First, there is a clear conflict of interest here that prevents the attorney client privilege from existing. Second, during the relevant period of time, both Clinton and Mills were employed by the government of the United States, and there could be no attorney-client privilege as between them (there may have been executive privileges and state secrets privileges, but that’s different). Third, the attorney-client privilege does not apply when the attorney is complicit in criminal acts. In other words, John Gotti’s attorneys could not tell him how to whack his enemies, and claim it was a privileged communication.
This is so transparently criminal.
But it would take years to be litigated if anyone complained. At least it would take until after the election.
“[...] This is so transparently criminal.”
Thanks for the explanation there. Very clear and concise.
But, any good lawyer should know this, correct? Then where is the judge on this? Why didn’t he/she squash this at the start?