is mr. bryan s presence out there have to do with anything? i would submit to you that this is basically all the smoke screen from the state because mr. bryan s presence doesn t contribute in a direct or substantial way to the death of mr. arbery. because the mcmichaels were certainly capable of catching up with him and shooting if that was their intention. one more proximate cause issue i want to discuss on the four felony murder counts because it s basically the same issue. and the issue, the principle is one of intervening angts. the why is going to instruct you that it must the causation must be direct and it must be
i think he ll be called back before the committee. i don t think that his attorney-client privilege assertion today will hold up. now, i don t expect non-lawyers to know what those options are. but if he if the lawyer in the room when he was speaking to his father was his lawyer, he still waived privilege by talking to his father about the same material. the lawyer s presence doesn t protect him. if he was his father s lawyer, his father hearing the words in front of his lawyer doesn t provide the attorney client privilege. i mean, that s you know. there is no privilege is the bottom line. you re going round and round i m not an attorney but michael are you bying that? well, i buy that there was no attorney client privilege and that the assertion of it in the hearing was spurious and intended to delay. and you ask why was it intended to delay? this guy don junior testified in september before the senate. and there he didn t remember
i don t think that his attorney client privilege assertion today will hold up. now, i don t expect non-lawyers to know what those options are. but if he if the lawyer in the room when he was speaking to his father was his lawyer, he still waived privilege by talking to his father about the same material in the lawyer s presence doesn t protect him if he was his father s lawyer. his father hearing the words in front of his lawyer don t provide the attorney client privilege. i mean, that s you know. there is no privilege is the bottom line. you re going round and round i m not an attorney but michael are you bying that? well, i buy that there was no attorney client privilege and that the assertion of it in the hearing was spurious and intended to delay. and you ask why was it intended to delay? this guy don junior testified in september before the senate. and there he didn t remember this meeting and the details of it. now he is testifying before the