OT - Political/Judicial Question - Trump Trail

[greenbean.sixpack]

No need to turn this into an argument over which party is right or wrong. My question - in the movies lawyers can't testify against their clients, but according to the headlines, Cohen (Michael, not John) testified against his former client (Trump). I have no interest in the legitimacy of these proceedings and have not followed it closely, but what gives? Please explain it to me in as few, easy to understand words as possible.

 

[Lucifer Morningstar]

If the lawyer was committing a criminal act for his client that takes away the privilege, is my understanding. Not saying a criminal act was being committed before any of yall jump down my throat. Also I got in trouble for this in one of recent posts, but in b 4 the lock because this will not end well. Or at least I do not think so, hopefully I am wrong.

 

[greenbean.sixpack]

If the lawyer was committing a criminal act for his client that takes away the privilege, is my understanding. Not saying a criminal act was being committed before any of yall jump down my throat. Also I got in trouble for this in one of recent posts, but in b 4 the lock because this will not end well. Or at least I do not think so, hopefully I am wrong.

Good, to the point explanation, no wonder you're winning. The damn Sopranos have let me astray again.

 

[theoriginalSALTYdog]

Michael Cohen testified against Donald Trump without breaking attorney-client privilege because the privilege does not apply in certain situations.

1. Waiver of Privilege: When a client voluntarily discloses information to a third party (such as in court or during a public hearing), the attorney-client privilege is waived. In Cohen's case, he chose to testify publicly, which meant that privilege no longer protected the communications between he and Trump.
2. Crime-Fraud Exception: The attorney-client privilege does not cover communications related to illegal activities or fraud. If an attorney assists a client in committing a crime or fraud, the privilege does not apply.
3. Joint Representation: When an attorney represents multiple clients with conflicting interests, the privilege may not apply. In Cohen’s case, he represented both Trump and the Trump Organization.
4. Work Product Doctrine: The privilege generally covers communications between an attorney and their client for the purpose of legal advice. However, it does not extend to work product (such as documents prepared in anticipation of litigation).

In summary, Cohen’s testimony was legally permissible because the attorney-client privilege had exceptions that applied to his situation.

 

[GloryDawg]

No matter what Cohen say even if it is a proven to be a lie he will not be prosecuted by Alvin Bragg. In fact Bragg was probably hoping he would lie to help his case. Cohen know it.

 

[theoriginalSALTYdog]

No matter what Cohen say even if it is a proven to be a lie he will not be prosecuted by Alvin Bragg. In fact Bragg was probably hoping he would lie to help his case. Cohen know it.

I'm sure he was given immunity.

 

[tbaydog]

 

[Bobby Ricigliano]

Anybody ever see the “after” photos from this incident?

 

[QuaoarsKing]

Anybody ever see the “after” photos from this incident?

You can watch it on Paramount+. The Amazing Race, season 17, episode 1. She was fine.

 

[karlchilders.sixpack]

Cohen is a Pawn, ....actually a dumb pawn.
Where's the Beef?

 

[GloryDawg]

I'm sure he was given immunity.

Immunity don't protect you from perjury.