Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 51 to 52 of 52

Thread: Donad Trump Jr erroneously claims he can plead the 5th

  1. #51
    Oldtimer Ken King's Avatar
    Member Since
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Up the hill and down the holler
    Posts
    14,843
    Quote Originally Posted by Starman View Post
    No, that usually wouldn't apply to a co-conspirators scenario, as would be the case here, since the interest of both parties to rat the other out would be materially adverse. Therefore, no common interest, and as such that case law you cite wouldn't apply.

    Furthermore, according to the stories, there was only one attorney present and a single attorney would be ethically barred from representing both parties, which shuts down that avenue of privilege assertion.
    Co-conspirator scenario? You know this how? What is the underlying crime for this conspiracy? And according to the article linked in the OP both had a lawyer present, and even if only one lawyer was present the common interest could still exist.

  2. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken King View Post
    Co-conspirator scenario? You know this how? What is the underlying crime for this conspiracy? And according to the article linked in the OP both had a lawyer present, and even if only one lawyer was present the common interest could still exist.
    Co-conspirator due to the nature of the questioning -- that of the whole Russia collusion thing. I'm not saying I believe that was the case, nor are there any charges of course, but that is the nature of the inquiry. This is a Congressional inquiry, not a formal court proceeding which do treat A-C privilege differently. But with respect to common interest, it really would depend on how similar Jr.'s and dad's legal interests really are. Even in the case of two lawyers present, we really don't know if they were privy to the entire conversation or just in the room with the respective parties. You can make a case for common interest, but without knowing more (like we they actually seeking legal advice, or were they just present to be able to invoke privilege?), we cannot conclude that it would protect the conversation in this case.

    It's murky I will grant you, but there is more on the side of not privileged than privileged based on what we know from the reports on this.
    Last edited by Starman; 12-09-2017 at 11:31 AM.

Members who have read this thread: 56

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Search:     Advanced Search
Search HELP

| Home | Help | Contact Us | About somd.com | Privacy | Advertising | Sponsors | Newsletter |

| What's New | What's Cool | Top Rated | Add A Link | Mod a Link |

| Announcements | Bookstore | Cafe | Calendar | Classifieds | Community |
| Culture | Dating | Dining | Education | Employment | Entertainment |
| Forums | Free E-Mail | Games | Gear! | Government | Guestbook | Health | Marketplace | Mortgage | News |
| Organizations | Photos | Real Estate | Relocation | Sports | Survey | Travel | Wiki | Weather | Worship |