Seth Abramson

@SethAbramson ↗

Deleted No

Hibernated Yes

Last Checked Aug. 17, 2019

Created

Sun Jun 02 03:20:38 +0000 2019

Likes

2,344

Retweets

638

Source

Twitter Web Client

View Raw Data

JSON Data

View on Twitter

Likely Available

Seth Abramson @SethAbramson

5/ A related note: if the DOJ thinks Dowd's call may have been an act of obstruction, how does that not pierce attorney-client privilege under the "crime-fraud" exception, allowing investigators—or Congress—to *ask* Dowd what conversations he'd had with Trump to prompt that call? — PolitiTweet.org

Posted June 2, 2019 Hibernated

Preceded By

Seth Abramson @SethAbramson

4/ Media is right: the Dowd call *could* be evidence of a crime. But put that aside for a moment. How is it *not*—far more *urgently*—evidence that Dowd had *enough* reason to think Trump committed crimes threatening national security that he had to *ask*? https://t.co/SrtGKOr0ol — PolitiTweet.org

Posted June 2, 2019 Hibernated

Followed By

Seth Abramson @SethAbramson

6/ I practiced criminal defense for years. You don't make a call like Dowd did to Flynn's counsel—period. But Dowd having done so, it means either he *knew* his client had committed crimes or *strongly suspected* it. If he knew Trump hadn't, he wouldn't have implied he might've. — PolitiTweet.org

Posted June 2, 2019 Deleted Hibernated Just a Typo