General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTrump probably thought if he had an attorney do his dirty work, he could hide it all
behind the shield of attorney-client privilege.
This theory was proven wrong long ago.
Guess who proved it wrong? John Gotti, former head of the Gambino crime family, whose attorney wasn't allowed to represent him because he was a participant in criminal conversations captured on audiotape.
John Gotti had been called the "teflon Don" because it took three trials before a prosecutor could get a conviction. Guess who finally put him away?
Robert Mueller.
https://lawfareblog.com/michael-cohen-attorney-client-privilege-and-crime-fraud-exception
First, for the attorney-client privilege to exist, there must actually be an attorney-client relationship regarding a specific matter. I, for instance, have to hire you to help me resolve a tax dispute with the IRS. The representation is limited to that matter and so is the privilege. Other things I may have told you in passing (for example, about the fight I am having with my wife and how I beat herthis is a hypothetical!) are outside the scope of the representation and are not privileged. The law is clear that as a general matter a person cannot claim to have an attorney for all matters that might arise. (As an aside, one reason for this rule is that it would frustrate legitimate investigationas was the case when John Gotti, the famous Mafia don, suggested that his attorney, Bruce Cutler, represented him in everythingthereby attempting to make it unlawful for the government to wiretap or use an undercover agent to speak to him about new matters.) Indeed, the cases are legion for the proposition that representation of a defendant in connection with one criminal matter does not encompass representation in connection with a separate (and even arguably related) criminal matter. (For one example, see Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292, 299 (1990), which says a defendant charged with aggravated battery may be contacted undercover in a murder investigation.)
Why is this relevant? Because President Trump has said quite publicly that he did not know what Cohen was doing with respect to the alleged payments to the actress known as Stormy Danielspayments that appear to be at the core of the Southern District of New York's investigation. He has said that he was unaware of the payments and did not know why they were made (and suggested that the press had to ask Michael about them). If this is true, then it seems that Trump could not have had an attorney-client relationship with Cohen regarding the Daniels payment in the first instanceone hallmark of an attorney-client relationship is agreement as to its scope and the attorneys obligation to keep the client advised as to all significant material matters (of which settlement would surely be one). By his own testimony, it seems that the Daniels matter is outside the scope of matters in which Cohen has represented Trumpand thus there is no attorney-client privilege in the first instance.
But lets assume the contrary. Let's assume that Trump and Cohen did have an agreement (and that Trump is not being candid about what he knewwhich is another kettle of fish altogether). If that is the case then clearly the discussions between Trump and Cohen would fall within the attorney-client privilege. Trump might have told Cohen about his version of what really happened; might have asked Cohen to make sure his wife did not find out; and might have promised to pay Cohen back for the settlement funds. All of these hypotheticals (again, we dont really know) are the sorts of confidential communications that are presumptively protected by the privilege. And the privilege applies whether these communications happened orally or in writing.
What then could be the basis for the Southern District of New York search and review of these materials? Materials that, at least facially, would be protected.
That question brings us to something known as the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege.
SNIP
Wounded Bear
(58,656 posts)Not as easy in the fishbowl that is the White House.
RKP5637
(67,108 posts)paying, nefarious deals and surrounding himself with thugs and crooks. Now, his crap is on display to the world and there are far more educated and brilliant people investigating him than he could ever been delusional enough to have imagined himself to be on a par with them.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)The dirt is protected by privilege. But Trump
picked a moron to be his mob lawyer.
unblock
(52,227 posts)in fairness to cohen, he has a client who's impossible to manage.
but yeah, cohen also is a moron.
YessirAtsaFact
(2,064 posts)Ive seen it day in and day out for over a year, but somehow its still shocking.
Cirque du So-What
(25,938 posts)He thinks a good (?) lawyer makes him bulletproof. O to have been a fly on the wall when he found out that his lawyer's offices had been breached.
Princess Turandot
(4,787 posts)...They weren't subject to any charges though, IIRC, just barred from representing Gotti. (I'm not sure about the bar association's reaction.) Another 'mob' lawyer took the case, but convincing the judge to disqualify Cutler was a big deal. For one thing, he would have been in a much better position to cross-examine Gravano, whom he obviously knew well.
When Gotti was approaching his third trial, a guy I worked with at the time was well on his way to being a juror for it. He was genuinely worried about that possibility. (The teflon Don stuff was amusing, but in reality, John Gotti was a vicious, murderous thug.) Then another mobster was killed rather flashily with a car bomb likely intended for Gotti, and the judge decided to postpone the trial for a short time. Thus he excused the already selected juror panel and my coworker got out of it. (And Gotti was eventually acquitted, courtesy of a bribed juror.)
pansypoo53219
(20,977 posts)snowybirdie
(5,227 posts)John Gleeson was the federal prosecutor who put away Gotti. He became a federal judge. Also Rudy Guilluani took credit for the prosecution, as well. Like to have my facts straight.
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)He made the deal with Sammy the Bull to testify against Gotti.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/12/how-scared-should-trump-be-of-mueller-ask-john-gotti-or-sammy-the-bull
It is, one person close the administration recently observed, a classic Gambino-style roll-up. To understand how Mueller might now proceed, to get a sense of the compromises hed be willing to make to bag the larger prosecutorial targets in his sights, its eye-opening to go back to the deal he cut with Sammy the Bull.
SNIP
When Gravano sent word from his cell in 10 South that he wanted to meet with the F.B.I., and that, more pointedly, he wanted to speak to them alone, the overwhelming suspicion was that it was more bull from the Bull. Robert Mueller didnt believe it. And neither did Bruce Mouw, the head of the F.B.I.s C-16 team that had painstakingly built the case against Gotti and his henchmen. As Mouw told me years ago, when I was writing my book Gangland, both Mueller and he, as well as just about everyone else involved in the case, thought it was a gangsters scam. Ignore him, was the dismissive consensus. Wed be giving his lawyerthen Ben Brafman, the same canny criminal attorney now shaping Harvey Weinsteins defense)ammunition to hurl back at us with incriminating innuendo in the courtroom.
But Mueller had the final say, and he ordered the F.B.I. to arrange the interviewensuring that it was done as covertly as any mob sit-down. . . .
It is not difficult to imagine the tortured debate within Muellers mind as he weighed the decision. He could allow Sammy, a man who had admittedly killed 19 men, to play for Uncle Sams team. Or he could go into the Gotti trial knowing that Teflon Donthe swaggering crime boss who had walked away from three prior trialscould once again get away with murder. Pulling him in one direction was a lifetime of rectitude: a lofty moral code passed on by his education at St. Pauls School, Princeton University, and the Marine Corps. And doubtlessly pulling him in another direction was a fair share of ambition. Hed be the man who brought down John Gotti, and the world would unquestionably be a better place for it.