politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
What's the strategy in that? Claiming she was never his attorney forfeits what shreds of privilege might be left of their communications and is also one less person he can blame "advice of counsel" on.
Nothing really counts anyway as I'm betting nearly all of their discussions involved crimes, which aren't protected by attorney client privilege.
It's funny though, trump acting like there isn't record of their relationship.
Minor correction: Admitting you committed a crime in the past is protected. The attorney can still tiptoe around the fact that they know you committed it, by defending you on procedural or clerical grounds. For instance, they can attack the evidence that has been submitted against you, because it was mishandled, or because the equipment used to gather it hadn’t been calibrated recently enough, or for any number of reasons. Even if they know you committed the crime, they can still ensure that your court proceedings are fair.
Admitting that you plan on committing future crimes is not covered. The attorney can’t be party to future crimes, and admitting you plan on committing crimes makes them a co-conspirator if they don’t rat you out.
But if the attorney is party to the crimes then the discussion is not privileged (to my understanding).
Read my second paragraph, because I covered that already. The attorney can’t help you plan or execute future crimes, because that makes them a co-conspirator.
And from what I’ve read, that’s pretty much exactly what Trump tried to do. He apparently tried to use the “hypothetically if I were to commit this crime, what would be the best way to do it” method. The issue is that this is just a blatant attempt at getting around things, and courts don’t tend to like it when you try to skirt their rules.
To be pedantic, you specifically said future crimes. A discussion between a lawyer and a client, about past crimes where the lawyer was a participant in the crime are not covered.
Was mostly gone when she signed the plea deal. Crime-Fraud Exemption kicks in.
To be clear, attorney-client privilege does not exist when the client and the attorney collaborated on committing a crime.
This here is the correct answer.
While I agree that he’s an idiot, I tend to think his disavowal has more to do with his malignant narcissism: he can’t accept being associated with people who others view as weak, and in his view taking a guilty plea means you’re weak. In his mind, saying he knows her and hired her means admitting he made a bad judgment call, and that’s simply not something he’s capable of admitting (even to himself.)
Bets on him claiming that she was never his lawyer and yet attorney client privilege still applies for some reason?
He’s going to just say she’s fabricating everything. Probably will start insulting her about irrelevant things soon too.
She's not my type, believe me folks
If he says this I have to assume they've fucked.
I would love to see it, as that would be a violation of his gag orders.
So in other words, he’ll definitely do it and face the serious consequences of the judge giving him a stern warning.
Have any of those been actually enforced yet?
Yes, he was fined $5K the other week and given further warning.
That's like a judge fining me $1.
Because his legal defense wasn't based on claiming attorney-client; it was based on the idea that he was just asking legal hypotheticals to / legal advice from legal experts
Now two of these lawyers have taken plea deals to (presumably) testify against Trump. Also, by virtue of the guilty plea in this case where Trump is a codefendant, that privilege would likely be voided anyway