I don’t know. Any communications on that point were probably also privileged. But this question is beside my point.
Opposition research is without question a legitimate campaign expense. Paying off a porn star to keep her mouth shut isn't.
WRONG! That is the whole point. Whether the research being funded is in furtherance of legal aid/representation to the Clinton Campaign is central as to whether attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine apply.
And the righties made fun of Dems for thinking Obama was the Messiah. The irony is that Trump is likely the least Christian of every Republican President before him in every imaginable way.
I think neither of us know that because any strategy conversations would themselves be privileged. But I think you’d have a hard time convincing any competent judge that opposition research conducted at the behest of a lawyer representing the campaign is not privileged.
How is “opposition research” against a political opponent rather than a legal one, a rendering of legal aid/advice/research in any way?
Why are folks entertaining the whataboutism? The trick is to turn the conversation away from the convicted felon. Don't fall for it.
Likely not, but the CRITICAL element , if you are trying to make a comparison, has unsurprisingly completely and totally escaped you.
again, I don’t know exactly, because I’m not privy to any discussions on f strategy between the campaign and their legal team. But one possibility is that the campaign wanted to make public allegations and asked their lawyer to have someone investigate so they knew their allegations would be factually supported and wouldn’t expose them to liability.
Or… you know… it could just be plain old opposition research typical in politics for political reasons… you know… the most likely explanation.
I think paying for OP research through a campaign lawyer is fairly common practice. Why is Hillary selectively picked on?
Yeah… good luck with that. Ask Trump how far an awfully liberal interpretation of attorney-client privilege and work product got him.
Because she classified it as legal services, which apparently is a heinous criminal offense as we just learned in the Trump case.
An argument undermined by the fact that they didn't disseminate most of the information to the public, which is usually the goal of this sort of research.
I don’t understand why you think that something that is political opposition research is inherently not eligible for the attorney client privilege. If it was so that the campaign’s lawyer could give the campaign legal advice, including about what they should or shouldn’t say about said opposition, it’s core privileged material. There isn’t some exception out there that says opposition research is exempt. You’re just on here speculating that this info had nothing to do with seeking or rendering legal advice. I think that’s a bit of a stretch.
It’s abundantly clear that you’re working your way backwards. You want this to be privileged so you’re speculating the reason for the research working your way backwards rather than deferring to the most likely scenario. What next, you’re going to tell me that the Stormy Daniels payments were settlements to avoid litigation? If I said that, everyone here would laugh in my face.
