Christina Bobb’s Rent-an-Attorney-Client Cut-Out Computer

Back in March, ABC reported that Fani Willis wanted to interview Christina Bobb in the probe of Trump’s attempt to overturn Georgia election results.

Smart commentators on that investigation, like Lawfare’s Anna Bower, suggested that Willis’ team likely had discovered, as they worked their way through the January 6 Committee transcripts released after Willis’ grand jury had expired, that whereas Bobb has always publicly claimed to have nothing to do with efforts to overturn Georgia’s election (she focused on Arizona, Nevada, and, in her J6C interview she belatedly admitted, Michigan), she revealed much later in the interview that she had first met Mark Meadows when she sat in on Trump’s call to Brad Raffensperger.

Bobb’s description of the call is pretty nutty.

Q Did you have any interactions with him in the post-election period?

A I — sorry. My phone is ringing. Okay. Yeah, one. One that I remember was the phone call, the Brad Raffensperger phone call. I was in Meadow’s office with Rudy, I think Katherine [Friess] was there. There may have been one other person there, but we listened in on the call from Meadows’ office.

Q Had you met him before that?

A No. I don’t think so.

Q Do you remember — go ahead. I’m sorry.

A No. I don’t think — I think that was the first time I met him.

Q Do you remember talking to him before that, even if not in person?

A No. I never did.

Q When you gathered for that call, what was his expectations for the call? What was the purpose of that call?

A I think to listen and, you know, be available as needed, but I think the whole point was just to listen.

Q Did he say anything about what the President was or was not going to request or seek by this call?

A No.

Q Do you remember if Mr. Meadows expressed any concerns about having this call?

A No. I don’t think he did, but I don’t remember, but I don’t remember him expressing any concerns.

Q Were you able to hear the call that the President had with Secretary Raffensperger?

A Yes.

Q What happened afterwards, when you were sitting there and, you know, the phone is hung up now?

A Nothing. We chit-chatted and left. It was — it was an unremarkable call.

I know the media has sensationalized it, but none of us thought anything of it. It was just a call and that was it.

Q I mean, the President of the United States asked the Secretary of State to find enough folks to ensure his victory in Georgia. I mean, he used those words, I’m just asking you to find votes.

A That is a gross misrepresentation of the phone call. It was a perfectly fine phone call. If you look at the transcript, he was not asking anything improper. He wasn’t asking him to do anything illegal.

There was a lot of indicators of fraud. That’s what he was talking about. He was not — nobody in the room thought there was anything wrong with the phone call. I think it was perfectly fine.

Nuttier still, after she defended it as a “perfectly fine” call, she explained that she and “at least two dozen” others sat in on it because, “we knew somebody was going to record it [and] release it.”

Q So I understand your perspective, but I did want to ask you that, what you just got to is that after the call, did anybody express any concern, reservation, have any thoughts about what had just happened in that call?

A No. But there were a lot of people on the call. Like there were probably at least two dozen, like there was, you know, half a dozen of us in the room, but then there were other — there were a lot of other people on the call.

We knew somebody was going to record it. We knew somebody was going to release it. We knew the media was going to twist it, which was exactly what happened, but nobody was concerned about it. Our concern was, was it a legitimate phone call and did the President say anything improper. And at the end of the call, we all thought no. Like it was totally fine. There was nothing wrong with it. So we didn’t think anything of it, and we chit-chatted and left.

As she describes it, she and twenty people were on the call as a prophylactic against the outcry when one of those twenty people or someone from Raffensperger’s team released the call to the press.

Bobb also admitted in the interview to witnessing Rudy Giuliani’s call to pressure Rusty Bower to overturn the Arizona vote, and described that she may have been Rudy’s representative on a different fake elector call.

Bobb did a whole lot of witnessing during this period for someone who had never left propaganda outlet OAN during the entire post-election period, when she was also claiming to play a role covered by attorney-client privilege.

That’s an interesting dynamic behind the reason I finally slogged through her transcript, to understand certain questions Jack Smith has been asking about the stolen documents investigation, particularly why Boris Epshteyn asked Bobb to be the gal who certified a declaration she hadn’t written.

It turns out there were at least two details in her J6C transcript that raise interesting questions about her role in the stolen documents case. First, in this April 21, 2022 deposition, Bobb revealed that she had had interactions with Alex Cannon after Joe Biden’s inauguration.

Q How about Alex Cannon?

A At that time, no.

Q You said at that time. Have you interacted with him since January 20, 2021?

A Yes.

Q Unrelated to the events we are talking about today, January 6 and the lead up?

A Yes. Correct.

In reporting on Bobb’s role in the June 3 subpoena response, she claimed to have no prior interaction with Evan Corcoran, who wrote the declaration. But interaction with Cannon would reflect ongoing involvement in purportedly legal matters after the coup attempt.

And consider the kind of lawyering her J6C testimony described her to be (and remember that other witnesses said she played no legal role, but was just involved in communication).

When the committee asked about the mid-December 2020 memo recommending that Trump invoke national security as an excuse to seize the voting machines — which, metadata shows, Bobb authored, and which, the interview revealed, she had not provided in response to a subpoena — she explained that she didn’t really author it. She just went to lunch with Phil Waldron and wrote down what he said. And then emailed what he said back to him.

I started the document, took their notes down, whatever. And then Colonel Waldron asked me to email it to him, which I did. What happened with it from there, I don’t know.

So I don’t know. I’m not sure that this — I don’t know. I don’t know if this is — this looks like what I originated on my computer, but I think it went past whatever I had done, because what I had done, I think — when I say I had done, I started the document. They wanted to work on it. They used my computer to work on it, and then when they were done doing whatever they were doing, said, hey, can you email this.

And I think that’s probably it, but I am not — you know what I mean, like, I don’t know what they changed after it left my computer.

Q Yes.

A But I had some role in initiating something like this in the sense that I had a computer that people wanted to use, and that was it.

As investigators probed this remarkable story, Bobb said Waldron was with someone named Mike but not that Mike, Mike Flynn, because she knows him, and maybe Sidney Powell but she doesn’t know.

Q Okay. All right. So let me unpack some of that. You are with Colonel Waldron. Who else is there?

A It was people that he was working with. I don’t know their names. know there was a guy named Mike. I don’t know his last name. And it was folks that — like it was the machine team folks that, you know, I didn’t really know them.


Q What about Sidney Powell?

A She may have been. I don’t know. Like because I gave them my computer, they finished doing whatever they were doing. While they were doing that, I was working from my phone and taking calls, so I would step out and come back in.

So to the extent someone came in and out, I don’t know, you know.

As things progressed, Bobb included details that might explain a Google search from her computer of the statutes invoked, but insisted she “literally just like formatted it.” And provided the title.

Q When you started working on this, or what became this document, were you working with something else as an example? Like did you have another executive order that you used as a model?

A Probably. And I wasn’t — like I probably just found one and put it together, but just so you know, I was not putting — I didn’t do the substance and stuff of this. Like the authorities that they used and all that, I didn’t do that. I just literally just like formatted it.


Q And were you typing up from scratch or did you have something else that you were modifying?

A I wasn’t typing it. So the — like I probably — I probably did pull up an executive order just to see like the title, but literally past the title, I did not provide that content.

Q Okay. You gave your computer to Mr. Waldron. Is he the one that was typing on your computer when they were working on this document?

A He did some of it, and then this guy Mike, whoever he was, was doing some of it. I don’t know. It was like they were brainstorming collectively and working. I don’t know.

Q One of the things you mentioned there in the authorities, just past those that you referred to, are National Security Presidential Memoranda 13 and 21.

Did you have anything to do with inserting those?

A No. I had nothing to do with the authorities.


Q No. Do you remember Colonel Waldron or Mike or anybody else typing —

A Colonel — I’m sorry. I don’t mean to interrupt you.

Q That’s okay. Do you remember them talking about presidential  memoranda?

A I remember vaguely, like I don’t have a good recollection. I’m going to give you what I think I remember. And I remember it sounded like they wanted to do something intelligence related, and EO 12333 is like the standard intelligence authority.

So I remember thinking that that made sense. And then I remember thinking I have no idea what they are doing with the other stuff. That’s the extent of my memory.

Q Okay. As far as the next paragraph it says, I, Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, find that the forensic reports of the Antrim County, Michigan, voting machines released on December 13th — and then it goes on.

Did you have any role in writing this either as a scribe or something that you came 20 up with?

In the middle of a deposition where she turned on attorney-client privilege at will, she described herself here as a “scribe.”

A I definitely didn’t come up with it. I could have been a scribe. I mean, I was — I was a scribe for a lot of things. And, like I said, I started this document.

I don’t — like I’ve also said, I don’t have the information on Dominion voting systems.

So if I physically typed this out, I had to have someone dictate it to me because I don’t have this information.

Q Tell us about the conversations you had with Mike and Colonel Waldron about this. Like what was the purpose of it, as you started to draft and pull up an example —

A I didn’t — I honestly didn’t have a whole lot. They had mentioned that they were brainstorming some type of proposal to see if there was some government action to be taken on machines or whatever. I don’t know a lot about the machines. I don’t have a lot of information on the machines. And I was more curious about the authorities because, you know, I didn’t know what authority they would use to do it.

And the two documents, one being DOD, one being DHS makes sense because I remember, you know, there was posse comitatus issue and they were talking about, you know, like DHS needs to be the lead because the military can’t do it, whatever. I don’t know. I don’t even think I weighed — I do not remember weighing in on anything substantive about this.

And the legal advice? In spite of her awareness that the memo distinguished between DOD and DHS, the agency for which she had only recently been an attorney, she didn’t have anything to do with the shitty legal advice, she says.

Q Okay. So that was going to be my next question. Without disclosing any legal advice you may have provided, were you asked to provide legal advice about this and weigh in from your perspective as a lawyer?

A I don’t think so. No.


What do you remember about any discussions related to the appointment of a special counsel in connection with this document?

A I have limited — like I have hazy recollection, but based on the fact that it says “her,” I’m guessing they were probably thinking Sidney would get appointed, but I can’t confirm that.

Q Okay. Do you know why Colonel Waldron wanted Sidney to be appointed as a special counsel?

Q I don’t


Q Now, working on their — on your computer, how does it get to that? And I’m sorry if you already said this.

A Yeah, that’s okay. When they were done with it, they gave me my computer back and said — I don’t remember who said it, but it was probably Phil said can you email this to Phil, or can you email this to me. And I sent it to Phil from there, and that was it.

This testimony is positively amazeballs.

And whether there’s a scrap of truth to Bobb’s claim that she, on a topic about which she fancied herself playing a legal role, simply gave her computer to non-lawyers (and maybe Sidney Powell) so they could draft a memo providing advice to the President of the United States, about a topic — national security law — on which she claims some expertise, that she would then blindly email to them without first reviewing, whether there’s a shred of truth to any of this or not, it certainly explains why Boris Epshteyn would think Bobb might be a good candidate to participate in an effort to dupe the FBI as they investigated stolen classified documents. It also may explain why she disclaimed playing a legal role when she testified in October, so she could offer the FBI a similar story about playing the same kind of dumb cut-out for legal advice.

Christina Bobb, in an interview in which she was warned that any lies could be prosecuted as False Statements (though in which she was not placed under oath), told an absolutely fantastic story about how her computer came to write a historically shocking document in the run-up to an insurrection, but she had nothing to do with what her computer wrote.

79 replies
  1. jecojeco says:

    Well, that certainly is a load of Valley Girl Word Salad. Today’s word to describe it is PREPOSTEROUS. This is what 3 years at Cal Western Law School produces.

    So, well, like, really, you know, she should be questioned under oath and limited to yes or no answers.

    This would be like an exec signing documents and claiming he didn’t write them, he just signs them, they’re written by others but he doesn’t know who actually wrote them, he just signs them and sends them to the addressees. I mean, like, doesn’t everybody do that?

    • ExRacerX says:

      I’m still waiting for someone to try using Chat GPT or some other AI system as an excuse in court—”Well, I didn’t actually WRITE it…”

      • Matt___B says:

        Crossed my mind as well. But ChatGPT was released in November 2022, so too late for this. I had a session with ChatGPT where I told it to produce a generic scene from a TV show in screenplay format and in about 8 seconds it whipped out a 2-page script perfectly formatted about two women having a conversation in a Starbucks. When I mentioned to a client of mine (who is a screenwriting teacher) about ChatGPT likely being used to write screenplays in the near future, his sardonic reply was “yes and the scripts produced by ChatGPT would likely be of better writing quality than most of my students…”

    • Rwood0808 says:

      My thoughts as well. The number of “likes” and “literallys” and “you knows” made me think it was a teenager who said it.

      This woman is so in so far over her head that she won’t even realize it until a couple of years after the bars close on her cell. Even then, she’ll still be bragging about her patsy status.

      • Ginevra diBenci says:

        In fairness to Bobb, the interviewer set that conversational tone by using “like” a lot too. Perhaps this was mirroring. But almost all of us do it, and true verbatim transcripts of our own speech would likely show much the same.

    • Ebenezer Scrooge says:

      It’s okay to dump on Bobb–she deserves it. But I’d leave her law school out of it. I practiced law for 30 years. I’ve met some Yalies who I wouldn’t trust with a parking ticket. I’ve met some absolutely first-rate lawyers from Moe’s BBQ Take-Out and Law School. And of course, everything in between.

      • Zirc says:

        Thank you.

        [Welcome back to emptywheel. Please choose and use a unique username with a minimum of 8 letters. We are moving to a new minimum standard to support community security. You’re not a new user — you’re recognizable — but for community security you will have to change your name soon. Thanks. /~Rayne]

      • jecojeco says:

        OK, Sorry, Western was a gratuitous dig. But trump’s cavalcade of disposable lawyers haven’t had top shelf education pedigrees. Joey Tacos is straight out of My Cousin Vinny (except with much sharper wardrobe)

        • Super Nintendo Chalmers says:

          Michael Cohen, for example, was a graduate of Cooley, which is rated one of the worst law schools in the country.

    • kpavlovic says:

      I’ve been involved in energy litigation for some years and lawyers and witnesses pretending to be stupid and clueless is nothing out of the ordinary.

    • Katherine Williams says:

      Yes. The “I handed my computer over to somebody… I forget exactly who, and they wrote up the memo! I didn’t read it, all I did was send it!” excuse is like something from Saturday Night Live.

      • FL Resister says:

        ‘Somebody named Mike…I don’t know his last name…I shut my eyes, said tell me when you’re done and I will email whatever you come up with.’
        What was Ms. Bobb’s position in the Trump Administration at the time?
        Coffee girl with a laptop and law license?

        • Matt___B says:

          I don’t think she ever had a position in the Trump administration. She was a news anchor on OANN (I should say “news” anchor) who happened to have a law degree and they snatched her away from her propaganda work over there to do “legal” propaganda work for Trump…

        • Ravenous hoarde says:

          “ As the Executive Secretary for the Department of Homeland Security, Christina oversees the management of written communication intended for, and originated by, the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security.”

          From the archived DHS website.

  2. Mulder says:

    So, like 20 of us, we just listened in on the POTUS begging for a vote flip in Georgia and after, like you know we just spent a couple minutes chit-chatting and left. Perfectly fine, perfectly cool, perfectly legal. JFC.

    [Welcome back to emptywheel. Please choose and use a unique username with a minimum of 8 letters. We are moving to a new minimum standard to support community security. You’re not a new user — you’re recognizable — but for community security you will have to change your name soon. Thanks. /~Rayne]

    • Rugger_9 says:

      I wonder how many of those 20 have been interviewed between Willis and J6 investigations. I also wonder how many of them could be accessories.

      As for the ‘Mike-something-but-NOT-Flynn’ person, has anyone looked at the names on the staff and visitor logs to see what other ‘Mike’ would have been present? I think the search comes up empty because this was probably Flynn or Flynn Junior.

    • BruceF says:

      “Just call it a recalculation.”-Donald Trump, January 2,2021 in call to Brad Raffensburger.

      ” You know what they did and your not reporting it. You know that is a criminal offense and you can’t let that happen. That is a big risk you and Ryan (Germany, a Raffensburger staff attorney) are taking. That’s a big risk”–Trump to Raffensburger, January 2, 2021

      So Trump tells him to find votes, call the found votes a recalculation then pressures Raffensburger and his assistant that they are taking a big risk unless they capitulate.

      Yet, it was a perfectly fine call according to Christina Bobb!

      • Troutwaxer says:

        Of course it’s only “fine” if you actually believe there was cheating. She’s either stupid or incredibly naive.

      • HorsewomaninPA says:

        I just re-read the full transcript of that call and I still find it astonishing a) how many times Trump says, “There’s just no way.” b) how long that guy can push and push and push a point and provide zero justification for that point c) how R-berger et al found the patience to sit and listen (and respond respectfully to Trump) to the complete idiocy coming out of their phone for the length of that call. I probably would have hung up after 15 minutes of that garbage.

        • timbozone says:

          The point of this recording is that this wasn’t the first phone call of this type. It had 20 people on this one call… So how many other calls were there to places not just Georgia? And how many other people thought those calls were perfectly fine?

        • BruceF says:

          And how many couldn’t recall, obfuscated or flat out lied when questioned under oath about those calls. Cannot help but wonder if all provided similar accounts!

  3. Leu2500 says:

    Who’s her lawyer?

    She starts out answering questions in a way that sounds a lot like how Casey Hutchinson’s 1st Trump-paid lawyer coached her.

    Then the questioner pushes back on the (2nd) “perfect phone call” & she gets defensive/loses her cool. And the number of people in the room on the Meadows side of the call increases from 3-4 to “a half dozen”

    So who did she fail to mention when she was 1st asked? Or is she just really bad at math.

    I also find “we knew it would be recorded” interesting. As we know this wasn’t the 1st call.

    • Critter7 says:

      She was represented by Joe Sibley at the J6 Committee interview. Google search reveals that Sibley’s most recent claim to fame is representing Rudy in the Dominion v. Giuliani lawsuit.

      My software counts 235 instances of “I don’t know” in Bobb’s interview transcript. Plus 68 “I don’t remember”s

  4. Doctor My Eyes says:

    My role in the attempt to overturn a presidential election was like, other than idle curiosity over which, you know, laws could be used, was to, like, format an email.

  5. TIMOTHY_17APR2023_0847h says:

    Bobb helped finance that fraudulent Arizona recount by the Cyber Ninjas. I wish people would weigh in on that.

    [Welcome to emptywheel. Please choose and use a unique username with a minimum of 8 letters. We are moving to a new minimum standard to support community security. Because your username is far too common it will be temporarily changed to match the date/time of your first know comment until you have a new compliant username. Thanks. /~Rayne]

  6. harpie says:

    Marcy: Bobb said Waldron was with someone named Mike but not that Mike, Mike Flynn, because she knows him.

    There are surely a LOT of guys named MIKE…and TWO of them are named Mike FLYNN.
    I call the second one JUNIOR MIKE.

  7. Fraud Guy says:

    I once pondered going to law school, but decided against it because I was concerned about a) the difficulty and b)how it might change my ethics. I should not have worried about a), and doubled down on b).
    Relatedly, I wonder how this ties to the long running Lawyers, Guns, and Money discussions about the flooding of the legal employment market with graduates from low quality law schools that only began to abate a few years ago.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      It’s the low-quality ethics, not the quality of law schools, that are the problem. It’s an across-the-board problem, from boardrooms to c-suites, to Congress, Trump judges, and so on.

      To me, it’s a fundamental consequence from a focus on the narrow interests of great wealth and the generalization of the idea that anything that makes money and increases power is sacrosanct, and anything that restricts profit-taking is reprehensible, no matter its purpose or benefit to others.

      • Hug h roonman says:

        “The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits”-Milton Friedman 1970

        Free Market Fundamentalism, 2nd Amendment Fundamentalism, Religious Fundamentalism, Originalism…

        It is a wonder I parlayed a BA in Philosophy from SUNY (with a focus on Ethics) into a successful career in Investment Management and somehow managed to retire with my ethics intact. I suspect the road less traveled I took is a tad narrower now.
        What a sad state of affairs.

        • Rayne says:

          Friedman was a fucking fascist dirtbag. What he taught undermined business ethics — the creation of long-term shareholder value with reasonable decency and distributive justice — placing the pursuit of increasing profits, not value, quarter after quarter, above the very society business is supposed to serve.

        • Hug h roonman says:

          I could not agree more.

          Unfortunately the Economic Philosophy expressed in that Article had a powerful influence on American Business in the decades which followed.

          One could draw a line from Friedman’s thinking to Alan Greenspan’s eventual comeuppance-
          “I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organisations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms.”

        • Rayne says:

          “…Economic Philosophy expressed in that Article had a powerful influence on American Business in the decades which followed” is a very polite way of saying the fascists figured out how to rationalize and market their bullshit for public consumption as they began a regime of regulatory capture to their benefit.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          His argument that shareholders’ interests are not only primary but the only interest management could validly consider was knowingly false. They come last! But it helped give cover for the economic perversions and gross inequality – which threaten democracy – we live with today.

    • Elvishasleftthebuilding says:

      Having gone to what most folks would consider a high quality law school, I will say that ethics were just about the first thing taught (in the form of a somewhat brief seminar on corporate criminality), event though at the time I wasn’t sophisticated enough to understand what was being taught. My suspicion is that the law schools I didn’t attend didn’t have the luxury or perhaps the culture to emphasize the values and considerations that should be a part of every lawyer’s professional life and were more focused on law school as being equivalent to vocational school – that is to say ignoring the professional aspect of the occupation. I will observe that virtually every instructor I had in law school spent a lot of time talking about ethics – including the relationship of law to the individual, the role of the lawyer, legitimacy and legal philosophy, even if those considerations were embedded in something as prosaic as an evidence course. Of course students are free to take that culture and do what they will with it, but the federalist society members from my law school are, for the most part, if they are evil, are not bumblers.

      • theartistvvv says:

        I will add that, where as my law school rather focuses on public-interest law (and I’ll note I RA’d for a prof who helped write my state’s ethics rules) and does emphasize ethics perhaps a bit more than some, my state has really hammered ethics in our CLE requirements.

        And not only do you need the hours (I can’t recall but mebbe 6 or eight every 2 years plus mebbe 4 for “diversity” and a couple for “substance abuse/mental health”) but one needn’t really be concerned about getting them because fully 1/3 to 1/2 of the offered CLE courses concern those subjects.

        Plus, the war stories of the presenters tend to be entertaining.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      A wet reed, to boot. It’s a Trumpian argument that should be laughed at and severely penalized, right up there with, “I was just following orders in a campaign to ignore facts and established law to overthrow the government.”

  8. Matt_17APR2023_1057h says:

    She didn’t even know to wipe the metadata off her files? That’s pretty funny.

    [Welcome to emptywheel. Please choose and use a unique username with a minimum of 8 letters. We are moving to a new minimum standard to support community security. Because your username is far too common and too short it will be temporarily changed to match the date/time of your first know comment until you have a new compliant username. Thanks. /~Rayne]

    • timbozone says:

      Bobb is like a moth when it comes to the glimmer of power and relevance? If so, that would not be new.

  9. Lawnboy says:


    “And whether there’s a scrap of truth to Bobb’s claim that she, on a topic about……..”.

    That entire 2nd last paragraph made me think of Jim Carrey running on about some evil plot at the end of Pet Detective. Take out all the stops and just say it out loud, (after a very deep breath).

    Not sure if that’s what Dr. Wheeler had in mind, made me laugh , like , you know, like a valley girl.

    LB out

  10. AndreL_15APR2017_1018h says:

    Are you paying attention, John Grisham?

    [Welcome back to emptywheel. Please choose and use a unique username with a minimum of 8 letters. We are moving to a new minimum standard to support community security. Because your username is far too short it will be temporarily changed to match the date/time of your first know comment until you have a new compliant username. Thanks. /~Rayne]

  11. jecojeco says:

    Ohhh, I wonder what her MAL questioning was like. I don’t think this type of valley girl answers would flummox Jack Smith’s crew. I hear these responses from trump’s crew of disposable lawyers and it’s like something from a bad Godfather type movie.

    Out of all of trump’s psycho rant’s about investigators, prosecutors and judges I think his best was “Jack Smith is an animal”. What diligent prosecutor wouldn’t be on Cloud 9 after that assessment?

  12. Tetman Callis says:

    In my third-of-a-century of working closely with attorneys, in many jurisdictions, on cases both civil and criminal, large and small, in various fields of law, I have never seen report of an attorney — a qualified attorney — doing the things Bobb admitted to in her testimony before the J6C.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Bobb seems to be working hard to conflate her PR job with her nominal legal work, such that she can protect the outrages of the first with the privileges of the latter. Pretty sure her claims would not survive serious examination. But it’s a thing with Trump and many of his lawyers.

  13. David F. Snyder says:

    Here’s a riff off an otherwise offensive joke:

    Q: What do you call a lawyer without a leg to stand on?
    A: Bobb

    Seriously though, this bullshit pisses me off to no end and I hope it motivates Jack Smith to make her life miserable. Generally I don’t wish ill for anyone, but I do expect people to be responsible and own up to their mistakes, paying the debt of their existence and of the burdens they place upon others.

  14. Hug h roonman says:

    “The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits”-Milton Friedman 1970

    Free Market Fundamentalism, 2nd Amendment Fundamentalism, Religious Fundamentalism, Originalism…

    It is a wonder I parlayed a BA in Philosophy from SUNY (with a focus on Ethics) into a successful career in Investment Management and somehow managed to retire with my ethics intact. I suspect the road less traveled I walked is a tad narrower now.
    What a sad state of affairs.

    • RipNoLonger says:

      Seems like most words containing the suffix “ism” are suspect. I’d include conservatism, liberalism. They are just labels that can be easily applied, removed, etc.

      But then words ending in “archy” and other political/social/religious/monetary don’t have hard definitions/boundaries that mere mortals can readily understand. All that ivory-tower learning/leaning hasn’t made us wiser.

  15. wasD4v1d says:

    “she had nothing to do with what her computer wrote”

    too bad for her, chatGPT wasn’t available yet to conceivably provide that as an alibi.

  16. Critter7 says:

    Thanks, Marcy, for your insights on Bobb’s interview.

    My favorite part was when the interviewers asked her about the Trump campaign’s fact checkers. She responds “… there even are fact checkers. Like, who are these fact checkers? I don’t know who they are.”

    And then to demonstrate she was telling the truth, she claims to believe – even at that late date, April 2022 – that Rudy was right in claiming that Pennsylvania votes exceeded the number of voters.

    Although she was well aware of the fake elector scheme while working for Trump Campaign and Rudy, she claimed to not know even at the time of her interview that the fake-elector certificates had been sent to Congress.

    When the interviewers asked her if there was any internal push back on Giuliani’s public statements, she answered “I’m not aware of a statement that Rudy made that I identified as inaccurate”, but then added a caveat, “There may have been one. I don’t know.”

    No wonder Mar-a-Lago Trump asked her to work for him.

  17. Desidero says:

    “i was brought in as 1 of 2 dozen legal witnesses to a perfectly fine call, even tho i don’t remember anything that was said during or after, and i had the role of scribe even tho i didn’t write anything except pulled up a template with subject and let them use my laptop.”
    Good money in that there “work”.
    Wonder if Sgt Schultz studied lawyering pre-Stalag.

Comments are closed.