Jump to content

US Politics: For Whom the Bell Tolls


Fragile Bird

Recommended Posts

Well, Newt Gingrich thinks Franken stepping down was a lynching. Probably means it was the right thing to do.

Also, when the latest outrage in the Trump era has me angered, I've found I'm able to calm myself by thinking about Manafort's ankle bracelet. It's hard to believe, but there is still some small justice in America.

Law Professors Just Published a Delightful, 34-Page List of Ways People Will Game the GOP Tax Plan

https://slate.com/business/2017/12/35-pages-of-loopholes-in-the-gop-tax-plan.html

Why Franken Had to Go

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2017/12/07/al_franken_s_resignation_saved_the_democratic_party_s_reputation_among_the.html

Democrats Want to Change the Democratic Party. They Just Disagree on How.
Ahead of a post-election report from a commission meant to foster party unity, we found a lot of disagreement—and some pockets of consensus.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/12/07/democrats-want-to-change-the-democratic-party-they-just-disagree-on-how-216055

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

Well, Newt Gingrich thinks Franken stepping down was a lynching.

Leave it to Gingrich to make me confused as to what part of his statement should be most offensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, dmc515 said:

Leave it to Gingrich to make me confused as to what part of his statement should be most offensive.

I can't quote you directly because the old thread is closed. But all I can say is that, as someone that works in the legal field, you have a poor understanding of legal ethics, state and federal statute with regards to privilege, and... well, anything else germane to this conversation.  

You clearly don't know what "engaged" means, with respect to an attorney. I say that because you used the word sarcastically, in quotes, when you quoted me, but that is actually a specific legal term that means an attorney was hired by a client and signed an agreement that laid out the scope of the legal services that attorney would provide the client with which they signed the agreement. Such an agreement is required in most states by the states' cannon of ethics (in Wisconsin, those ethics are derived from Supreme Court Rules) when attorneys take on new clients. When you form such a relationship with a client, attorney-client privilege is basically sacrosanct. And let me tell you, as someone that has opened and maintained hundreds of files for attorneys, a client is not a person. A client is the person or entity that an attorney represents. Most often, clients aren't people, in corporate law. Almost never. 

And I can promise you, with 100% certainty, that attorney-client privilege 100%, absolutely applies to corporations, nonprofit groups, and any other entity that is a collective of people, and the people that comprise them. In every possible setting you could imagine as long as the people involved are acting in their capacity as a member or representative of the entity being represented by an attorney, and an attorney who was hired to represent that entity is involved, that attorney cannot break the privilege without serious consequence. 

This is not a question. This isn't something you can debate. This is the very basic foundation of attorney-client privilege. You CLEARLY don't know anything about this, and have no direct experience in the legal field, and have no idea what you're talking about. And you are wrong. And that is it. 

I always respect your point of view and think you are incredibly spot on on many things, or I wouldn't even bother. But you are. wrong. here. Sorry. 

edit: Also, you implied that the distinction between attorney-client privilege and a random attorney being in a room is something that could be easily manipulated by a politician. Huh, really? Laws as codified are easily manipulated by powerful, smart, and well connected people? Shocking, absolutely shocking. I can't believe anyone could ever try to use various forms of legal privilege to their advantage! I've never heard of such a thing and it couldn't happen! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, IamMe90 said:

And I can promise you, with 100% certainty, that attorney-client privilege 100%, absolutely applies to corporations, nonprofit groups, and any other entity that is a collective of people, and the people that comprise them. In every possible setting you could imagine as long as the people involved are acting in their capacity as a member or representative of the entity being represented by an attorney, and an attorney who was hired to represent that entity is involved, that attorney cannot break the privilege without serious consequence. 

I think you're misinterpreting my argument, which isn't really about attorney-client privilege - and certainly not about when and whether an attorney can break privilege without serious consequence - but rather when and how witnesses can claim privilege to avoid testimony in political investigations.  You're right, I don't have any experience in the legal field which means I don't have a thorough understanding of "engaged" as a specific legal term, so allow me to explain my argument through someone who does:

Quote

So will Congress be stymied in learning more about this conversation? Will Don Jr.’s strategy to keep them in the dark work? No, Congress can get this information from Donald Trump Jr. if it presses its case, but it will turn more on the will of Republican HPSCI members than any purported legal claim of privilege by Don Jr.

That’s because unlike judicial courts, Congress does not feel bound to honor common law evidentiary privileges like attorney-client privilege. By contrast, the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is valid before Congress because it comes from the Constitution rather than common law.

This is why I have bothered to continue the conversation, because accepting Junior's claim would harm the way in which congressional oversight is applied.  The reason I have ridiculed Junior's assertion of privilege is this:

Quote

The traditional elements of attorney-client privilege are: (1) a communication; (2) made between privileged persons; (3) in confidence; (4) for the purpose of seeking, obtaining or providing legal assistance to the client.

This was clearly a communication, but there are serious questions about whether the facts meet all three other elements.

If the Trumps have a joint defense agreement or common interest privilege, they might be able to share information in a privileged manner.

The underlined is mine, and what I was trying to express earlier.  If there is a common interest privilege between the Trumps, that effectively means Sr. is admitting involvement in the June 2016 meeting.  Further, Junior's assertion is questionable because of this:

Quote

President Trump enjoys attorney-client privilege with his personal lawyer John Dowd but probably does not with White House lawyer Ty Cobb. Conversations with Cobb may be covered by executive privilege, but that wouldn’t extend to a conversation with Don Jr. about nonofficial acts. If it was a White House lawyer on the call, the privilege claim fails because both prongs (2) and (3) simply would not apply.

 

2 hours ago, IamMe90 said:

Also, you implied that the distinction between attorney-client privilege and a random attorney being in a room is something that could be easily manipulated by a politician. Huh, really? Laws as codified are easily manipulated by powerful, smart, and well connected people? Shocking, absolutely shocking.

It is indeed shocking to find that gambling is going on in here, so appreciate the Casablanca reference, but my concern is this:

Quote

Finally, was the purpose of the call to obtain legal advice? Or manage a political response? That can be a hard question to sort. But there are lots of cases where courts have rejected privilege claims made by companies about meetings attended by attorneys that were really about business matters rather than obtaining legal advice. One can imagine the perverse results if that were not the case: Bring along a lawyer to all such meetings and presto—they’d be insulated regardless of the content of the conversations.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Mexal said:

In case you didn't have a reason to hate Roy Moore, he thinks the last time America was great was when we had slavery. Hope this helps with the African American vote.

 

What direction was that Moore?  The direction of raping and abusing underage slave girls?  The direction of rich, white, landowning men being the only legal voters?  Certainly the direction of no workers rights.  Sorry you had the miss the direction of slave owners being able to beat and hang slaves on a whim and being able to sell human beings for money.

What great directions.........not!   

Oh, and yeah Roy, you're an asshole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nasty LongRider said:

What direction was that Moore?  The direction of raping and abusing underage slave girls?  The direction of rich, white, landowning men being the only legal voters?  Certainly the direction of no workers rights.  Sorry you had the miss the direction of slave owners being able to beat and hang slaves on a whim and being able to sell human beings for money.

What great directions.........not!   

Oh, and yeah Roy, you're an asshole.

Roy Moore is a terrible, terrible, terrible human being.  If he is elected I sincerely hope he is immediately expelled from the Senate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@IamMe90,

Are you arguing the big picture of attorney-client privileges or this specific case? Because if it’s the former I get where you are coming from, but if it’s the latter I think you’re dead wrong, and basically every legal scholar I’ve seen comment on this has said as much. DJTJ is claiming that his conversations with his father are protected by attorney-client privileges, which is absolute hogwash. He’s redefining the construct to include client-client privileges because an attorney is present. If you accept that, any conversation is protected so long as an attorney is within ear shot of it. That would include two drug lords talking about their trafficking schemes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

@IamMe90,

Are you arguing the big picture of attorney-client privileges or this specific case? Because if it’s the former I get where you are coming from, but if it’s the latter I think you’re dead wrong, and basically every legal scholar I’ve seen comment on this has said as much. DJTJ is claiming that his conversations with his father are protected by attorney-client privileges, which is absolute hogwash. He’s redefining the construct to include client-client privileges because an attorney is present. If you accept that, any conversation is protected so long as an attorney is within ear shot of it. That would include two drug lords talking about their trafficking schemes.

In addition, plenty of corporations have tried to invoke attorney client privilege in cases like board meetings where company lawyers are present.  In cases like this, attorney client privilege was not granted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

In addition, plenty of corporations have tried to invoke attorney client privilege in cases like board meetings where company lawyers are present.  In cases like this, attorney client privilege was not granted.

Yeah, it’s just way too broad of an interpretation. And then there’s this: what if I say I talked to my lawyer about the conversation after it occurred? There are just way too many ways to game this if you’re allowed to abuse it this way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

It would upset the Mango Mussolini, wouldn't it?  I still hope they expel Moore.  Moore is just horrifying.  

I know it's too much to ask for, but damn, I hope they don't elect him.  I just don't see how anyone who claims to have any moral values can support him. Don't like the choices, stay home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

It would upset the Mango Mussolini, wouldn't it?  I still hope they expel Moore.  Moore is just horrifying.  

Not exactly. If the Senate expels Moore because he has a dozen or so accusers, then they would be forced to answer why they haven’t begun to impeach Trump for having 19 accusers. I think they’d rather tolerate Moore’s presence than open that can of worms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Conservatism. It's cuckoo. Cuckoo. Cuckoo.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/12/8/16742978/inside-bubble-roy-moore-conservative-media

Quote

While many conservatives have rejected Moore’s candidacy, far-right media sites are doing Moore a big favor: They’re giving voters an alternate version of reality, so they don’t have to admit they support someone accused of child molestation.

 

Quote

Shapiro told me part of the reason for conservative media’s particular vulnerability to, for lack of a better term, “fake news” is that the concept of “conservative” media is still relatively new. “On the left there was all this established, mainstream media that's been literally a century in the making. On the right, most of conservative media really only crops up around [the birth of] talk radio, at best.” He added jokingly, “To a certain extent, I feel like with conservative media, you have to give us a little while to sort it out.”

Well, by all means conservatives, take your sweet old time to stop being cuckoo. We’ve got all century here. No need to rush.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Conservatism. It's cuckoo. Cuckoo. Cuckoo.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/12/8/16742978/inside-bubble-roy-moore-conservative-media

Well, by all means conservatives, take your sweet old time to stop being cuckoo. We’ve got all century here. No need to rush.

I have said for years that it is really baffling to me why conservatives want to listen to news that is as baised and nonsensical as the Conservative Media.  Why isn't there a right equivalent of MSNBC?  As in, unapologetically biased, but fact based.  They'll spin things your way, but you still know that they don't make things up.  Even on the internet this can be hard to find; the only examples I've come across are the pro-business publications like WSJ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...