Triluminary, neither do I think I have all the answers. I have always understood that lawyers and clients couldn't collude to commit crimes and as such those kinds of activities wouldn't be protected by privilege, though they would of course be protected by self incrimination.
But the simple fact that strikes me about any conversation that Monica may have had with her first attorney, was that it was in reference to her giving her deposition, or at least that is my understanding.
After reading through that reference you came up with, a very good one I might add, at least for me, I see that conversations relative to the rendition of legal service were protected under strict construction of the privilege. (Or at least that's my reading.) This seems to me an important right as discussed there by virtue of the possible chilling effect that laying these kinds of conversations open to scrutiny would have on the progress of our judicial process.
It would be shocking to think that these kinds of conversations weren't protected. Else who could you ever be expected to be able to talk to? I tend to think that even after the issue of privilege is argued, and even if compelled to testify, nothing is going to come of it, as I would be surprised if there was anything there to begin with. But this isn't a concern for me nearly as much as diminishing the sanctity of those conversations.
Aren't you a little concerned that grand jury investigations can seem to go on unlimited fishing expeditions? Isn't there even the slightest requirement for probable cause that say law enforcement officials are required to have. She has given a deposition, and the prosecutors don't believe it, so do they now have the right to open every door in her private life to find anything that can be used against her? But for the goal of getting the President, do you think there would be this kind of pursuit? It just seems like unfair application of the law. It seems to me to be too much. |
