Clinton campaign seeks to block Durham access to Perkins Coie documents
Dispute over documents comes ahead of the trial of former Clinton campaign lawyer
Michael Sussmann
The committee for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign is seeking to block Special Counsel John Durham from obtaining certain documents related to law firm Perkins Coie and its work with the campaign, the Democratic National Committee and opposition research firm Fusion GPS.
www.foxnews.com
29 Apr 2022 ~~ By Brooke Singman
The committee for
Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign is seeking to block Special Counsel
John Durham from obtaining certain documents related to law firm Perkins Coie and its work with the campaign, the Democratic National Committee and opposition research firm Fusion GPS.
In a filing late Thursday, Hillary for America (HFA), the principal campaign committee for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, argued that certain privileged documents should be withheld based on attorney-client privilege.
~Snip~
Earlier this week, during a motions hearing, government prosecutors argued that there is a "strong intersection" between the opposition research against Trump that Steele was collecting on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the allegations Sussmann presented to the FBI attempting to tie Trump to Russia’s Alfa Bank.
Sussmann’s defense attorneys called Steele a "lightening rod," and argued that introducing anything about him or his work into the trial would be prejudicial against their client.
Commentary:
Basically, attorney-client privilege only attaches to legal advice and work, Not campaign opposition research. Just because the person you hire is an attorney does not create 'privilege' as to any activity that person performs. So, performing tasks as a political hack is not covered by the privilege.
I don't believe that Perkins-Coie can claim this when they are part of the conspiracy as charged.
Attorney-client privilege is not a blanket cover for all things that involve legal counsel. For example, if a client admits to an attorney that he is guilty of murdering his wife, that cannot be withheld in court if the attorney is asked specifically about that admission by the prosecution. Nor can it be withheld in deposition if the question is specifically asked. If there is a crime involved that is discussed with an attorney, said counsel may NOT withhold any exculpatory evidence that has been admitted to or discussed.
However, I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that attorney client privilege will not be upheld in the event that it is used to perpetrate or cover up a fraud. That certainly seems to be the case here. Durham is on to something.
Hmm..., Can Hillary be fined $10k per day while blocking access to these documents?