.@emptywheel your site is not permitting @MarkSZaidEsq to submit a detailed response to your analysis. Please advise so he can do so.
Please answer question directly. Are you maintaining that you can't say whether you informed him you spoke to FBI bc it is covered by a/c?
-
-
He's saying yes. He cannot reveal any discussions w/ clients, about almost anything related to the representation, w/o the client's consent.
-
No. Actually he's not. Again I can write this up for people who are struggling with it.
-
Please do that, then. B/c I have no clue what other thing you think he's saying here beyond "you are asking abt a privileged communication."
-
He's pointedly stopping well short of that, in fact. Or even saying more generally that he's not answering bc of a/c.
-
Not as I read him. He's saying he can't respond to your question b/c you are asking about atty-client comms. That's ALL he CAN say.
-
If that were true he could simply answer "yes," which is what I was asking. But he has refused to do that.
-
He can't say "yes" to "are you invoking in response to this specific question" b/c that permits an inference that the issue was discussed.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
You seem to be wigging out these days.
-
Eh. This is what you have to do to get actual answers from evasive people. He's being evasive. Just trying to get that on the record.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
You do read English, correct?
-
Yes. I don't see "yes" in that tweet. A simple yes or no will suffice.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.