Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
The Trump criminal probe's heating up. Here's why the Trump children might want to lawyer up.
The former guy has no loyalty to anyone including his offspring. It is only a matter of time before the former guy throws his offspring under the bus
Link to tweet
In fact, depending on what those Trump Organization family members have already said — and to whom — it may already be too late. Importantly, because the Trump Organization case is now criminal, individual employees and officers of that organization can face criminal charges for their specific roles in any corporate wrongdoing. Donald Jr. and Eric still serve as executive vice presidents of the organization, a title that Ivanka Trump previously also held. And, of course, before his presidency, their infamous father was at the helm of the organization.
During my FBI career, including my time leading one of the largest white-collar crime branches in the field, and later, as a corporate security executive, I saw corporate employees mistakenly think that their companies' attorneys represented them, too, in cases of corporate malfeasance. Big mistake. A company attorney represents the company, not the individual employees or executives. It's quite likely that Trump Organization attorneys have already asked — and Trump family members have already answered — questions about what each of them did or did not do that might be the focus of New York's investigation.
In fact, there's a whole body of case law on what it means when an employee answers questions posed by a company's attorneys or investigators to try to get to the bottom of who did what. There's even a kind of "corporate Miranda warning" that ethical companies give their employees who are asked to provide statements when a company is trying to determine whether it's in trouble.
These advisements — called "Upjohn warnings" — developed out of a Supreme Court case involving a pharmaceutical company accused of paying bribes overseas. The Upjohn case resulted in a kind of good news/bad news conclusion. The good news for corporations was that the court found that attorney-client privilege applied to communications between company attorneys and employees.
During my FBI career, including my time leading one of the largest white-collar crime branches in the field, and later, as a corporate security executive, I saw corporate employees mistakenly think that their companies' attorneys represented them, too, in cases of corporate malfeasance. Big mistake. A company attorney represents the company, not the individual employees or executives. It's quite likely that Trump Organization attorneys have already asked — and Trump family members have already answered — questions about what each of them did or did not do that might be the focus of New York's investigation.
In fact, there's a whole body of case law on what it means when an employee answers questions posed by a company's attorneys or investigators to try to get to the bottom of who did what. There's even a kind of "corporate Miranda warning" that ethical companies give their employees who are asked to provide statements when a company is trying to determine whether it's in trouble.
These advisements — called "Upjohn warnings" — developed out of a Supreme Court case involving a pharmaceutical company accused of paying bribes overseas. The Upjohn case resulted in a kind of good news/bad news conclusion. The good news for corporations was that the court found that attorney-client privilege applied to communications between company attorneys and employees.
6 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
