Skip to main content

View Diary: Christie's former top political aide refuses subpoena. Can you blame him? (52 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Yes, he may. But I'm thinking even they, ... (0+ / 0-)

    ... flexible as they may be, would not counsel destroying records that are under subpoena. Attack the subpoena? Sure, fight it with all you got, even though most of the time, it's a fool's errand. But destroying records can itself be a crime. (As distinct from routine destruction according to set schedules, etc.) True, disappearing records might be better than having records that seal the client's fate, but ...

    ... a lot of records have copies, trails, drafts, other versions, references to them in other documents, etc. And gaps can be very obvious. Ultimately, the client can be put under oath in a grand jury and given immunity. Then there is no place to hide. Not even behind a suddenly selectively lousy memory!

    And then you don't want to be the perp's lawyer any more!

    2014 is HERE. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

    by TRPChicago on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 12:28:06 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  This is a crime family. (0+ / 0-)

      I think it will be shown that Attorney Kwon KNEW that Baroni was lying to the legislature when he said there was a traffic study.

      If records truly are destroyed, who is to know? The only records that will EVER be produced here are those that  are in Wildstein's possession.

      This isn't a bunch who clutches their pearls at the mere mention of an ethical breach. They will take that bulldozer and plow right past the breach.

      If you hate government, don't run for office in that government.

      by Bensdad on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 02:22:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not saying they'd be fainthearted. They ... (0+ / 0-)

        ... don't want to go to jail, is what I'm saying. And they'd like to avoid disbarment. If lawyers have any demonstrable part in record destruction after a subpoena has been served, both of those become foreseeable ends for them.

        Their vulnerability is somewhere between the re-appearance of evidence of destroyed documents that must be explained (including what warnings they gave to clients not to do that) and the possibility that a client could turn against them because, for example, he or she is required to or because they are eager to oblige and get on with the rest of their lives. Or - I feign to think of it - a client might even stretch the truth the tiniest bit to implicate counsel. Such is not unheard of.

        2014 is HERE. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

        by TRPChicago on Wed Feb 19, 2014 at 02:56:51 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site