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.

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 attorney-client privilege.

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.

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.