Former President Donald Trump claimed Sidney Powell was “never” his attorney in a social media post Sunday, three days after she pleaded guilty in the Georgia election subversion case.
What’s the strategy in that? Claiming she was never his attorney forfeits what shreds of privilege might be left of their communications and is also one less person he can blame “advice of counsel” on.
Minor correction: Admitting you committed a crime in the past is protected. The attorney can still tiptoe around the fact that they know you committed it, by defending you on procedural or clerical grounds. For instance, they can attack the evidence that has been submitted against you, because it was mishandled, or because the equipment used to gather it hadn’t been calibrated recently enough, or for any number of reasons. Even if they know you committed the crime, they can still ensure that your court proceedings are fair.
Admitting that you plan on committing future crimes is not covered. The attorney can’t be party to future crimes, and admitting you plan on committing crimes makes them a co-conspirator if they don’t rat you out.
Read my second paragraph, because I covered that already. The attorney can’t help you plan or execute future crimes, because that makes them a co-conspirator.
And from what I’ve read, that’s pretty much exactly what Trump tried to do. He apparently tried to use the “hypothetically if I were to commit this crime, what would be the best way to do it” method. The issue is that this is just a blatant attempt at getting around things, and courts don’t tend to like it when you try to skirt their rules.
To be pedantic, you specifically said future crimes. A discussion between a lawyer and a client, about past crimes where the lawyer was a participant in the crime are not covered.
Because his legal defense wasn’t based on claiming attorney-client; it was based on the idea that he was just asking legal hypotheticals to / legal advice from legal experts
Now two of these lawyers have taken plea deals to (presumably) testify against Trump. Also, by virtue of the guilty plea in this case where Trump is a codefendant, that privilege would likely be voided anyway
What’s the strategy in that? Claiming she was never his attorney forfeits what shreds of privilege might be left of their communications and is also one less person he can blame “advice of counsel” on.
Nothing really counts anyway as I’m betting nearly all of their discussions involved crimes, which aren’t protected by attorney client privilege.
It’s funny though, trump acting like there isn’t record of their relationship.
Minor correction: Admitting you committed a crime in the past is protected. The attorney can still tiptoe around the fact that they know you committed it, by defending you on procedural or clerical grounds. For instance, they can attack the evidence that has been submitted against you, because it was mishandled, or because the equipment used to gather it hadn’t been calibrated recently enough, or for any number of reasons. Even if they know you committed the crime, they can still ensure that your court proceedings are fair.
Admitting that you plan on committing future crimes is not covered. The attorney can’t be party to future crimes, and admitting you plan on committing crimes makes them a co-conspirator if they don’t rat you out.
But if the attorney is party to the crimes then the discussion is not privileged (to my understanding).
Read my second paragraph, because I covered that already. The attorney can’t help you plan or execute future crimes, because that makes them a co-conspirator.
And from what I’ve read, that’s pretty much exactly what Trump tried to do. He apparently tried to use the “hypothetically if I were to commit this crime, what would be the best way to do it” method. The issue is that this is just a blatant attempt at getting around things, and courts don’t tend to like it when you try to skirt their rules.
To be pedantic, you specifically said future crimes. A discussion between a lawyer and a client, about past crimes where the lawyer was a participant in the crime are not covered.
Was mostly gone when she signed the plea deal. Crime-Fraud Exemption kicks in.
To be clear, attorney-client privilege does not exist when the client and the attorney collaborated on committing a crime.
Bets on him claiming that she was never his lawyer and yet attorney client privilege still applies for some reason?
He’s going to just say she’s fabricating everything. Probably will start insulting her about irrelevant things soon too.
She’s not my type, believe me folks
If he says this I have to assume they’ve fucked.
I would love to see it, as that would be a violation of his gag orders.
So in other words, he’ll definitely do it and face the serious consequences of the judge giving him a stern warning.
Have any of those been actually enforced yet?
Yes, he was fined $5K the other week and given further warning.
That’s like a judge fining me $1.
Because his legal defense wasn’t based on claiming attorney-client; it was based on the idea that he was just asking legal hypotheticals to / legal advice from legal experts
Now two of these lawyers have taken plea deals to (presumably) testify against Trump. Also, by virtue of the guilty plea in this case where Trump is a codefendant, that privilege would likely be voided anyway