FBI Leaks Confidential Documents Acquired In Raid Of Project Veritas / James O'Keefe To NY Times

[BackAgain]

Yet you support my claim that it's the prosecutors and not judges who make the decision whether or not evidence can be legally presented to the judge.

wow. You do plod. Prosecutors make preliminary determinations. Of course. That’s what I just said. For example, they might decide that what might look like a warrantless entry and warrantless search meets one of the exceptions to the normal warrant requirement.

What is the result of a prosecutor submitting clearly illegal evidence to the court?

Let me give you a hint. The judge might impose legal sanctions against the prosecutor. No different than if a lawyer cites a case, which had been later overturned.

Stupid question. If it IS clearly illegally obtained evidence, rational prosecutors don’t attempt to make use of it. If they have an argument that it is actually properly obtained despite initial appearances, they still need (in most cases) a judge to give the ok.

Your level of ignorance is studious.

 

[TheGreatSatan]

They didn't cover for any of them. You make up lies as you go.. Pretty unamerican.

Does the diary change your opinion of Pedo Joe or do you still cover for him?

How bout bill Clinton? do you still think he's not a pedo? What's your cover story for him being buddies with Epstein?

 

[surada]

Does the diary change your opinion of Pedo Joe or do you still cover for him?

How bout bill Clinton? do you still think he's not a pedo? What's your cover story for him being buddies with Epstein?

You should probably provide evidence for your slanders or at least go public instead of hiding behind internet anonymity.

 

[meaner gene]

You remain plodding. Of course if the attorney offers legal advice to a client that furthers a corrupt and illegal objective, the lawyer has crossed the line into being a kind of house counsel. Obviously, that would take the analysis back to a potential negation of attorney client privilege. But you can’t know what advice he gave ordinarily without eavesdropping or reading the emails. And that’s the exact reason the DOJ has its lawyer seek a properly supervised team. Judicially supervised. Because otherwise, in order to find out IF the conversation is privileged they must violate the confidentiality. You truly don’t get this basic stuff, do you?

You said judicially supervised, when that clearly isn't the case. It's in house lawyers that make that decision. The only question of DOJ policy is whether to change from randomly chosen "taint teams" to instead use a dedicated permanent team.

https://www.hoganlovells.com/~/media/hogan-lovells/pdf/2020-pdfs/2020_05_31_the_doj_introduces_new_privilege_team.pdf

. In late 2018, the Fraud Section began posting job opportunities for a privilege team dedicated to assisting prosecutors in resolving legal privilege matters. The formation of a designated team devoted to privilege determinations represents a shift from past practice, by which prosecuting
attorneys and agents not involved in an underlying investigation were called in to review materials seized during the investigation for privilege before handing them off to the prosecuting attorneys.

criticizing the ability of these rotating privilege teams, often known as “taint teams,” to adequately protect legal privilege. It remains to be seen, however, whether the development of a dedicated privilege team will markedly
improve the ability of investigation subjects to protect their privileged material.

 

[TheGreatSatan]

You should probably provide evidence for your slanders or at least go public instead of hiding behind internet anonymity.

Did ABC news(Democrats) cover for bill Clinton, Epstein, and prince Andrew? Yes or no?

 

[meaner gene]

wow. You do plod. Prosecutors make preliminary determinations.

And you could say that the judge in the case also makes a preliminary determination. As each maker of a preliminary determination can have their decision appealed to a higher level that will make the final determination.
So every determination except by the USSC is a preliminary determination.

 

[BackAgain]

You posted where the DOJ is questionable of filter teams, not that they aren't the deciders of what is privileged.

I am unable to assist you grasp the correct meaning of words and sentences. You were robbed of the ability either at birth or by virtue of a wasted attempt at education. I feel sorry for you.

let me give you an easy to follow hypothetical.

FBI believes that attorney is aiding a suspect commit crime of possession of stolen property. They believe proof will be found in normally confidential attorney client e-mail. They seize the lawyer’s emails. Maybe they had a warrant to do so? Maybe not. If they did, maybe they had prior court approval to use a taint team. Still worrisome, but at least some judicial guidance.
Or, maybe seized without a warrant? Could be suppressed maybe. Probably. But still, just reading the email is serous infringement of attorney-client privilege even so. If not suppressed (because of the lack of warrant), then they damn well do need to get a special master to review the emails to protect ALL OF OUR INTERESTS in the sanctity of attorney client privilege.

 

[BackAgain]

And you could say that the judge in the case also makes a preliminary determination. As each maker of a preliminary determination can have their decision appealed to a higher level that will make the final determination.
So every determination except by the USSC is a preliminary determination.

You could say that. You would be wrong. A preliminary determination comes before a judge allows a jury to see or hear proffered evidence. That his or her ruling could be reversed on appeal doesn’t change the fact that it was a preliminary decision that became a final (thus appealable) ruling.

 

[meaner gene]

Stupid question. If it IS clearly illegally obtained evidence, rational prosecutors don’t attempt to make use of it. If they have an argument that it is actually properly obtained despite initial appearances, they still need (in most cases) a judge to give the ok.

Your level of ignorance is studious.

When you talk about rational prosecutors. You omitted that "rational" means that they follow the law in making that determination, instead of submitting the determination to the judge.

 

[meaner gene]

I am unable to assist you grasp the correct meaning of words and sentences. You were robbed of the ability either at birth or by virtue of a wasted attempt at education. I feel sorry for you.

let me give you an easy to follow hypothetical.

FBI believes that attorney is aiding a suspect commit crime of possession of stolen property. They believe proof will be found in normally confidential attorney client e-mail. They seize the lawyer’s emails. Maybe they had a warrant to do so? Maybe not. If they did, maybe they had prior court approval to use a taint team. Still worrisome, but at least some judicial guidance.
Or, maybe seized without a warrant? Could be suppressed maybe. Probably. But still, just reading the email is serous infringement of attorney-client privilege even so. If not suppressed (because of the lack of warrant), then they damn well do need to get a special master to review the emails to protect ALL OF OUR INTERESTS in the sanctity of attorney client privilege.

Why can't you even post an "example" that doesn't ask more questions than it seeks to answer.

Maybe they had a warrant to do so? Maybe not.
If they did, maybe they had prior court approval to use a taint team.

 

[BackAgain]

When you talk about rational prosecutors. You omitted that "rational" means that they follow the law in making that determination, instead of submitting the determination to the judge.

When you just posted that tripe you failed to consider that some nonsense need not be posted. A rational prosecutor tries to follow the law as best she or he understands the law (which is often a subject of very valid debate on any given issue). If a cop enters a house without a warrant to conduct a warrantless search because the cop believes that in this situation no warrant is legally required, maybe the cop gets what s/he was looking for.
If the prosecutor agrees that the situation at the time of the search allowed for it to legally be done without a warrant, he or she might process the case. That WILL almost surely get a judge to make a call on the legal determination.

and? So what? Nothing I just said implies that the prosecutor wasn’t rational. So what the hell are you blathering on about?

 

[BackAgain]

Why can't you even post an "example" that doesn't ask more questions than it seeks to answer.

Maybe they had a warrant to do so? Maybe not.
If they did, maybe they had prior court approval to use a taint team.

If you ask ALEXA a question, you sometimes find that “she” doesn’t understand your lingo.
Is there a particular point you need clarified?

you seem pretty hell bent on avoiding answering questions yourself. For example: do YOU agree or disagree that not all searches conducted without a search warrant are necessarily “illegal?”

 

[meaner gene]

You could say that. You would be wrong. A preliminary determination comes before a judge allows a jury to see or hear proffered evidence. That his or her ruling could be reversed on appeal doesn’t change the fact that it was a preliminary decision that became a final (thus appealable) ruling.

Is that preliminary vs final your way of admitting that the decision of whether or not evidence is privileged is decided at all levels. And not "given to the judge" as you claimed.

 

[meaner gene]

If a cop enters a house without a warrant to conduct a warrantless search because the cop believes that in this situation no warrant is legally required, maybe the cop gets what s/he was looking for.

A warrant is always required for a "search". Hence the name on the form. The exception being searches incident to arrest. Or from exigent circumstances.

 

[meaner gene]

you seem pretty hell bent on avoiding answering questions yourself. For example: do YOU agree or disagree that not all searches conducted without a search warrant are necessarily “illegal?”

Funny, you're accusing me of not answering a question, that I just answered.

 

[BackAgain]

Is that preliminary vs final your way of admitting that the decision of whether or not evidence is privileged is decided at all levels. And not "given to the judge" as you claimed.

No. It’s my way of refuting your simplistic and inaccurate manner of couching things. It is the judge who will be making the call. And it should be a judge who oversees something as serious as whether attorney client privilege should be breached. Like many others here, I have lost some faith in the ability and willingness of the FBI to be apolitical and objective. It ain’t perfect either way, but at least most judges seem to give a damn about Constitutional rights inherent in attorney-client privilege.

 

[BackAgain]

Funny, you're accusing me of not answering a question, that I just answered.

I must have missed your answer. In fact, I still don’t see it. Why not just say it again or quote it?
Evasive quibbling does seem to be more your “style” though.

 

[meaner gene]

I must have missed your answer. In fact, I still don’t see it

Then let met repeat it, before you have to apologize for claiming I didn't post it.

A warrant is always required for a "search". Hence the name on the form. The exception being searches incident to arrest. Or from exigent circumstances.

 

[meaner gene]

Exigent circumstances - "circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of the suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating ...

 

[BackAgain]

A warrant is always required for a "search". Hence the name on the form. The exception being searches incident to arrest. Or from exigent circumstances.

Good lad. I found your answer. And you earn back a tad of cred. It is indeed true that SOME searches “incident to” a lawful arrest constitute exceptions to the usual requirement for a search warrant. There is also the doctrine of EXIGENCY. I’m glad you recognized that one. It matters as an exception to the general rule.

Now, because you have deigned to answer, I think it might be a fair time to press it.

Let’s say that the FBI has obtained information to the effect that an alleged investigative reporter has come into possession of a stolen diary (or has information on who stole it or where it is presently located) in a case qualifying somehow as a federal matter. And let’s further say that they have discovered that the investigative reporter has communicated with a lawyer about that very topic.

The FBI obtains no search warrant (maybe). They raid the reporter’s office and seize his computer and cell devices to root out the attorney client emails addressing that matter.

Did they need a warrant? If not, why not?

Are they authorized under our laws and the Constitution to peruse the emails between a client and his attorney seeking evidence of the alleged crime — without prior judicial approval? If so, on what basis can they claim a right to violate attorney client privilege?

Is there any “exigency” involved here? If so, what is the exigency?