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 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?
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.