(04-20-2018 03:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 02:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 02:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 02:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 02:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What indication do we have to indicate that Hannity met with him weekly for a year to discuss real estate?

I was asking a hypothetical to gauge your thoughts - hence the "let's say" at the front.

You said you could think of plenty situations where someone wouldn't be compelled to disclose the relationship. I was wondering if you felt that was one of those situations.

Let's say, if a certain female candidate for president asked her law firm to find somebody to get dirt on her opponent from Russians, would that be covered by ACP?

Hypothetically.

My understanding is yes, unless the request was breaking a law. So I believe it would not be covered by ACP if Clinton discussed getting Russians to hack into the RNC to steal emails. If it was just about generic opposition research using publicly available records or interviewing witnesses, then I believe it would be covered.

actually it probably would not be. the privilge attaches to communications relating to legal matters and advice.

if my attorney and myself head to the strip club and we talk about Brandi' bodacious body --- not privileged even if i pay. a bill for the time.

i really dont think 'digging for political dirt' would easily be truthfully categorized as discussions on legal advice.

care to try again?

So, as long as communications are not germane to an immediate legal matter/advice, they are open for discovery?