Legal AF by MeidasTouch Trump’s Lawyers Instantly WALK INTO Judge’s TRAP
6 snips
Feb 9, 2024 The discussion dives into the ethical tightrope walked by Alina Habba amid accusations of potentially allowing perjury in a high-stakes civil fraud case. The judge's pointed questions about a key witness, Alan Weisselberg, reveal the precarious situation for Habba and her co-counsel. Legal implications loom large, with talks of possible repercussions for their bar licenses. Predictions hint at an upcoming evidentiary hearing that could shake things up even more, revealing the intricate dance between law and ethics.
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
Judge's Narrow Ethical Trap
- Judge Engoron framed a narrow, ethical question about possible perjury by Alan Weisselberg during trial testimony.
- That question forces counsel to disclose knowledge of falsity under Rule 3.3A(3), creating serious consequences for lawyers who ignored it.
Defensive Response Backfires
- Trump's lawyers responded defensively, attacking the judge and arguing the record was closed instead of answering the factual perjury question.
- That defensive posture likely deepened suspicion and prompted the judge's sharp rebuke and follow-up inquiry.
Weisselberg's Convenient Memory
- Michael Popok recounts how Alan Weisselberg testified inconsistently about the Trump Tower triplex value and memory.
- Weisselberg reportedly remembered helpful facts and forgot inconvenient ones, raising perjury concerns and differing accounts to Forbes and the DA.