison-guantanamo-bay

For many years, it’s been clear that the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay does not advance our national security -- it undermines it. This is not just my opinion. This is the opinion of experts, this is the opinion of many in our military. It’s counterproductive to our fight against terrorists, because they use it as propaganda in their efforts to recruit. It drains military resources, with nearly $450 million spent last year alone to keep it running, and more than $200 million in additional costs needed to keep it open going forward for less than 100 detainees. Guantanamo harms our partnerships with allies and other countries whose cooperation we need against terrorism. When I talk to other world leaders, they bring up the fact that Guantanamo is not resolved.

Moreover, keeping this facility open is contrary to our values. It undermines our standing in the world. It is viewed as a stain on our broader record of upholding the highest standards of rule of law. As Americans, we pride ourselves on being a beacon to other nations, a model of the rule of law. But 15 years after 9/11 -- 15 years after the worst terrorist attack in American history -- we’re still having to defend the existence of a facility and a process where not a single verdict has been reached in those attacks -- not a single one.

------

Because, yeah, fuck that guy. Amirite?

Throw Trump and his lawyers in Gitmo. Yeee-ha!

[exboyfil]

14. I think we agree

Even if the lawyer knows the location of the documents from privileged conversations/correspondents he is bound to not reveal such information.

Would he have to withdraw if he knows this information but Trump perjures himself to the court regarding it?

[Effete Snob]

16. Yes

The probability of Trump testifying at a criminal trial in his defense is likely nil, for that very reason. Letting him take the stand would be malpractice.

[tinrobot]

15. Lawyers can help defendents for previous crimes, they can't help commit new ones.

If he still has documents, the lawyers can't help conceal them because concealment is a crime.

[malaise]

4. The fucking criminal is not supposed to have any government documrnts

classified or unclassified.
Lock him the fuck up.

[exboyfil]

13. The DOJs very deference to him

Will be used against us.

He should have been treated like any other former government employee.

[KS Toronado]

5. He has returned all the classified documents he had left

All the missing ones Putler has already.

[chriscan64]

19. They are not obligated to report it.

But Trump makes life harder for lawyers than that. He is probably pressuring them to assert in court that he does not have any documents he is not supposed to have. He has no grasp of the concept of evidence. In his mind, whoever says their piece the strongest and loudest is right and wins. So far this crop of attorneys knows better.