Nothing really counts anyway as I'm betting nearly all of their discussions involved crimes, which aren't protected by attorney client privilege.
It's funny though, trump acting like there isn't record of their relationship.
Minor correction: Admitting you committed a crime in the past is protected. The attorney can still tiptoe around the fact that they know you committed it, by defending you on procedural or clerical grounds. For instance, they can attack the evidence that has been submitted against you, because it was mishandled, or because the equipment used to gather it hadn’t been calibrated recently enough, or for any number of reasons. Even if they know you committed the crime, they can still ensure that your court proceedings are fair.
Admitting that you plan on committing future crimes is not covered. The attorney can’t be party to future crimes, and admitting you plan on committing crimes makes them a co-conspirator if they don’t rat you out.
But if the attorney is party to the crimes then the discussion is not privileged (to my understanding).
Read my second paragraph, because I covered that already. The attorney can’t help you plan or execute future crimes, because that makes them a co-conspirator.
And from what I’ve read, that’s pretty much exactly what Trump tried to do. He apparently tried to use the “hypothetically if I were to commit this crime, what would be the best way to do it” method. The issue is that this is just a blatant attempt at getting around things, and courts don’t tend to like it when you try to skirt their rules.
To be pedantic, you specifically said future crimes. A discussion between a lawyer and a client, about past crimes where the lawyer was a participant in the crime are not covered.
Nothing really counts anyway as I'm betting nearly all of their discussions involved crimes, which aren't protected by attorney client privilege.
It's funny though, trump acting like there isn't record of their relationship.
Minor correction: Admitting you committed a crime in the past is protected. The attorney can still tiptoe around the fact that they know you committed it, by defending you on procedural or clerical grounds. For instance, they can attack the evidence that has been submitted against you, because it was mishandled, or because the equipment used to gather it hadn’t been calibrated recently enough, or for any number of reasons. Even if they know you committed the crime, they can still ensure that your court proceedings are fair.
Admitting that you plan on committing future crimes is not covered. The attorney can’t be party to future crimes, and admitting you plan on committing crimes makes them a co-conspirator if they don’t rat you out.
But if the attorney is party to the crimes then the discussion is not privileged (to my understanding).
Read my second paragraph, because I covered that already. The attorney can’t help you plan or execute future crimes, because that makes them a co-conspirator.
And from what I’ve read, that’s pretty much exactly what Trump tried to do. He apparently tried to use the “hypothetically if I were to commit this crime, what would be the best way to do it” method. The issue is that this is just a blatant attempt at getting around things, and courts don’t tend to like it when you try to skirt their rules.
To be pedantic, you specifically said future crimes. A discussion between a lawyer and a client, about past crimes where the lawyer was a participant in the crime are not covered.