What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

POTUS 45.65: I'm Just Here For The Lincoln Project Ads

Status
Not open for further replies.
The people doing the recording were interviewing Trump for a Mark Meadows biography(why?)

I'm sure he knew, and consented to being recorded
 
dxmnkd316 said:
A quick google search shows florida is a two-party consent state. Which includes in-person recordings. So unless everyone on that tape consented...
Click to expand...

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that federal prosecutors know the taping consent rules where it took place and that it is allowable, that being the first thing they would think about.
 
RaceBoarder said:
I believe SOP for something like that be to open the conversation with a statement acknowledging that. So the consent happens right away, but then 23 minutes into the conversation we have Dump bragging. The consent is probably so common with this sort of thing, it becomes compulsory (like T&C acceptance).

The two statements are likely in very different parts of the recording.
Click to expand...

Do all parties they pick up along the way need to consent? If so does that just mean you omit the sections of that person talking?
 
French Rage said:
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that federal prosecutors know the taping consent rules where it took place and that it is allowable, that being the first thing they would think about.
Click to expand...

Oh I agree. I was just curious about how this works. They aren't going to fuck this up on Law School Day 2 material
 
dxmnkd316 said:
A quick google search shows florida is a two-party consent state. Which includes in-person recordings. So unless everyone on that tape consented...
Click to expand...

But, New Jersey, where he was recorded, is not a two party consent state.

Also, there are caveats in some two party states where one party can record if the other party did not reasonably expect privacy (ie: in a public space). I defer to our resident lawyers on the details.
 
Last edited:
Fwiw I'm pretty sure all parties knew they were being tasked, not that it matters.

If they didn't If would have been the first thing out of their mouths when it broke.
 
MichVandal said:
So that would be asking his lawyers to break the law, which invalidates the attorney-client privilege, right?
Click to expand...
My dumb ass thought a crime had to be committed after the fact.

if a person asks his attorney to kill someone for money, if that attorney attempts to kill that person, then yeah. Or if the client then decides the lawyers fees for a hit are too high and decides to just do it himself.

I don't think it's able to be pierced if you ask your attorney to kill someone but then go rob a bank.

so in this case he would have needed to steal the documents back. I think.
 
dxmnkd316 said:
My dumb *** thought a crime had to be committed after the fact.

if a person asks his attorney to kill someone for money, if that attorney attempts to kill that person, then yeah. Or if the client then decides the lawyers fees for a hit are too high and decides to just do it himself.

I don't think it's able to be pierced if you ask your attorney to kill someone but then go rob a bank.

so in this case he would have needed to steal the documents back. I think.
Click to expand...

Not sure about that. This says just asking to further conceal a crime invalidates it:https://www.justia.com/criminal/wor...ent privilege does,planning to commit a crime.

attorney-client privilege does not cover statements made by a client to their lawyer if the statements are meant to further or conceal a crime. For this exception to apply, the client must have been in the process of committing a crime or planning to commit a crime
Click to expand...

the crime took place, and it was asked to further the crime. So for that, at least the attempt to further the crime invalidates it. And that can be used as evidence. As I see it.
 
dxmnkd316 said:
Oh I agree. I was just curious about how this works. They aren't going to **** this up on Law School Day 2 material
Click to expand...

In my extensive 0 days of law school, it’s my understanding that the federal prosecutors are not the county ADA when it comes to quality.
 
MichVandal said:
Not sure about that. This says just asking to further conceal a crime invalidates it:https://www.justia.com/criminal/wor...ent privilege does,planning to commit a crime.



the crime took place, and it was asked to further the crime. So for that, at least the attempt to further the crime invalidates it. And that can be used as evidence. As I see it.
Click to expand...

Non-Lawyer Common Sense in me suggests that the Privilege would only pertain to Dumpy stating to "get his documents back". The lawyer can simply reply "That's Illegal. I can't do that." and then return to normal business. Outside of Trump making the statement, I don't believe anything else would be fair game in that scenario. The one statement doesn't open the door to everything unrelated to illegally reacquiring the documents that Dump had provided previously.

As mentioned, that changes drastically if that lawyer starts making moves to aid in getting the documents back (in an illegal manner).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top