(10-23-2024 10:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-23-2024 10:03 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(10-23-2024 06:59 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-23-2024 06:15 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(10-23-2024 05:12 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Privilege -- not immunity.

Look at the person asking him to talk. Now look at the bolded. End of story.

Congress asks him a question -- privilege. Period. End of story.

Further, the transmission of *solely* exculpatory information is the sole issue within the 'freer exchange' mentioned above.

The full story -- If a prosecutor has a pile of information, and notes, and other work product -- the base rule is that privilege attaches to all of it.

If a third party, not the defendant asks him -- privileged. Period.

If a defendant asks him about opinion work -- privileged. Period.

If a defendant asks him for non-exculpatory facts -- privileged. Period.

If a defendant asks him for exculpatory facts -- not privileged. Period.

Your AI search result phrase doesnt change the above. Nor does the phrase work in isolation as you seemingly think.

I don't know why I said immunity instead of privileged. But hey you are still wrong.

Whatever, sparkles. The bolded directly above says it all. Pretty much end of story.

But please jump up and down and wave your hands some more. The pithy comment you post (with no legal sourcing) is just kind of a broad scream into the air.

And you dont seem to understand the issue of "between the defendant and the prosecutor" that exists even in that pithy comment. The word 'between' is important. Good grief.

Not all information is privileged:
While a prosecutor's work product may include privileged information, basic facts gathered during an investigation are generally not protected by privilege and may need to be disclosed.

Maybe read the cases you cited. Just google the names, they will pop forth. The specific issue you make (bolded above) is that there is an exception to the work product rule for *some* basic facts, not that the work isnt protected.

The exception exists to items that *must* be communicated to a defendant.

In the case we are talking about, only one issue is germane. The only exception for work product privilege resides in the duty between a prosecutor and defendant.

Last I saw the US Congress is not the defendant with respect to Nathan Wade. Privilege applies.

There is no exception to the general work product privilege to some rando third party not the defendant.

Hey Tanq, how are you coming along with those Kamala accomplishments?

Jump in the Harris on CNN thread and give us some opinions on how retarded she looked today.

Even the Dim faithful know she is toast...

Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk