Former Trump Attorney Tim Parlatore With Laura Last Night

attorney-client-privilege question

Host, The Ingraham Angle
Americans didn’t just go to the polls in 2016. They joined a movement that swept the unlikeliest of candidates, Donald Trump, into the Oval Office. Can he complete his agenda? Or will his opponents in the media, protestor class, and political establishment block his efforts and choke off the movement he represents?

Americans didn’t just go to the polls in 2016. They joined a movement that swept the unlikeliest of candidates, Donald Trump, into the Oval Office. Can he complete his agenda? Or will his opponents in the media, protestor class, and political establishment block his efforts and choke off the movement he represents? Order it Now!

Do let me know your thoughts on the video snippets.

video
play-sharp-fill

attorney-client-privilege question
litigating these types of cases against DOJ as i usually do
this team acted so radically different
from every professional u.s. attorney’s office that i’ve ever dealt with
they’ve shown no regard whatsoever for attorney-client-privilege and it’s
more than just the issue of Evan Corcoran
i went before the grand jury myself
I’m not subpoenaed.
I went in voluntarily instead of just studying for records.
Why did you go in voluntarily?
They wanted to hear about the searches that we did for additional documents.
They wanted some staffer from Mar-a-Lago to go down who wasn’t going to be able
to really talk about it.
So I voluntarily went in because, as a criminal lawyer, the opportunity to speak
directly to the grand jury, I wanted that opportunity.
Forty-five separate times, I can’t make that number up, I actually counted them,
45 separate times, they asked me about my conversations
with my client.
And at one point, we kept getting into this fight
because they kept implying, oh, you’re keeping this
from the grand jury, you won’t let them know this.
No, the ethics rules prohibit me from saying this.
Well, unless there are some exceptions
to the attorney’s client privilege,
such as which they rely on in this indictment,
the crime fraud exception.
But how they determined whether there was a probable
cause for a crime to have occurred here,
that’s in question as well.
And we don’t have the documents
on how they filed those motions, do we?
Correct, and what they actually did when I was there
is they said, one of the exceptions is waiver.
Well, if President Trump’s being so cooperative,
why won’t he waive privilege
and let you tell us all about his conversations?
When they go to the crime fraud exception,
as you mentioned there,
the litigation over Evan Corcoran’s notes,
that all happened in the context of grand jury
where they made a motion, we had to respond to it.
We weren’t allowed to read their motion
because it’s covered under grand jury secrecy.
We responded to it as best we could.
They put in their reply, which we couldn’t say.
Go into the hearing, we made the argument,
turned to the government.
Government, how do you respond?
Tell them to leave the room.
We got kicked out.
We come back in.
Well, how do you respond to what they just said?
Jim Trusty’s sitting there saying,
respond to what?
I don’t know what to say.
What are we responding to?
And so, ultimately, you get a decision, which even that, we couldn’t really read, because
most of that was redacted, saying that there is this crime fraud exception and so all of
a sudden, Evans’ notes go over to the government.
What would have happened if they didn’t have those notes?
How critical were those notes to this prosecution?
To me, those notes are, they don’t reveal anything seriously critical.
What they do reveal is ordinary attorney-client communications, which they then used to
They try and taint the grand jury.
They then use to put into their indictment things that should never be said outside of
an attorney-client communication setting, to try to separate Evan Corcoran from the
legal team so he becomes a witness instead of a lawyer.
They wanted to turn him against President Trump.
Yeah.
Yeah.
How poisonous is this to the legal process?
If you can’t, especially someone like the president who’s been such a target for
many years, you can’t actually hire attorneys and expect that the government’s not going
to try to flip them against you using whatever means necessary.
The precedent that Jack Smith is trying to set here is that when clients ask us questions,
they didn’t go to law school, and they have to ask us, what are we allowed to do?
What do we have to do?
In this case, President Trump says, hey, I read about Hillary Clinton and her lawyer,
David Kendall, deleted 33,000 emails.
Can we do the same thing?
And under Jack Smith’s rule, any question the client asks, if we say, no, you can’t do that,
that’s a crime.
Oh, my God.
I mean, this just upends all of attorney-client privilege ethics rules that I ever learned
in law school.
It does.
And this is one of the things.
I believe this case, there’s going to be serious litigation in the pretrial stage
over prosecutorial misconduct by this team, which could entirely upend this case.
We may never get to a trial.
We may never actually have to address any of the substantive issues because of the misconduct
of Jack Smith and his team.
Do you believe that he has a backup plan to go after the president in New Jersey where
his bedminister club is?
That was floated today on CNN and elsewhere.
That I don’t believe.
I mean, it’s something that they already put in this indictment about that conversation.
They’ve never found a document that would be associated with that conversation.
And so to try and bring that as a separate case there, it would be consolidated anyway.
There would be a double jeopardy issue because it’s already alleged in this indictment.
Do you agree with my comments and the angle that these former government officials,
many of whom I have great respect for, Bill Barr, one of them, who goes on TV
and says he’s toast, essentially?
That really…
I have problems with any attorney who goes on TV and makes pronouncements about a case
that they haven’t seen the evidence.
I represented the man for a year, and even I am sitting here saying, if the discovery
bears this out, people that have never seen a shred of it can’t possibly go out there
and make these pronouncements.

Disclaimer:
This “Patriots” blog may not own some content presented.

Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.

All posts on this video blog are my personal opinion, and they don’t in any way reflect the opinions of my employer. All materials, posts, and advice from this site are informational, researching, and for testing purposes only. You can use them at your own responsibility. I’m not in any way responsible for any damage done by following posts, advice, tutorials, and articles from this video blog.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.