Duh! When McGinnniss signed on with RH...their lawyers were involved with him and the book, legally. he thus opened all legal avenue when he talked to a third party about the process
I don’t know of any jurisdiction that would consider that a waiver of privilege. Besides, she’d be a fool to pursue legal action if she wants to run. She is already considered a quitter by many (myself included). A lawsuit would simply have others labelling her a whiner.
Having read his smoking-gun e-mail, I can see how it opens him up to a lawsuit, as he admits having no evidence for several claims (that I assume made it in the book — his e-mail says they wouldn’t end up in his book unless he found evidence).
And I see that he says RH lawyers were reviewing his book, and he claims they were giving him a hard time about not providing evidence for some of the personal stuff about Palin’s family.
But I don’t see how that transmission from RH to him would be considered “attorney-client” communication; the lawyers were reviewing to protect RH, not McGuiness; the revelation of their communication wouldn’t be a waiver of A-C privilege, since he wasn’t the paying client for those lawyers.
What his statement DOES is provide an in to get e-mails from RH, because it gives the expectation that there is something there that shows malfeasance. I guess to the degree someone might have TRIED to claim A-C privilege for mail between a lawyer and someone who wasn’t a client, this will make it harder, although I can’t imagine any lawyer trying to claim A-C privilege on behalf of external communication.
The argument would be like if I was suing someone, and their lawyer wrote me a letter on behalf of their client, and I released the letter to the media — that certainly wouldn’t waive the A-C privilege between the target of my suit and their lawyers.
I’m not arguing about the underlying case. It’s just that nothing in the Palin Attorney letter says anything about any breaking of A-C privilege, and their arguments in the letter don’t seem at all to be based on A-C privilege, but simply on the knowledge of communication from RH to the author that suggests RH knew at some point that allegations were unsupported by evidence.
I mean, we’ll all know eventually, but I just don’t see how A-C privilege could enter as an issue based on the Palin attorney e-mail, or the e-mail from McGuiness to the blogger.
Interestingly, if McGuiness wasn’t such an idiot (as it seems he is), if he had actually left out the specific allegations he cites in the e-mail he sent, the e-mail could actually be used as a defense for him, since it makes it sound like he CARED about finding evidence, and would reject things that didn’t have evidence; his problem is that apparently (I say apparently because I have no idea what is in his book, as I have ignored everything about it assuming it all to be false and lurid) he DID end up including some of these allegations in his book.
BTW, it is a basic tenet of legal representation — when you decide to enter into a contract with someone else, THEIR lawyer is NEVER representing YOU, no matter how much you wish it were true. They will give you legal advice at times, but it is not in YOUR best interest, but in their own client’s best interest. They don’t work for you, they owe you nothing, and you are a fool not to have your own lawyer to protect your interests.
The RH lawyers were involved with the book on behalf of RH, to protect RH. Not the author. He should have had his own lawyer.