It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Former Trump Legal Team Spox To Tell Mueller Hope Hicks Hinted At Possible Obstruction

page: 1
27
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:
+7 more 
posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 10:55 PM
link   
This broke earlier in the NYT. I'll summarize as briefly as possible.

Mark Corallo was a spokesperson for Donald Trump's legal team. He resigned in July. When the NYT initially approached the White House about the Trump Tower meeting with Veselnitskaya, they responded with a completely bogus statement, the writing of which was directed by Donald Trump aboard Air Force One.

The NYT published their story with the statement and shortly thereafter, an entirely different statement was fed to Circa, which is owned by the very Trump friendly Sinclair Broadcast Group. While also substantially false, that statement was significantly different from the first and slightly closer to reality. That statement was given by Corallo, who was quoted by Circa.

Tensions arose among members of Team Trump over the resulting fallout from the bull# pileup. In a conference call, Corallo reportedly cautioned that the Trump-drafted statement would backfire because the emails would eventually come to light. At this point, Hope Hicks reportedly said that it wasn't a problem because only a few people had access to the emails and, "it will never get out." Corallo took this to mean that either Hicks was extremely naive or that there was a plan to withhold the documents, obstructing justice. Corallo immediately informed the legal team, memorialized the event and a few days later, resigned.

Mueller Zeros In on Story Put Together About Trump Tower Meeting


Mr. Corallo is planning to tell Mr. Mueller about a previously undisclosed conference call with Mr. Trump and Hope Hicks, the White House communications director, according to the three people. Mr. Corallo planned to tell investigators that Ms. Hicks said during the call that emails written by Donald Trump Jr. before the Trump Tower meeting — in which the younger Mr. Trump said he was eager to receive political dirt about Mrs. Clinton from the Russians — “will never get out.” That left Mr. Corallo with concerns that Ms. Hicks could be contemplating obstructing justice, the people said.

Accusations began flying that the botched response made an already bad situation worse. Ms. Hicks called Mr. Corallo from Air Force One, according to three people who relayed his version of events to The Times. She accused him of trafficking in conspiracy theories and drawing more attention to the story.

The conference call with the president, Mr. Corallo and Ms. Hicks took place the next morning, and what transpired on the call is a matter of dispute.

In Mr. Corallo’s account — which he provided contemporaneously to three colleagues who later gave it to The Times — he told both Mr. Trump and Ms. Hicks that the statement drafted aboard Air Force One would backfire because documents would eventually surface showing that the meeting had been set up for the Trump campaign to get political dirt about Mrs. Clinton from the Russians.

According to his account, Ms. Hicks responded that the emails “will never get out” because only a few people had access to them. Mr. Corallo, who worked as a Justice Department spokesman during the George W. Bush administration, told colleagues he was alarmed not only by what Ms. Hicks had said — either she was being naïve or was suggesting that the emails could be withheld from investigators — but also that she had said it in front of the president without a lawyer on the phone and that the conversation could not be protected by attorney-client privilege.

Contacted on Wednesday, Mr. Corallo said he did not dispute any of the account shared by his colleagues but declined to elaborate further.


As you may imagine, Hope Hicks's lawyer strenuously denied that she'd said any such thing. For reasons that I outlined in a thread, I don't think the Trump Tower meeting with Veselnitskaya is ultimately a very big deal. Veselnitskaya was simply shopping around the same dirt that she was showing to members of Congress and others at the time. And that information appears to have been public records stuff dug up by Fusion GPS.

Which made the Trump Team's response horrendously stupid. Not only was it stupid but it was also badly botched. Oh, and if anyone still cares, the President lied directly to our faces and then his legal team did much the same thing.

I also still wonder who gave the emails to NYT. It seems really hard to believe it would have been Corallo but somebody did and it was the NYT asking for comment about them that prompted Don Jr. to release the emails.

One final note, the article mentions that Fire and Fury linked the resignation of Corallo to concerns over obstruction but didn't go into any specific detail about those concerns so it's probably irrelevant but who knows with this reality TV show?




posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 10:59 PM
link   
Will there be a day without someone leaking something to keep us digging our trenches deeper and deeper? It's like some crappy soap opera in Washington these days.

The internet has been around for 2 decades but only now are we seeing this sort of information on a damn near daily basis. No one finds that a bit strange and convenient for the narrative being pushed on us?


+8 more 
posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

A spokesman for a legal team is still required to abide by attorney client privilege on information related to the case in question. The chances of getting privileged testimony admitted into court is about impossible.

Honestly it loks like a last ditch effort by the left to salvage the russian bs. They submitted a 2nd russia dossier, although the source behind it is a close friend of Clintons. The Qanon said to watch for these style attacks from the left.
edit on 31-1-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2018 @ 11:56 PM
link   
That lawyer wouldn't be saying or writing those kinds of things, that is protected information, he could be sued for everything he has and will make. He isn't dumb. This seems to be totally fabricated lies. I mean, maybe it is speculation made up by someone and it could be partially true, but I doubt if the lawyer said anything. With the laws governing lawyers client priviledge, no law or court could protect this lawyer.



posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 12:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
This broke earlier in the NYT. I'll summarize as briefly as possible.


After reading, re-reading, and re-re-reading your OP, i'm failing to see a point?



posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 12:10 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Ignorance of his limits as a president will be the end of Trump. I get the feeling that he really believes he should be able to run the country like a business, i.e. a dictatorship.

Always asking for loyalty, acting surprised that he doesn't have complete control over federal agencies.


+4 more 
posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 12:21 AM
link   



posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 12:35 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

This broke earlier in the NYT. I'll summarize as briefly as possible.

I fixed your OP...

This broke earlier in the NYT. I’ll summarize our bias-ass’d-tool time response after I consult a Thesarus.

Thank goodness forr the edit functionality...




posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 12:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: underwerks

yeah save the bs...





Holder Openly Pledged Loyalty To Obama, And Nobody Seemed To Care

It's comical you believe that affects what is going on with Trump in any way.




posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 12:48 AM
link   
Obstruction of Justice!

When the entire Russian narrative was written even before Trump won.

What a load of horse snip.



posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 12:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: underwerks

yeah save the bs...





Holder Openly Pledged Loyalty To Obama, And Nobody Seemed To Care

It's comical you believe that affects what is going on with Trump in any way.



Its comical you cant see the same with Obama.



posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 01:08 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian



The conference call with the president, Mr. Corallo and Ms. Hicks took place the next morning, and what transpired on the call is a matter of dispute.
...
 but also that she had said it in front of the president without a lawyer on the phone and that the conversation could not be protected by attorney-client privilege. 


I have a hard time believing this because Mark Corallo is still in good standing before the bar. He is a lawyer.



Also,




In Mr. Corallo’s account — which he provided contemporaneously to three colleagues who later gave it to The Times 

Mr. Corallo is either the worst lawyer in the world, first forgetting that he is a lawyer and then forgetting that information shared was privileged before sharing it with his beer buddies who leak it to the Times... OR this is yet another anonymous hit piece...


This is so bad that it is almost like the Don Jr email scandal wherein he was in contact with wikileaks ahead of time. That had four sources. It's so bad it is easy to believe this was deliberately leaked to make the Times look bad. Did they not consult their legal department before printing this?

ETA: huh, I might be wrong because I can't find him in the state I thought he was active in. I swear he was active when he was working for Ashcroft. It doesn't change materially because as a subordinate of the President's personal lawyer (Kasowitz) it is still privileged communication.
edit on 1-2-2018 by RadioRobert because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 01:11 AM
link   
a reply to: BestinShow


This broke earlier in the NYT. I’ll summarize our bias-ass’d-tool time response after I consult a Thesarus.


"Thesarus?" I dunno if you're ready for it. Perhaps you should start with a dictionary and then work your way up from there.



posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 01:14 AM
link   
What a lame-ass story!

Obstruction?

Hahaha haha


They put out an initial NEWS statement and then later a revised one (heaven forbid they react) and THAT is the big "there there"?

The problem is that somehow Hicks alluded to "obstruction" over a news statement?

Lolololol.

I thought this was about something important.



posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 01:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: underwerks

yeah save the bs...





Holder Openly Pledged Loyalty To Obama, And Nobody Seemed To Care

It's comical you believe that affects what is going on with Trump in any way.



Its comical you cant see the same with Obama.

It's ignorance to think I can't.

So since you're ok with Trump wanting to rule like that, I guess you're fine with Obama doing it too?

The hypocrisy door swings both ways here bub.



posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 01:44 AM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

That's an interesting idea but I'm not sure that communications between Hope Hicks and Corallo would be covered by attorney-client privilege or Corallo's ethical obligation to confidentiality.

Corallo worked for Marc Kasowitz as part of Donald Trump's outside legal team. He was not Hicks's attorney. What about Don Jr? Was Trump on the call or just in the room with Hicks? Could the communication be considered legal consultation between an attorney and client?



posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 01:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: underwerks


Holder Openly Pledged Loyalty To Obama, And Nobody Seemed To Care


Nobody cared, because Obama didn't insist on it, before Holder could get or keep his job.



posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 01:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Tempter


What a lame-ass story! Obstruction? Hahaha haha They put out an initial NEWS statement and then later a revised one (heaven forbid they react) and THAT is the big "there there"?


Revised? The first statement, the one which was directed by the President, was a complete fantasy, an utter fabrication. A lie. I know that it doesn't matter to a lot of Trump supporters that he lies but I don't know why it doesn't.

The second statement was not a revision of the first. It was entirely separate. It was also factually inaccurate and quite possibly libelous.


The problem is that somehow Hicks alluded to "obstruction" over a news statement?


No, the "problem" would be if she alluded to obstruction in the form of withholding evidence (the emails between Don Jr and Goldstone) from investigators.



posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 01:57 AM
link   
Didn't Jared kill that russian chick at the meeting and chop her up when she had nothing to give them about hillary?

I swear I read that from an unnamed source.

Must be the mengele effect.




edit on 2 1 2018 by burgerbuddy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2018 @ 02:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: RadioRobert

That's an interesting idea but I'm not sure that communications between Hope Hicks and Corallo would be covered by attorney-client privilege or Corallo's ethical obligation to confidentiality.

Corallo worked for Marc Kasowitz as part of Donald Trump's outside legal team. He was not Hicks's attorney. What about Don Jr? Was Trump on the call or just in the room with Hicks? Could the communication be considered legal consultation between an attorney and client?





The conference call with the president, Mr. Corallo and Ms. Hicks took place the next morning, 

Going only by what I read on the link, it would seem Trump was on the call. Corallo was handling questions about a current investigation as a subordinate to the President's lawyer and part of the legal team. In common application, the presence of a 3rd party does not waive privilege if the client intended the conversation to be private and confidential (clearly the case here) and the 3rd party is also useful to the case (also, true). In fact, she was instrumental in setting up the call because they were discussing the case and she was giving aid. If Trump had Barron or Ivanka on the line, they would probably not get the "useful" application, so he would be waiving privilege. Hope Hicks is a different story.
IF the prosecution could somehow prove Hope deleted emails or told someone to, then that would undercut the privilege -- BUT it actually has to happen. Not just talking about it. Since he is (dubiously) quoted by third parties as saying she was either naive OR suggesting a crime, neither of those things would undercut privilege. Suggesting the commission of a crime is a good way to get a lawyer to quit, but just the suggestion isn't enough to make the discussion not confidential. And again, the defense writes itself because he even gave possibility she was simply naive.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join