Wow! So much to unpack in this interview!
(1) Shield & Sword:
Sword: NP opens his professional trench coat to flash attorney-client privileged information by volunteering in response to interviewer’s question about FD asserting FD’s Fifth Amendment right against testifying in the recent custody hearing; NP insists that FD refused to testify and invoked the Fifth during the recent custody hearing because NP advised FD to do so. (Has NP even entered an appearance on behalf of FD in the custody proceeding? No worries).
Shield: NP belted his professional trench quote in response to reporter’s question/s re FD & NP’s recent dinner conversation.
(2) Tightroping: a/k/a NP Managing Perceptions of NP & FD.
NP unequivocally responded to reporter’s question in the affirmative as to whether NP believes that his client FD is “innocent.” Several moments later, NP walked back that response — not out of actual concerns about violating his professional ethics and attorney conduct rules, but because NP wanted to avoid the PERCEPTION that NP had violated professional conduct and ethics rules by claiming at this time the he believes his client is innocent (of what a/k/a “mission creep”) also seems to be a retrospective concern for NP.
Welcome to Having Your Cake and Eating It Too! I’m your host, NP. Today we’ll be talking about dining with innocent people who enjoy the simple pleasures in life and look forward to getting back to their customary business responsibilities such as jogging, loving their kids, Pleading the Fifth, cooking dinner, and sweeping up. (He’s just like us!!”)
(3) Did NP just analogize himself (or FD) to be Jesus, or was that my imagination?
In response to an interview question asked to NP regarding whether he’d yet attempted or succeeded in NP reaching MT’s attorney, NP responds thusly:
“I spoke to him [MT’s attorney Andrew Bowman] and like the *advertiser censored* that crowed in the Garden, thrice he told me, “No.” [NP laughs] “And I heard him each time; so I haven’t called him back since.”
Okay. So.... is NP implying that Bowman or his client MT is a betrayer of NP or his client FD?
It certainly seems a specific and unusual little tell. Check out the bookshelf behind NP. We can assume he invokes this analogy strategically, as he doesn’t seem like a man just ad libbing through this interview.
Did the *advertiser censored* crow once or twice before Peter's third denial? | CARM.org
