Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Thomas M. who wrote (761947)	4/25/2022 11:45:58 AM
From: D. Long	11 Recommendations Recommended By Alan Smithee didjuneau DMaA FJB isopatch and 6 more members Respond to of 793846

If Durham does one thing, destroying the use of law firms as cutouts for political operatives under claims of attorney client privilege would be a great service to the nation.

To: Thomas M. who wrote (761947)	4/25/2022 3:01:29 PM
From: Neeka	1 Recommendation Recommended By Tom Clarke Respond to of 793846

Just The News has a good article that further explains why their request will be denied. They widely shared the info with the FBI, State Dept., CIA and the media. Now they say it must not be used in a trail because it falls under the umbrella of attorney/client privilege. I don't think so. The contents of the now-infamous Steele dossier, for instance, were shared with several news reporters, the FBI, and the State Department. Steele himself talked extensively about his 2016 conversations and dealings with the Clinton law firm, its research firm Fusion GPS and the FBI in a British court case Clinton campaign's 11th hour attorney privilege ploy likely to backfire in Durham case Opposition research meant to be made public, plus previous waivers will negate tactic, experts say. By John Solomon Updated: April 24, 2022 - 10:49pm The top brass at Hillary Clinton's defunct presidential campaign made quite a splash last week, making an 11th hour request to block the release of evidence in Special Counsel John Durham's upcoming trial against attorney Michael Sussmann by arguing it is protected by attorney-client privilege. But the sweeping requests for confidentiality — including research from former MI6 agent and opposition researcher Christopher Steele — face a high hurdle, experts told Just the News. That's because the very subjects the Clinton campaign now seeks to protect — such as its now-discredited anti-Trump research — were widely distributed without regard to privilege for years. The contents of the now-infamous Steele dossier, for instance, were shared with several news reporters, the FBI, and the State Department. Steele himself talked extensively about his 2016 conversations and dealings with the Clinton law firm, its research firm Fusion GPS and the FBI in a British court case Sussmann shared much of a research project — which turned out to be untrue — alleging a secret communications channel at the Alfa Bank between Trump and the Kremlin. And several of the Clinton campaign figures gave testimony to Congress that exposed who paid for the research falsely tying Trump to Russia, what was in it and why it was conducted. In other words, each of those disclosures to third parties waived any attorney-client privilege claims at the very least. Many experts believe it to be preposterous to even try to suggest an opposition research dossier meant to be made public could ever qualify as attorney-client privileged materials. "It is clear as a matter of law and legal ethics that legal research intended to be made public is not protected by attorney-client privilege," said Alan Dershowitz, the famed Harvard Law professor who was a supporter of Hillary Clinton in 2016 but dismisses her privilege claims now. "Even if it were, any privilege would be waived by testimony given about the research or the product." Kash Patel, a former federal prosecutor who helped expose the Russia collusion hoax as chief investigative counsel for the House Intelligence Committee, said Durham has numerous options for piercing the belated privilege claims, including the argument it does not apply in a circumstance where lawyers were passing along false information. "The attorney client privilege, from my former federal prosecutor days, is eviscerated if you share with a third party," Patel told the John Solomon Reports podcast. "But what John Durham is saying — he's coming in over the top and saying, 'No, no, you can't hide behind the privilege laws. This is an attempt to block information of an ongoing fraud. You cannot use the attorney client privilege. There's a crime fraud exception.'" Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), a member of the House Judiciary Committee, said the Clinton campaign's privilege claims were laughable given all the time the Russia collusion claims were shared with third parties, and they smacked of a delaying tactic. "I think their attorneys missed that 15 minutes in ethics class, which tells you that you've waived the privilege when you start leaking it or even have somebody present while you're discussing it," Biggs told "Just the News, Not Noise" TV show. "That's not part of the attorney client relationship. "I don't think it's going to be a winner. I think they're going to lose on that. And, you know, it's starting to unravel for them pretty quickly. And they just don't want the truth to come out." According to Durham's team, Sussmann shared the Alfa Bank research with at least two third parties: the FBI in September 2016 and the CIA in February 2017. Steele has admitted he shared his dossier contents with the FBI and members of the news media and the Alfa Bank allegations with at least the FBI and the Start Department. Steele also testified extensively about his work for the Clinton campaign and its law firm Perkins Coie both during an interview with the Justice Department inspector general and during court proceedings in Britain, where he lost a case filed by two Russians maligned by his research. In the British court case, Steele gave a painstaking account of his first meetings with Sussmann and his Perkins Coie law partner Marc Elias, revealing how he got information on Alfa Bank from them and even the odd way they communicated the first time they met in summer 2016. "Mr. Elias was in an adjacent room the first time I visited Perkins Coie on 29 July, I believe, 2016," Steele recounted. Steele said he didn't get to see Elias' face or get his business card until a subsequent meeting in September 2016. "It's 22 September the first time I physically met him in person," Steele explained. You can read Steele's testimony here: File SteeleTestimonyBritishCourt.pdf justthenews.com

To: Thomas M. who wrote (761947)	4/25/2022 11:37:44 PM
From: didjuneau	8 Recommendations Recommended By Alan Smithee D. Long isopatch lightshipsailor locogringo and 3 more members Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793846

John Durham Springs His Trap After ‘Hillary for America’ Walks Right Into It (h/t locogringo) Last Tuesday, RedState reported on two desperate filings put forth by Hillary for America and Fusion GPS. They attempted to assert attorney-client privilege over materials that John Durham’s prosecution of Michael Sussmann is seeking to get its hands on. That left the obvious question open, though. How could Sussmann both simultaneously assert that he was acting on his own accord and not being paid by the Hillary campaign while at the same time having Hillary for America and Fusion GPS assert attorney-client privilege over their communications? <snip> In other words, he’s about to get the relevant parties under oath and expose the contradiction. Either they are lying to the FEC in their prior agreement or they are lying in the Sussmann case. A logic trap. Can't have it both ways.