MrRodgers
Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr Well, it's been established if a head of a corporation sends out a mass e-mail that he copies to his in-house counsel, ALL THE RECIPIENTS of the e-mail (as long as they're all employees of the corporation) are covered by the privilege. That might or might not be the case with the government. I'll have to go back and look at some of the Watergate stuff. We all know or should know that Jr. can get away with this but not at all based on atty./client privilege. He can get away with selectively answering questions just as others have...they didn't think it appropriate or came under executive privilege, [sic] something else that doesn't exist..... .....can do so because the 'R' committees will never hold another 'R' in any standing...in contempt for not answering. Whereas in every case that I know of, when an Obama official failed to satisfy these same committees, they were in fact...held in contempt. No, atty./client privilege does not hold water in this case. Oh, and in Upjohn, the ruling was that the substance of the communication must involve matters that fall within the scope of the corporate employee's official duties. I.e., not everybody.
_____________________________
You can be a murderous tyrant and the world will remember you fondly but fuck one horse and you will be a horse fucker for all eternity. Catherine the Great Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. J K Galbraith
|