Mueller Report Imminent

#9,476
#9,476
Orange_Vol1321 said:
Click to expand...


Maybe it's different if you launder the bad spies through a" good spy", and you paid the "good spy". Of course, there's still that little matter of the "good spy" being a foreign national and maybe still the agent of a foreign government ... one might suppose retirement pay from the government doesn't fully sever the tie.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange_Vol1321 and BigOrangeD
#9,488
#9,488
RockyTop85 said:
This isn’t correct either.

Maybe do some research before spouting these hot takes.
Click to expand...

OK, things got dull, so I got educated. According to Presidential Departments | The White House

The Office of White House Counsel advises the President, the Executive Office of the President, and the White House staff on legal issues pertaining to the President and the White House. It is often said that the office sits at the intersection of law, policy, and politics.
Click to expand...


Duh, what would you think the job is? How exactly does that change the attorney/client privilege? "White House Counsel advises the President" ... isn't that what lawyers do?
 
#9,491
#9,491
nuclearjunky said:
It getting late and I don’t feel like doing research but I would like to know why you say he’s wrong.
Click to expand...
The subject came up when the debate was about if he would have to testify to Mueller..

There was no attorney-client-privelidge because he isn't the personal attorney of the President. The reason being is that he is the counsel of The White House in an official capacity, which is subject to oversight, as opposed to in a personal capacity which is not.

Although Trump says he allowed McGahn to meet with Mueller, he had no choice outside of asserting executive privilege on certain subjects that McGahn might have witnessed outside of his official capacity.
 
#9,492
#9,492
DC_Vol said:
How many arms length away does one need to be for this type of operation to be on the up and up?
Click to expand...

Once removed and not to have used the info as part of the campaign...

Honestly I don't know, but it applies "particularly" to foreign governments. Full of loopholes Im sure.
 
#9,493
#9,493
Stew Cook said:
Once removed and not to have used the info as part of the campaign...

Honestly I don't know, but it applies "particularly" to foreign governments. Full of loopholes Im sure.
Click to expand...

Just spitballing here. Let’s say Donald Trump hires his son who then hires a law firm who then takes a meeting with an attorney who is working on behalf of a foreign government who might have some information damaging to his political opponents. Kosher or no?
 
#9,494
#9,494
Stew Cook said:
The subject came up when the debate was about if he would have to testify to Mueller..

There was no attorney-client-privelidge because he isn't the personal attorney of the President. The reason being is that he is the counsel of The White House in an official capacity, which is subject to oversight, as opposed to in a personal capacity which is not.

Although Trump says he allowed McGahn to meet with Mueller, he had no choice outside of asserting executive privilege on certain subjects that McGahn might have witnessed outside of his official capacity.
Click to expand...

Are you saying a corporate attorney wouldn't have attorney/client privilege if the corporation is larger than a single person? It shouldn't make a bit of difference. The subject matter is still confidential within the organization and not for dissemination. We should, therefore, be able to pick an FBI, IRS, or CIA attorney and ask anything ... voiding any real useful application of an attorney as a legal adviser.
 
#9,495
#9,495
DC_Vol said:
Just spitballing here. Let’s say Donald Trump hires his son who then hires a law firm who then takes a meeting with an attorney who is working on behalf of a foreign government who might have some information damaging to his political opponents. Kosher or no?
Click to expand...

If it is, its probably a popular loophole . But as I understand, if the meeting had an elememtt of illegality, it's not kosher.

Surely someone hip to the law could give a more complete speculation.
 
#9,496
#9,496
DC_Vol said:
Just spitballing here. Let’s say Donald Trump hires his son who then hires a law firm who then takes a meeting with an attorney who is working on behalf of a foreign government who might have some information damaging to his political opponents. Kosher or no?
Click to expand...

Anything Trump is going to be a "no". Just because ... Trump.
 
#9,497
#9,497
AM64 said:
Are you saying a corporate attorney wouldn't have attorney/client privilege if the corporation is larger than a single person? It shouldn't make a bit of difference. The subject matter is still confidential within the organization and not for dissemination. We should, therefore, be able to pick an FBI, IRS, or CIA attorney and ask anything ... voiding any real useful application of an attorney as a legal adviser.
Click to expand...

Would be different because it's not governmental, and not subject to governmental oversight. I recall an account of when Trump was told there is no attorney-client-privelidge with McGahn, and him allegedly having a panic attack, or something like that.

I think this might give a better explanation:
Why President Trump Couldn't Have Stopped the White House Counsel From Speaking With Mueller
 
#9,498
#9,498
#9,500
#9,500
Stew Cook said:
If it is, its probably a popular loophole . But as I understand, if the meeting had an elememtt of illegality, it's not kosher.

Surely someone hip to the law could give a more complete speculation.
Click to expand...

What would that element be? Trying to obtain information?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top