Discussion in 'Politics and Religion' started by Joe L, Apr 9, 2018.
We’re up to like 1,757,909 counts of Obstruction of Justice.
Well, that doesn’t seem guilty.
A furtherance of the attack on the justice depth.
So his lawyers are arguing that a probable co-conspirator be allowed to review and remove the evidence of said crime before law enforcement had a chance to see it? Ridiculous.
I would advise any person who had their legal files to do the exact same thing. In fact, I would argue that any client of that attorney file a similar motion immediately, even if they are not the target of an investigation. The danger when a lawyer's files are seized is that they contain information that is relevant, likely to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence, and irrelevant evidence. Worse, the files may have information about other clients in other cases.
Remember that seizing attorney files is not normal. It's only supposed to happen when a client and an attorney essentially conspire (although it's a bit looser than that, but legal weeds) to commit a crime. You can't, as an attorney, hide behind the privilege to shield evidence of your crime.
Yeah, this argument is stupid. The best his lawyers can hope for is to send all files to a magistrate judge or a special master who will review them in camera then part and parcel documents that are responsive to the warrant to the DoJ. No way anyone would let a defense team look through documents and self-select what is responsive and what is not.
Isn't that the purpose of the taint team? My understanding is that anything they review that they determine is privileged cannot be released and essentially the taint team is held to the same lawyer/client privilege that the original lawyer has.
New career goal: add Taint Team to résumé.
I don't trust prosecutors to objectively search through an attorney's files any more than I trust the defense. Give it to a judge.
The taint team isn't supposed to be the prosecutors though. They are supposed to be independent lawyers that review the files and then determine what can be handed over to the prosecution. According to Chris Christie "There's going to be a taint team. They call it a taint team because you don't want to taint the prosecutors who are actually investigating it by seeing potentially privileged information that they have no right to see." Ultimately the evidence they find will be reviewed by a judge to determine whether or not it is admissible.
The taint team is a team of DoJ prosecutors that are not related to the case.
I understand that the goal is to put up a Chinese Wall between the reviewing team and the prosecutors, but prosecutors have a very particular mindset. It should go to the judge, magistrate, or special master in the first instance.
Man, we've gone from pee-pee to porn star to taint. This whole thing is soooo Trump.
More to this point:
"First, the taint team procedure does not prevent the government from seeing privileged, confidential and irrelevant information that is in the electronic records; it merely changes the identity of the government attorneys and agents who first review that information. See, e.g., United States v. Neill, 952 F. Supp. 834, 840-41 & n. 14 (D.D.C. 1997) (finding that a taint team review is a per se intentional intrusion into attorney/client privilege and stating that taint team procedures "create an appearance of unfairness.") Second, the prosecutors and agents who serve on taint teams cannot be expected to ignore evidence of other crimes they may potentially find in the electronic records they are reviewing, even if the government would not otherwise have suspected the commission of such crimes or, if it had, would not have had the right to obtain evidence of those crimes from these electronic records. The DOJ procedure provides the illusion of protection but does not solve the fundamental problem that attorneys and agents for the government are able to review information they have no right to see."
This looks like an unauthorized disclosure of Sean Hannity as a client. I have a real problem with this. The judge ordered disclosure of Hannity's name in open court.
 Cohen's attorneys are right: the judge should have taken the name in the envelope and not required open disclosure pending appeal. The judge was wrong on this one. Unless there is probable cause that Hannity committed a crime that is the focus of this investigation, search, and seizure, his name is protected by attorney-client privilege.
Separate names with a comma.