A solid read from a federal prosecutor, why the Sussmann indictment is YUGE. This isn't hopium, its hope.
(shipwreckedcrew.substack.com)
🧐 Research Wanted 🤔
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (75)
sorted by:
A couple of high level notes from the article.
Form his 22 years of experience, this indictment is complete overkill for a single count of lying to federal investigators. It not only lays the ground work for conspiracy, but delves into history and detail that are otherwise not needed
And I have not seen this anywhere else, client-attorney privilege has clearly been broken. The implications of that alone are huge.
Those are just teasers. Go read all the juicy details. Start weaning yourself off that hopium drip and get some 100% pure genuine hope.
u/#q4952
I've had an erection for the past 2 hours, is this a known side effect with this new stuff?
Only a problem if it lasts until 2024.
Kek
Lady Anon here says Prove it. Kek
Careful what you ask for in the internet! XD
Consult your doctor if that lasts for longer than 4 hours as permanent damage may result.
I am sure you meant to say 4 years, common mistake 😉
2 more and it’s off to the ER.
As I have heard; after a certain age never waste an erection nor trust a fart..
T. G. Holford21 hr ago
I was thinking about the attorney-client privilege issue, and it's not a given that that has happened.
While the substance of communications are very much protected, attorney's bills and time-sheets are far less protected. They do get turned over fairly often, without having to meet the crime-fraud exception or do an in camera review... e.g. if the existence of the representation is not secret, and the time / agency is a relevant question.
Edit: It's HUGE because it means a judge can do an in camera review of Clinton's communications with Sussman, and if there's anything there... then the dam breaks.
An in camera review may occur if the movant shows “a factual basis adequate to support a good faith belief by a reasonable person that an in camera review of the materials may reveal evidence to establish the claim that the crime-fraud exception applies.” US v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 572 (1989) (internal citations omitted).
This indictment meets that test. The warrants, in camera review, etc. may have already happened... but there's no question that they're in play. The question is whether Clinton will be successful in throwing Sussman under the bus.
You clearly did not read the article before commenting. Its much more than that. Also, what are your credentials if you are calling this guy out?
Ideas speak on their own. The whole point of an anonymous board is that we don't have to establish credentials to speak. That's an authority fallacy anyway. There are plenty of people with credentials who are morons. Anyone who actually knows their business should be able to explain it simply, like a mechanic telling a client what is causing that noise and why he needs another $300 to fix it.
This guy's edit refers to an "in camera review". Do you have any clue what that is? I don't. I've got a lot of degrees, but a law degree isn't one of them. He's also citing case law to make his argument. Maybe the guy's watched a lot of lawyer movies.
The question stands: is his analysis inaccurate? If so, why?
You don’t have to dox yourself by providing credentials. For example, I am a high level IT consultant with more than one decade under my belt.
That said, I’m not a law-fag. So it helps to know if another anon who is critical of a law related post about a 22 year veteran as a fed prosecutor, has any chops to bring to the table.
I agree, anyone can be an idiot. Look at many of our doctors right now.
But, it carries more weight to be be more than another “internet expert” spreading his “wisdom”.
The only reason I even called you out, was because the indictment and the article both talk about emails that were obtained that clearly should have been protected by client-attorney privilege. That’s not just billing and time. It’s fucking emails between Sussmann and his clients.
So if that is still no big deal, tell us why and why you would know.
"In camera" is a legal term from Latin. It means literally "in chambers," meaning in the judge's chambers in private.
Nobody here has credentials. They can say they have them, but they don't. We are anons.
The only credentials you have here is if you bring an intelligent, logical comment to the forum that has the proofs to back them up. That is the litmus test. If you can't do that, even if you are the a mega-brained-lawyer (in this case), you might as well be just another pleb on the street.
I could say the same about a lot of the resumes I’ve sifted through.
But I’ll concede your point, if for no other reason than we are getting too far off topic.
The crux of my point was, you cannot dismiss that it appears attorney-client privilege was breached just because billing and time are sometimes not considered privileged. The indictment and the article both reference emails Sussmann (the attorney) was sending his clients. If Durham has those, then the article appears to be correct.
I'm not saying it's a bad article. It's pretty good. It's just one caveat that billing statements often aren't privileged.
My credentials are Clarke v. American Commerce Nat. Bank, 974 F. 2d 127 (9th Cir. 1992) https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4668677461185860899
In that case the feds asked for attorney billing statements from the bank's attorney. The bank raised the privilege, and the lower court said the crime-fraud exception applied. The 9th Circuit disagreed and said that the exception didn't need to apply, because the billing statements weren't even privileged in the first place.
Granted, it depends on what each line item says. Something like "Meet with FBI" is different from "Meet with FBI - I think they bought the story about DNS lookups, but it's probably not legal to x, y, z." Only the first part would get released. So an in camera review of the hours probably did happen. The judge may have redacted some of the entries... and Durham's report may just be based on what wasn't redacted.
Edit: However, I totally agree that 95% of the indictment didn't need to be in there... and it doesn't make sense to include all of that info if you haven't already secured some way of proving it / or it's misdirection / etc.
TMI law dog! I feel you could be doxing yourself now. Be careful.
Nice find. Thanks