The Trump campaign's general disrespect for and lack of knowledge of all but one clause of the second amendment of our constitution is truly frightening. We can't even quibble with his constitutional interpretation or vision, because we're unsure that he has one. As low is it would sink is, I would love to see Chris Wallace ask him next week if he can describe a single amendment other than one or two. This is important.
True, but as Ken White points out, the Clinton campaign's defense has been pretty spineless.
No matter her public statements since, I think we should all be so lucky as to have Hillary Clinton as our court appointed PD. That said, I actually completely disagree that a lawyer saying they think a former client did the things they were accused of doing is any kind of violation of privilege. She can have an opinion just like the rest of us. I'm just a lay person, so forgive my ignorance if this is standard practice, but would you as a lawyer actually ask your client if they did the things of which they're accused? I think especially in a child rape case you wouldn't want to know, because even that knowledge might adversely affect your ability to provide a vigorous defense.
First, Ken White's point was that she was likely basing her conclusion on information she learned as part of her representation of the guy, which would be privileged. This gets into personal preference, I think. I wouldn't outright ask someone, since that's asking to be lied to (and clients lie enough as it is). But if I'm doing my due diligence in investigating the matter, I'd probably have a pretty good idea. I doubt it, even there. I've done very little criminal defense work in my career, but I (and others more experienced) would actively dread getting a truly innocent client. Those are the ones that keep you up at night, because what if you screw up and an innocent person goes to jail? But I think this varies from person to person.but would you as a lawyer actually ask your client if they did the things of which they're accused?
I think especially in a child rape case you wouldn't want to know, because even that knowledge might adversely affect your ability to provide a vigorous defense.
Seen an episode of Breaking Bad where Saul says he doesn't wanna know. Does that count? Granted he knows lots of other stuff that happens, but seems to push through. Dunno if that's cause he's a lawyer, or because he's crooked so it doesn't matter to him. I also haven't caught up on Better Call Saul, which might give a better idea. It's also a TV show, so I'm totally talking out of my ass but would you as a lawyer actually ask your client if they did the things of which they're accused?