Posted on 10/25/2019 12:22:03 PM PDT by outpostinmass2
They are all going to claim they were just following orders of the Kenyan from Indonesia.
They know he is untouchable.
Arkancide in 5, 4, 3,...
If I say what?
If I say what?
What is Jack Posobiecs’ record for being right with breaking news?
If true it is huge news. He wouldn’t rat out if it wasn’t really bad.
Hope Commie Brennan goes down
Discussions of previous acts are generally subject to the attorney-client privilege. If, for example, if a client tells his lawyer that he robbed a bank or lied about assets during a divorce, the lawyer probably can’t disclose the information.
From this link:
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/attorney-client-privilege.html
“I still say the big challenge will be finding 12 jurors within a 100 mile radius of D.C. who would be willing to convict. They all owe their livelihoods to the swamp.”
A good point I’ve been puzzling about since most of the potential defendants did most of their dirty work either in DC or NYC and the Constitution requires Federal defendants to be tried in the district(s) where their alleged crimes were committed. Then I got imaginative. In some case parts or their crimes may have been committed while they were using cell phones or computers at locations other than DC or NYC. Then there’s the idea that the crimes were intended to impact the whole country and one might draw an analogy to a bomb maker who builds a bomb in one location and mails it to another where it explodes, giving both locations jurisdiction. Also many live in the ND of VA and might have done part of their plotting there.
IMHO that is WHY the Dems are so hell-bent on taking over in Virginia. It will give a complete bubble of immunity to all Swamp Monsters in the region.
He represented the agency, not its employees. No attorney client privilege
Durham is running his investigation out of Utah. I believe that means his indictments will be filed in Utah Federal court.
I thought Durham was out of NY.
If, as I believe, Priestep is the second FBI guy at the Flynn "intereview" with Strzok, he (Priestep) knows exactly what when on there, what was in the original notes and the first 302. "Editing" the 302 later is forgery.
If, as I believe, Priestep is the second FBI guy at the Flynn "intereview" with Strzok, he (Priestep) knows exactly what when on there, what was in the original notes and the first 302. "Editing" the 302 later is forgery.
I was wrong, Durham is in Connecticut. John Huber is in Utah.
If true.
Huber is in Utah.
The difference here is that the lawyer was a co-conspirator, and the conspiracy to commit the crime(s) was the subject of the conversations.
I think you’re thinking of Huber
on the other hand discussions of future or pending crimes MAY be subject to the criminal-fraud exception to attorney client privilege
http://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1850&context=umlr
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.