Unlike the debate over what Hogg should have done when Hollywood called, legal experts said that once the case was brought before a grand jury, Hogg did the right thing by refusing to testify and asserting attorney-client privilege. It was that refusal that led prosecutors to seek a court order compelling Hogg to testify.
Full Answer
To recap: Special Counsel Robert Mueller was appointed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to investigate allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government in the 2016 presidential election.
Although the Mueller Report does not squarely address these questions of “collusion” that fall outside the scope of potential criminal liability, it can be mined for substantive information that provides some meaningful answers. What follows is a detailed guide to the Mueller Report’s evidence on collusion.
The investigation was officially concluded on March 22, 2019, with the Mueller Report submitted to Attorney General William Barr. Barr had been critical of the investigation before he became Attorney General. A redacted version of the report was released to the public on April 18, 2019.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s final report focuses only on whether crimes were committed. It addresses two Russian conspiracies to interfere in the 2016 election—one involving a social media influence campaign and the other involving the hacking and dissemination of stolen emails.
The report concludes that the investigation "did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities".
Golden Trade was an extension of the Supreme Court's ruling in Upjohn Co. v. United States (1981), where the Court said that, “The attorney-client privilege is the oldest of the privileges for confidential communications known to the common law.
The attorney-client privilege is the oldest privilege recognized by Anglo-American jurisprudence. In fact, the principles of the testimonial privilege may be traced all the way back to the Roman Republic, and its use was firmly established in English law as early as the reign of Elizabeth I in the 16th century.
The attorney-client privilege is the backbone of the legal profession. It encourages the client to be open and honest with his or her attorney without fear that others will be able to pry into those conversations. Further, being fully informed by the client enables the attorney to provide the best legal advice.
Section 126 of the Act lays down two exceptions to attorney-client privilege, namely: communication made in the furtherance of any illegal purpose; and. any fact observed by an attorney in the course of his or her employment that shows a crime or fraud has been committed since the start of his or her employment.
An attorney who fails to uphold the duty of confidentiality may be sued for damages. However, confidential information can be used against a client in legal proceedings, whereas privileged information – which by nature is also confidential – cannot, unless so ordered by a court of law.
The privilege can be waived According to Rule 502, if a party inadvertently discloses information, it will not be considered a waiver of the privilege if the party took reasonable steps to prevent the disclosure and promptly attempts to rectify the error.
The attorney-client relationship is one of the strongest and most confidential professional affiliations. When someone retains an attorney, that attorney enters into a legally-binding agreement in which he or she cannot disclose the client's secrets or information to others.
The difference? Very simply put, attorney-client privilege stems from rules of EVIDENCE, whereas confidentiality stems from rules of ETHICS. But that's not all. Starting with confidentiality, every state has Rules of Professional Conduct that apply to lawyers who are licensed in that state.
Although the precise definition of attorney–client privilege varies among state and federal courts, there are four basic elements to establish attorney–client privilege: (i) a communication; (ii) made between counsel and client; (iii) in confidence; (iv) for the purpose of seeking, obtaining or providing legal ...
Emailed correspondence between attorney and client is privileged. However, the client can take some actions which will waive this attorney client privilege.
An email or letter from you to a qualified lawyer (barrister or solicitor) asking for advice, and the written legal advice you receive, are examples of documents which are privileged.
In Swidler and Berlin et al v.United States (NO. 97-1192, June 25, 1998) the United States Supreme Court held, in a six to three decision, that the common law attorney-client privilege survives the client ' s death and prevents a prosecutor from compelling the attorney from disclosing confidential communications from the client even if such communications are relevant to a criminal proceeding.
Claims of bad faith present unique challenges for insurers (and their counsel) with respect to attorney-client privilege: if the insurer’s state of mind is at issue, is the legal advice ...
Upjohn Co. v. United States: Communications between all corporate employees and the company's counsel may be protected by the attorney-client privilege. Also, the work product doctrine may cover materials sought in an IRS summons.
Three days later, Mueller told Barr in a letter that the Justice Department's summary, "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office's work and conclusions.". He urged the Justice Department to release selected materials immediately to address "public confusion.".
Special counsel Robert Mueller's statement on the Russia probe was not anywhere as clear cut as Attorney General William Barr's conclusions and will be a bomb on Capitol Hill, says 'Special Report' anchor Bret Baier. Special Counsel Robert Mueller contradicted the remarks of Attorney General William Barr, “ Special Report ” host Bret Baier said on ...
Special Counsel Robert Mueller contradicted the remarks of Attorney General William Barr, “ Special Report ” host Bret Baier said on Wednesday. Reacting on " America’s Newsroom ," Baier told hosts Bill Hemmer and Sandra Smith, “I was struck by the tone and tenor of those remarks as he laid out his case wrapping up this report.
SPECIAL COUNSEL ROBERT MUELLER BREAKS SILENCE ON RUSSIA PROVE, SAYS CHARGING TRUMP WITH A CRIME WAS 'NOT AN OPTION'
Mueller said that he was legally barred from charging President Trump with a crime, but also emphasized that his probe did not exonerate him. Mueller noted that if he could have cleared the president of any obstruction of justice claim, he “would have said so.”. “We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit ...
Last week, prosecutors convinced Judge Gordon that Hollywood himself waived the attorney-client privilege by telling a friend, Chas Saulsbury of Colorado Springs, Colo., that he had called Hogg to find out “the implications of the kidnapping,” according to transcripts.
Zonen contended that the attorney-client privilege does not apply because Hollywood waived it by later telling a friend about the conversation with Hogg. In the court hearing last week, Hogg strenuously opposed the prosecutor’s efforts, and he could still appeal.
In making his ruling, Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge William L. Gordon opened the door for prosecutors to seek Hogg’s testimony about Hollywood in the trials of four other defendants charged with kidnapping and murdering Nicholas Markowitz in August.
The four other defendants are Ryan Hoyt, Jesse Rugge and William Skidmore, 21-year-olds who grew up with Hollywood in the west San Fernando Valley; and Graham Pressley, 18, a friend of Rugge’s from Santa Barbara. All have pleaded not guilty and remain in custody.
First, as the Report states, “several individuals affiliated with the Trump Campaign lied to the Office,” and “those lies materially impaired the investigation of Russian election interference.” Second, President Trump’s interference in the investigation also appears to have stymied the investigation. A key example is Paul Manafort’s failure to cooperate with the Special Counsel because he was apparently led to believe that President Trump would pardon him. Third, some individuals used encrypted communications or deleted their communications. Fourth, some of the individuals who “cooperated” with the investigation (e.g., Steve Bannon) appear to have been deceptive or not fully forthcoming in their dealings with the Special Counsel. Several individuals failed to recall the content of important conversations with Trump or other Campaign associates. The Report states, “Even when individuals testified or agreed to be interviewed, they sometimes provided information that was false or incomplete.”
It is important to keep in mind that the Report’s analysis is about whether or not to prosecute someone for a crime. Furthermore, statements that the investigation “did not establish” something occurred are not the same as saying there was “no evidence” that it occurred. The Report has clear ways of saying when the investigation found no evidence. It conveys the absence of any evidence when, for example, it states the investigation “did not identify evidence” or “did not uncover evidence” that something occurred. Even then, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. When there is “evidence of absence,” the Special Counsel was willing to say the investigation “established” effectively that something did not occur. For example, the Report states that the investigation “established” that interactions between the Russian Ambassador and Campaign officials at certain locations were “brief, public, and non-substantive.” That finding excludes the possibility that something more nefarious occurred in those particular interactions. A keen eye on these kinds of distinctions is important when reading the Report itself.
As many experts have noted, what’s missing from the Mueller Report is the Special Counsel’s counterintelligence findings. We don’t know what the Special Counsel’s Office or the FBI have assessed, for example, with respect to whether Trump associates engaged in reciprocal efforts with Russian agents without entering a criminal agreement to do so, whether Americans have been witting or unwitting Russian assets, and what leverage or influence Moscow may have over particular individuals.
The Report’s wording – “whatever interests Deripaska had” — is notable given a well-known interview by Deripaska in which he said, “ I don’t separate myself from the state. I have no other interests .”
7. A Trump Campaign official told the Special Counsel he “felt obliged to object” to a GOP Platform change on Ukraine because it contradicted Trump’s wishes; however, the investigation did not establish that Gordon was directed by Trump.
Trump Campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Rick Gates shared internal campaign polling data periodically with a Russian spy, Konstantin Kilimnik. “In accordance with Manafort’s instruction, [Gates] periodically sent Kilimnik polling data via WhatsApp; Gates then deleted the communications on a daily basis.” “Manafort expected Kilimnik to share that information with … Deripaska ,” a Russian oligarch closely aligned with Vladimir Putin. “Manafort noted that if Trump won, Deripaska would want to use Manafort to advance whatever interests Deripaska had in the United States and elsewhere.”
Cohen said he ultimately did not pursue the matter with Klokov, “because he was already working on the Moscow Project with Sater, who Cohen understood to have his own connections to the Russian government.”
To recap: Special Counsel Robert Mueller was appointed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein ...
To overcome the presumption in favor of privilege, Mueller might argue that Cohen’s communications with Trump fail Professor John Henry Wigmore’s generally accepted rules necessary to establish a relation-based privilege:
The injury that would inure to the relation by the disclosure of the communications must be greater than the benefit thereby gained for the correct disposal of litigation.
One of Cohen's "story's" was that he had to mortgage his home in order to make the payment (s) as there was none of Trump's money used.
To recap: Special Counsel Robert Mueller was appointed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to investigate allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government in the 2016 presidential election. Because Mueller’s mandate is limited to the allegations of collusion or any other matters that arise directly from the investigation, what he may have uncovered on Cohen may not have related to Russian interference in the election, leaving him unsure of whether he had the authority to pursue it. So Mueller referred the case to the Southern District of New York (SDNY), who then went up the chain to Rosenstein.
If the Trump’s communications with Cohen were tainted by crime or fraud, Mueller could argue that privilege does not apply. The Supreme Court has not proposed any decisive tests for when the “crime-fraud” exception applies, so the D.C. District Court will have to rule on any evidence that Mueller brings on a case-by-case basis.
Edward - Excellent post! Also - as trump states he did not know about the payments and why they were made then Stormy has not violated the nondisclosure contract as it must not be valid.