The Impeachment Thread

#8,426
#8,426
MontyPython said:
John Bies, a former lawyer in the Obama administration’s Department of Justice, wrote in a Sept. 30 post for the Lawfare blog that Giuliani might have to rethink any plans to rely on attorney-client privilege. According to Bies, it’s unclear whether much of the information of interest to Congress is even protected by the privilege.

“The privilege exists to protect the confidential communication between a client and an attorney made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice,” said Bies, who is currently the chief counsel at American Oversight, a government accountability nonprofit. “It does not protect, for instance, communications your attorney may have had with, say, foreign government officials—or, for that matter, with U.S. government officials.”

Pushing arguments about potential corruption to foreign officials doesn’t appear to involve providing confidential legal advice, Bies said. “It is not even clear that Giuliani’s conduct constitutes legal work performed in his capacity as Trump’s attorney, even if it were charitably viewed as something other than political campaign work,” Bies said.

Nor does it appear that Trump was conveying confidences to Giuliani, rather than directing him to undertake nonlegal activities on his behalf, Bies wrote.

Even if some of the communications are privileged, they would have little protection against compelled congressional testimony, Bies asserted. He cited three reasons why.

• First, Congress has long taken the position that it can insist on disclosure of privileged communications.

• Second, attorney-client privilege can be waived when privileged communications are disclosed to a third party—and Giuliani has discussed his efforts with a large number of people.

• Third, the crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege could apply if the actions violate campaign finance laws.

Bies also considers whether executive privilege would be available to Giuliani. Bies concluded that the answer is no because Giuliani is representing Trump in a personal capacity, rather than an official capacity.

“Representing the president in his personal capacity involves a different set of interests and concerns than the official, governmental decision-making processes executive privilege is designed to protect,” Bies said.
Click to expand...
That's where I stopped reading
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, Orangeburst, happy-go_vol and 2 others
#8,432
#8,432
MontyPython said:
John Bies, a former lawyer in the Obama administration’s Department of Justice, wrote in a Sept. 30 post for the Lawfare blog that Giuliani might have to rethink any plans to rely on attorney-client privilege. According to Bies, it’s unclear whether much of the information of interest to Congress is even protected by the privilege.

“The privilege exists to protect the confidential communication between a client and an attorney made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice,” said Bies, who is currently the chief counsel at American Oversight, a government accountability nonprofit. “It does not protect, for instance, communications your attorney may have had with, say, foreign government officials—or, for that matter, with U.S. government officials.”

Pushing arguments about potential corruption to foreign officials doesn’t appear to involve providing confidential legal advice, Bies said. “It is not even clear that Giuliani’s conduct constitutes legal work performed in his capacity as Trump’s attorney, even if it were charitably viewed as something other than political campaign work,” Bies said.

Nor does it appear that Trump was conveying confidences to Giuliani, rather than directing him to undertake nonlegal activities on his behalf, Bies wrote.

Even if some of the communications are privileged, they would have little protection against compelled congressional testimony, Bies asserted. He cited three reasons why.

• First, Congress has long taken the position that it can insist on disclosure of privileged communications.

• Second, attorney-client privilege can be waived when privileged communications are disclosed to a third party—and Giuliani has discussed his efforts with a large number of people.

• Third, the crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege could apply if the actions violate campaign finance laws.

Bies also considers whether executive privilege would be available to Giuliani. Bies concluded that the answer is no because Giuliani is representing Trump in a personal capacity, rather than an official capacity.

“Representing the president in his personal capacity involves a different set of interests and concerns than the official, governmental decision-making processes executive privilege is designed to protect,” Bies said.
Click to expand...
This is all correct, at least with respect to attorney client privilege. If your neighbor is a lawyer and you have a discussion about the virtues of various blade heights on your lawnmower, that conversation isn’t privileged.

This is especially true if your neighbor goes on TV and says he wasn’t acting as your lawyer during the time in question.

That said, the fact that a claim of privilege is unsupported and inconsistent with established precedent hasn’t stopped this administration from invoking them in other contexts. See: Lewandowski.
 
#8,433
#8,433
That letter the white house wrote was brilliant, and accurate. This is a donkey show, worse than a witch hunt.
 
#8,438
#8,438
Lol
MontyPython said:
John Bies, a former lawyer in the Obama administration’s Department of Justice, wrote in a Sept. 30 post for the Lawfare blog that Giuliani might have to rethink any plans to rely on attorney-client privilege. According to Bies, it’s unclear whether much of the information of interest to Congress is even protected by the privilege.

“The privilege exists to protect the confidential communication between a client and an attorney made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice,” said Bies, who is currently the chief counsel at American Oversight, a government accountability nonprofit. “It does not protect, for instance, communications your attorney may have had with, say, foreign government officials—or, for that matter, with U.S. government officials.”

Pushing arguments about potential corruption to foreign officials doesn’t appear to involve providing confidential legal advice, Bies said. “It is not even clear that Giuliani’s conduct constitutes legal work performed in his capacity as Trump’s attorney, even if it were charitably viewed as something other than political campaign work,” Bies said.

Nor does it appear that Trump was conveying confidences to Giuliani, rather than directing him to undertake nonlegal activities on his behalf, Bies wrote.

Even if some of the communications are privileged, they would have little protection against compelled congressional testimony, Bies asserted. He cited three reasons why.

• First, Congress has long taken the position that it can insist on disclosure of privileged communications.

• Second, attorney-client privilege can be waived when privileged communications are disclosed to a third party—and Giuliani has discussed his efforts with a large number of people.

• Third, the crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege could apply if the actions violate campaign finance laws.

Bies also considers whether executive privilege would be available to Giuliani. Bies concluded that the answer is no because Giuliani is representing Trump in a personal capacity, rather than an official capacity.

“Representing the president in his personal capacity involves a different set of interests and concerns than the official, governmental decision-making processes executive privilege is designed to protect,” Bies said.
Click to expand...

Hes a hack.
 
#8,440
#8,440
The hypocrisy on both sides is astounding and not just in this instance. Gowdy flip flopping basis his comments about cooperation during Fast & Furious, yet the Dems block voted advocating executive privilege. Eric Holder held in contempt for first time ever, which means nothing.

Roles are reversed today. It is called politics. After a court ruling, Trump will probably be required to turn over some docs and permit some testimonies, but Nancy's hope to have this wrapped up sooner rather than later will probably not happen.

Now when the IG and Durham reports come out, this could change the whole narrative.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and W.TN.Orange Blood
#8,441
#8,441
tvolsfan said:
They have the democratic votes. They’ll never have the Republican votes in the senate. It’s just about making the case to the American people.
Click to expand...

Right , that’s all it’s ever about if we are being honest . It’s not about right /wrong it’s all about politics and power . That’s why it’s silly to argue about it . It’s just another DC circus sideshow to garner votes .
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and W.TN.Orange Blood
#8,443
#8,443
happy-go_vol said:
That letter the white house wrote was brilliant, and accurate. This is a donkey show, worse than a witch hunt.
Click to expand...
That letter reads like it was drafted by Rudy Giuliani, Stephen Miller and Sean Hannity after snorting a bunch of coke, reading an Ann Coulter book, watching a Dinesh D'Souza talk and sniffing glue
 
  • Like
Reactions: MontyPython
#8,445
#8,445
happy-go_vol said:
Ignorant comment. Yet, the left has about 1000 papers, news outlets, etc.... silly
Click to expand...

Your brain dead comment indicates that you are a victim of with-us-or-against-us partisan brainwash.

I did not argue that the left has no partisan outlets, but simply that Nixon lacked the strong partisan media defenses that Trump has.

Are you saying there aren't partisan right-wing outlets? Of course you aren't, because being that stupid would have inhibited you from typing even the inane drivel you just typed.

So, I know that your hide gets a little torn up when the farmer is too rough with the shears, but keep your bleating down.

Adults are talking here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PeaceCorpsVol
#8,446
#8,446
PeaceCorpsVol said:
That letter reads like it was drafted by Rudy Giuliani, Stephen Miller and Sean Hannity after snorting a bunch of coke, reading an Ann Coulter book, watching a Dinesh D'Souza talk and sniffing glue
Click to expand...

You would know this bc of the tremendous experience that you've had w/drugs & your top notch loony Dims.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolnJC
#8,450
#8,450
PeaceCorpsVol said:
That letter reads like it was drafted by Rudy Giuliani, Stephen Miller and Sean Hannity after snorting a bunch of coke, reading an Ann Coulter book, watching a Dinesh D'Souza talk and sniffing glue
Click to expand...
Lol. Considering your'e a hack and you have no idea what you're talking about, it's even more brilliant now.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top