(04-13-2018 11:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-13-2018 11:14 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(04-13-2018 11:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-13-2018 10:43 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-13-2018 09:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Dershowitz brings up a good point about the inherent potential violations of attorney-client privilege by having someone, even if it isn't the prosecution, review material that would be deemed privileged.

It does make me wonder though - if, as Dershowitz seems to suggests, attorney-client privilege was something so sacred that no one could ever review material deemed to fall under that umbrella, would that not just open up a very easy and legal way for people to conspire about committing crimes? I've read that the privilege is nullified if the material indicates the meeting was about furthering a crime, but is seems like Dershowitz suggests that even that would be covered because of his concerns about anyone, not just the prosecutors, reading the material.

The violations arent just of the attorney-client privilege; the actions implicate violations of the 4th and 6th amendments of the Constitution.

I really didn’t get his use of the 6th - can you explain that?

Violation of attorney-client privilege compromises the ability of the attorney to provide effective counsel. If the accused cannot be completely frank and honest with his attorney for fear of self-incrimination, then that hinders effective discovery and defense strategy.

So it is the violation of, in essence, Trump’s rights with regards to the 6th?

It is *every client's* rights with regards to the 6th, not just Trump.

And, *every client's* rights with regards to the 4th, not just Trump.

These searches are not laser guided bomb strikes. These searches are Hoover-matic searches of all of an attorneys files -- they have to be in order for the laser guided search to be effective.

Hopefully this is instructive of why these types of searches overall are so 'appalling' to legal-types in general. (But apparently not the ACLU, the self-deigned 'guardian of rights' in our society...)

edited to add:

hopefully after Dershowitz's comments, and the further defining comments here, you will realize that this action *is* a big deal.

To be honest, this is akin to a decision to pop a nuke in a European land war, either in today's world or in the world of Cold War. There really is no going back on this one.

And hopefully, given my comments above defining what it means, you will be more comfortable with my supposedly 'hysterical' language of this being 'appalling.'

This move is the equivalent of the Mueller/DOJ setting off of a tactical nuke in this matter. Much like a Trump decision to fire Rosenstein or Mueller would be the mirror image of the level of this action.