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:
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.
Correct about the resume thing. Personally I suck in interviews. However my current job gave me an assignment as part of the process, and I impressed the hell out them with skill.
Logic and skill conquers all.
As to your point: fair point.
I'm great at interviews, I never study prerehearsed questions.
While I am skillful at my job, impressing in an interview in a way that is natural and genuine goes along way in your consideration as a recommended candidate for the job.
I always did well in interviews. I've never actually filled out an application for any job I ever had. I just went in and said you need a worker, I want a job, and I am qualified. Then we would talk a bit, and I was hired. In my last job, I was on the clock about an hour after I walked in the building and kept the job until I retired.
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.