(04-13-2018 08:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  They're out to get him at any cost

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.

(04-13-2018 09:05 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-13-2018 08:50 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  All this "witch hunt" stuff might be taken more seriously if Republicans had not impeached Bill for lying about a blow job that was uncovered in an investigation into a real estate deal from 10 years before he became President. I'm not defending what Clinton did, but you can't support the Whitewater investigation and then say "money laundering, everyone does it!" or "Who doesn't have MOB connections?" and "Campaign finance laws aren't real laws, it's ridiculous to enforce them!"

Or in more recent history, even after the first 479 Benghazi! investigations turned up nothing, starting yet another one because we just *know* Hillary was there attacking the embassy herself.

I'm not saying this investigation is just payback - I would not support it, if I thought that were the case - just explaining why the other side mostly chuckles and rolls their eyes at the "witch hunt" claims.

I might agree with you about Bill Clinton, except that you overlook the salient detail about being under oath and subject to perjury when he lied. I am always amazed how that tiny little point is swept over by some....

Haven't I seen you railing against this investigation just being a big perjury trap? Seems like an odd thing to single out in the Clinton investigation if you think it's such BS here.

(04-13-2018 09:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-13-2018 09:05 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-13-2018 08:50 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  All this "witch hunt" stuff might be taken more seriously if Republicans had not impeached Bill for lying about a blow job that was uncovered in an investigation into a real estate deal from 10 years before he became President. I'm not defending what Clinton did, but you can't support the Whitewater investigation and then say "money laundering, everyone does it!" or "Who doesn't have MOB connections?" and "Campaign finance laws aren't real laws, it's ridiculous to enforce them!"

Or in more recent history, even after the first 479 Benghazi! investigations turned up nothing, starting yet another one because we just *know* Hillary was there attacking the embassy herself.

I'm not saying this investigation is just payback - I would not support it, if I thought that were the case - just explaining why the other side mostly chuckles and rolls their eyes at the "witch hunt" claims.

I might agree with you about Bill Clinton, except that you overlook the salient detail about being under oath and subject to perjury when he lied. I am always amazed how that tiny little point is swept over by some....

Haven't I seen you railing against this investigation just being a big perjury trap? Seems like an odd thing to single out in the Clinton investigation if you think it's such BS here.

Not a lawyer, but from the discussions, I understand the perjury trap to be an effort to get inconsistencies in testimony and use those to make a perjury accusation for pressure. Things like "previously you said you met him n the afternoon, now you say morning".

Bill's perjury was an outright lie, meant to pervert justice.

In any case, it was the least of the four charges sought, only two of which were passed by the House.

(04-13-2018 09:22 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-13-2018 09:14 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  Regarding "under oath" - earlier in this thread the idea that Mueller might charge people for lying under oath/perjury has been dismissed as not a "real" crime. And that would at least be for lying about something related to the investigation.

So which is it?

Having said that, I will be surprised if that's all that comes out of this. It would ironic if there is no "there" there and the only reason it's gone on this long is because Trump keeps acting like he's trying to cover up something. To paraphrase one of his own supporters, "if you are innocent, act like it."

Why do you say he is acting like he is trying to cover up something? His reactions seem perfectly normal to me for somebody being persecuted by a government cabal.

I think the only reason it has gone on this long is that the investigators need something to show for their time. Collusion has long been abandoned.

OK, so the Democratic position is that perjury is OK. Let's dismiss all those changes of lying to investigators.

I have said there will be no collusion shown - the ostensible reason for this investigation - but a lot of "little" indictments for minor things. By minor things, I mean unrelated to the collusion accusation. I am sure they are not minor to the guys accused. But it's like charging a guy with treason, then convicting his brother of jaywalking.

No, the Dem position isn't that perjury is OK. When has any liberal on this board suggested that? The accusation levied by Tanq was that it wasn't included in a post.

You seem to be dancing away from the fact that you agree that Clinton messed up by lying underoath, yet you kick and scream about how the Trump investigation is just a perjury trap and that perjury in this case isn't a big issue.

Clinton should have been held accountable for lying under oath back in the day - I've said it before, I wasn't around back then, so I'm not really sure why he wasn't. If the only thing that comes from this investigation are perjury charges against Trump, I imagine you'll see a different outcome. And that's where I'll agree with y'all that it would be due to the emotions he has generated in/outside of DC.

But we'll have to wait and see about how serious any charges are.

(04-13-2018 09:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-13-2018 09:05 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-13-2018 08:50 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  All this "witch hunt" stuff might be taken more seriously if Republicans had not impeached Bill for lying about a blow job that was uncovered in an investigation into a real estate deal from 10 years before he became President. I'm not defending what Clinton did, but you can't support the Whitewater investigation and then say "money laundering, everyone does it!" or "Who doesn't have MOB connections?" and "Campaign finance laws aren't real laws, it's ridiculous to enforce them!"

Or in more recent history, even after the first 479 Benghazi! investigations turned up nothing, starting yet another one because we just *know* Hillary was there attacking the embassy herself.

I'm not saying this investigation is just payback - I would not support it, if I thought that were the case - just explaining why the other side mostly chuckles and rolls their eyes at the "witch hunt" claims.

I might agree with you about Bill Clinton, except that you overlook the salient detail about being under oath and subject to perjury when he lied. I am always amazed how that tiny little point is swept over by some....

Haven't I seen you railing against this investigation just being a big perjury trap? Seems like an odd thing to single out in the Clinton investigation if you think it's such BS here.

This investigation isn't stopping at perjury, though, is it? Anyone who lied under oath while giving a deposition or testifying in court - fine, charge them with perjury (which would be more than the FBI or DOJ ever did to either Clinton or their subordinates, BTW). That's a crime with a black-letter definition.

ETA: Misstatements and omissions during interviews and interrogations are not perjury. Calling that perjury is stretching the legal definition in an effort to charge somebody with something.

(04-13-2018 09:25 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-13-2018 09:05 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-13-2018 08:50 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  All this "witch hunt" stuff might be taken more seriously if Republicans had not impeached Bill for lying about a blow job that was uncovered in an investigation into a real estate deal from 10 years before he became President. I'm not defending what Clinton did, but you can't support the Whitewater investigation and then say "money laundering, everyone does it!" or "Who doesn't have MOB connections?" and "Campaign finance laws aren't real laws, it's ridiculous to enforce them!"
Or in more recent history, even after the first 479 Benghazi! investigations turned up nothing, starting yet another one because we just *know* Hillary was there attacking the embassy herself.
I'm not saying this investigation is just payback - I would not support it, if I thought that were the case - just explaining why the other side mostly chuckles and rolls their eyes at the "witch hunt" claims.

I might agree with you about Bill Clinton, except that you overlook the salient detail about being under oath and subject to perjury when he lied. I am always amazed how that tiny little point is swept over by some....

Haven't I seen you railing against this investigation just being a big perjury trap? Seems like an odd thing to single out in the Clinton investigation if you think it's such BS here.

I think the Clinton impeachment was largely payback for Watergate and was stupid on the part of the republicans. The last thing this country needed was even a microsecond of President Al Gore.

Yes, it was a witch hunt. So is this one. Both were/are wrong.

(04-13-2018 09:31 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-13-2018 09:22 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-13-2018 09:14 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  Regarding "under oath" - earlier in this thread the idea that Mueller might charge people for lying under oath/perjury has been dismissed as not a "real" crime. And that would at least be for lying about something related to the investigation.

So which is it?

Having said that, I will be surprised if that's all that comes out of this. It would ironic if there is no "there" there and the only reason it's gone on this long is because Trump keeps acting like he's trying to cover up something. To paraphrase one of his own supporters, "if you are innocent, act like it."

Why do you say he is acting like he is trying to cover up something? His reactions seem perfectly normal to me for somebody being persecuted by a government cabal.

I think the only reason it has gone on this long is that the investigators need something to show for their time. Collusion has long been abandoned.

OK, so the Democratic position is that perjury is OK. Let's dismiss all those changes of lying to investigators.

I have said there will be no collusion shown - the ostensible reason for this investigation - but a lot of "little" indictments for minor things. By minor things, I mean unrelated to the collusion accusation. I am sure they are not minor to the guys accused. But it's like charging a guy with treason, then convicting his brother of jaywalking.

No, the Dem position isn't that perjury is OK. When has any liberal on this board suggested that? The accusation levied by Tanq was that it wasn't included in a post.

You seem to be dancing away from the fact that you agree that Clinton messed up by lying underoath, yet you kick and scream about how the Trump investigation is just a perjury trap and that perjury in this case isn't a big issue.

Clinton should have been held accountable for lying under oath back in the day - I've said it before, I wasn't around back then, so I'm not really sure why he wasn't. If the only thing that comes from this investigation are perjury charges against Trump, I imagine you'll see a different outcome. And that's where I'll agree with y'all that it would be due to the emotions he has generated in/outside of DC.

But we'll have to wait and see about how serious any charges are.

If perjury charges are what they are seeking, it would make sense for him to avoid testifying. That is where Bill made his mistake.

Nice use of the word "dancing".

But you mis-characterize my position. This is an investigation into collusion and treason, not perjury. all the indictments and the indictments to come are relatively minor. It's as if a murder investigation resulted in an indictment for tax evasion. Is tax evasion OK? No. Is it a minor thing compared to murder? IMO, yes. All these relatively minor indictments are just consolation prizes for not finding collusion.

(04-13-2018 09:31 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-13-2018 09:22 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-13-2018 09:14 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  Regarding "under oath" - earlier in this thread the idea that Mueller might charge people for lying under oath/perjury has been dismissed as not a "real" crime. And that would at least be for lying about something related to the investigation.
So which is it?
Having said that, I will be surprised if that's all that comes out of this. It would ironic if there is no "there" there and the only reason it's gone on this long is because Trump keeps acting like he's trying to cover up something. To paraphrase one of his own supporters, "if you are innocent, act like it."

Why do you say he is acting like he is trying to cover up something? His reactions seem perfectly normal to me for somebody being persecuted by a government cabal.
I think the only reason it has gone on this long is that the investigators need something to show for their time. Collusion has long been abandoned.
OK, so the Democratic position is that perjury is OK. Let's dismiss all those changes of lying to investigators.
I have said there will be no collusion shown - the ostensible reason for this investigation - but a lot of "little" indictments for minor things. By minor things, I mean unrelated to the collusion accusation. I am sure they are not minor to the guys accused. But it's like charging a guy with treason, then convicting his brother of jaywalking.

No, the Dem position isn't that perjury is OK. When has any liberal on this board suggested that? The accusation levied by Tanq was that it wasn't included in a post.
You seem to be dancing away from the fact that you agree that Clinton messed up by lying underoath, yet you kick and scream about how the Trump investigation is just a perjury trap and that perjury in this case isn't a big issue.
Clinton should have been held accountable for lying under oath back in the day - I've said it before, I wasn't around back then, so I'm not really sure why he wasn't. If the only thing that comes from this investigation are perjury charges against Trump, I imagine you'll see a different outcome. And that's where I'll agree with y'all that it would be due to the emotions he has generated in/outside of DC.
But we'll have to wait and see about how serious any charges are.

One big difference between Clinton and Trump. So far there's no perjury by Trump.

(04-13-2018 09:31 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  ETA: Misstatements and omissions during interviews and interrogations are not perjury. Calling that perjury is stretching the legal definition in an effort to charge somebody with something.

That is exactly what they have nailed Papadopoulos and Flynn on. Both sat down for interviews by the FBI and without counsel present (I presume these meetings were unscheduled and the two of these guys thought it was an informal questioning and counsel wouldnt need to be preset...never talk to the cops unless you are the victim - my parents taught me that when I was 10 years old and it applies from meathead local cops planting weed on teenagers all of the way to the head of the FBI investigating the president). They got ambushed and ended up misstating with who they met with and when they met with them. The people they met with and the nature of the meetings were completely legal, but the fact that the two of these guys provided a timeline that differed from the official record is what they were indicted on. They apparently had some motivation to not be entirely truthful given the political implications of saying "Oh ya, I met with the Ruskies for a steak dinner last week" but obviously they did not understand that giving the FBI a timeline that differed from their official record would result in felony indictments.

There is a serious difference between being in deposition or being sworn as a witness and trial and the 'Martha Stewart' items that you say that are being differentiated here.

Clinton, unambiguously and explicitly, recited an absolute falsehood while being sworn in at deposition. He literally misled the court. Period. He literally used the fundamentally and undeniably false statement to impinge the court's function. That statement was also a predicate for one the obstruction of justice charges.

In fact, Flynn and Manafort, and Martha Stewart for that matter, are hit with an entirely different criminal section: giving a flase statement to a federal official. It is famously known that Martha Stewart never served time for insider trading -- it was the false statements to an investigator that she did pokey time.

I see many critical differences between lying to the arbiter of matter (lying under oath under auspices and power of the court system), and the same action to a FBI agent. The latter becomes part and parcel of law enforcement weapons, the former preserves the rule of law.

The latter is subject to massive abuse by the Federal authorities; the former is not.

If you want to say 'the same thing', you are free to do so. Doesnt touch on the fundamental differences between the two. Nor does it touch on the potential for fundamental misuse of one of them.

(04-13-2018 09:38 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-13-2018 09:31 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-13-2018 09:22 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-13-2018 09:14 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwlStill Wrote:  Regarding "under oath" - earlier in this thread the idea that Mueller might charge people for lying under oath/perjury has been dismissed as not a "real" crime. And that would at least be for lying about something related to the investigation.
So which is it?
Having said that, I will be surprised if that's all that comes out of this. It would ironic if there is no "there" there and the only reason it's gone on this long is because Trump keeps acting like he's trying to cover up something. To paraphrase one of his own supporters, "if you are innocent, act like it."

Why do you say he is acting like he is trying to cover up something? His reactions seem perfectly normal to me for somebody being persecuted by a government cabal.
I think the only reason it has gone on this long is that the investigators need something to show for their time. Collusion has long been abandoned.
OK, so the Democratic position is that perjury is OK. Let's dismiss all those changes of lying to investigators.
I have said there will be no collusion shown - the ostensible reason for this investigation - but a lot of "little" indictments for minor things. By minor things, I mean unrelated to the collusion accusation. I am sure they are not minor to the guys accused. But it's like charging a guy with treason, then convicting his brother of jaywalking.

No, the Dem position isn't that perjury is OK. When has any liberal on this board suggested that? The accusation levied by Tanq was that it wasn't included in a post.
You seem to be dancing away from the fact that you agree that Clinton messed up by lying underoath, yet you kick and scream about how the Trump investigation is just a perjury trap and that perjury in this case isn't a big issue.
Clinton should have been held accountable for lying under oath back in the day - I've said it before, I wasn't around back then, so I'm not really sure why he wasn't. If the only thing that comes from this investigation are perjury charges against Trump, I imagine you'll see a different outcome. And that's where I'll agree with y'all that it would be due to the emotions he has generated in/outside of DC.
But we'll have to wait and see about how serious any charges are.

One big difference between Clinton and Trump. So far there's no perjury by Trump.

There is also no perjury by Manafort alleged, nor any perjury by Flynn alleged. Manafort and Flynn are charged under the 'Martha Stewart' law, otherwise known as the 'ambush law' in some criminal defense circles.

(As an aside, the money laundering statutes are commonly referred to as the 'I paid my cable bill online' law, as well...)

(04-13-2018 09:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-13-2018 08:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  They're out to get him at any cost

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.

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

(04-13-2018 09:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-13-2018 08:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  They're out to get him at any cost

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.

T: In your experience, how often is the atty/client privilege invaded by law enforcement? I can think of one instance in Travis County in the last 15+ years. Not to minimize the concerns, just curious how often you've seen this happen.

Perhaps tangential, with google/gmail/facebook data issues: are we looking at a standard of practice that requires encryption?

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

(04-13-2018 09:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-13-2018 08:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  They're out to get him at any cost

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?

And for the 4th, isn’t the issue there that the attorney client privilege is being illegallly searches/seized? I mean, I’m not sure I get your response at all - Dirshowitz’s whole point was these amendments were being violated because of the intrusions into attorney-client interactions.

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

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

(04-13-2018 09:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-13-2018 08:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  They're out to get him at any cost

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.

As an aside, I want to bring a TV show to the attention of the liberals here - and maybe the conservatives too.

The show is "Here and Now", on HBO, starring Tim Robbins and Holly Hunter as the parents in an ultraliberal family living in Portland. Both Berkeley grads, they have four children. The elder three are all adopted and living on their own. One from Africa, one from Asia, one from South America. Complete racial spectrum. One in an interracial marriage, one gay, one celibate.

The youngest, a natural child, is a high school senior, and her boyfriend is a gender fluid Muslim.

Kind of covers all the bases.

A bit more complicated than that. If interested, I suggest using your demand feature to go back to the first episode and watching sequentially.

(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:  

(04-13-2018 08:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  They're out to get him at any cost

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?

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

"Sounds antiquated. We should get rid of the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, & 6th amendments...the 1700s were such a different time."

- Every millennial right now

Are high school civics or world history even required now? Or are gender studies more important than understanding the legal framework under which our country was founded? (granted, there are more genders to study now than when I was in high school all of which fall outside the purview of the previously adequate biology class)

(04-13-2018 11:29 AM)flash3200 Wrote:  

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

"Sounds antiquated. We should get rid of the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, & 6th amendments...the 1700s were such a different time."

- Every millennial right now

Are high school civics or world history even required now? Or are gender studies more important than understanding the legal framework under which our country was founded? (granted, there are more genders to study now than when I was in high school all of which fall outside the purview of the previously adequate biology class)

What a garbage hot take right there.

First, if you want to make sure millenials are/were being taught civics, please call out the Boomers and Gen Xers that were/are teaching the millenials in high school right now. Since when did high school students get to decide what the curriculum was?

Second, high schools still teach government and american history classes - just look at the offering of AP courses. I would be shocked to find any high school that doesn't require an American history course to be taught (which covers our government) and many encourage a specific course on government be taught.

Third, since when have there been controversies over self-incrimination and double jeopardy in the last 10 years?

And that doesn't even touch on the fact that the argument that "every" millennial wants to get rid of the amendments you listed. Even the more vocal Parkland students openly state that they don't want to abolish the 2nd amendment (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-r...e-second), they want to pass legislation that more tightly regulates gun ownership (which one can argue is an infringement, but is certainly different than an abolishment).

Absolute garbage hot take.

(04-13-2018 11:05 AM)ausowl Wrote:  

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

(04-13-2018 09:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-13-2018 08:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  They're out to get him at any cost

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.

T: In your experience, how often is the atty/client privilege invaded by law enforcement? I can think of one instance in Travis County in the last 15+ years. Not to minimize the concerns, just curious how often you've seen this happen.

Perhaps tangential, with google/gmail/facebook data issues: are we looking at a standard of practice that requires encryption?

I have known of a handful in Houston, and a handful in El Paso.

When I was in California there were also a handful.

So I can think if no more than 6 or 7 total in the jurisdictions I have been most familiar with in the last 20+ years.

I think the balance is proper -- *if* the authorities can show by an overwhelming weight that the attorney is *actively* involved in a crime, *and* functioning as a 'consigliere' or to an elevated 'kingpin' status, then, and only then, should the files and records be the subject of a search warrant.

Those are the 'explicit' ones. There is also a practice that the authorities refer to as the 'fortunate murder scene. Best exemplified by the murder of one of the best drug criminal attorneys in El Paso (in the late 1970's), Lee Chagra, in his office over a robbery gone bad.

Had acquaintances admit to me in the mid 2000's that the murder, and the subsequent sealing and searches of Chagra's offices, allowed them to bust the best and most organized smuggling ring in El Paso up until that point, as well as get evidence and break the case on Chagra's brothers for the murder of a Federal judge.

As for the standard, that *is* the standard I employ for electronic communication and digital data storage in my legal practice. And I dont even do criminal work....

As Lad noted, we do not know the items brought to the judge or magistrate. My initial gut feeling is that the bar is an extremely high one -- I can only think of one or two cases that I have heard of or read of in the case law that would pass that bar. Lee Chagra probably being one of the very few.... Given that, I find it somewhat hard to fathom that Cohen would be such a 'pulse of criminal organization' to that level to engender that type of action. It is akin to a 16 seed beating a 1 seed in March Madness. But, it *can* occur.

That is why, with a really perverse reasoning, I hope that Cohen is *such* a consigliere or kingpin. Otherwise, both the loosening of the criteria, and the political undertones of the loosening, are far more damaging to the country, imo.