It would be difficult to prove if he didn't constantly claim he was not liable for
offenses he committed because he was taking the advice of the professionals
he hired. Obviously, he has admitted that he knows that professionals are
hired because they know more than lay people of which he is one. Therefore
it follows that if professionals advise him of a thing and he rejects that advice,
then he's attempting to assert that he knows better than those professionals.
Well, both instances cannot be the case. I'm quite certain a jury will not grant
that he can both know better than his professional advisors and also know
less at the same time on the same issues.
No comments:
Post a Comment