Pardons for political contributions case. So here is a link to the partially unsealed ruling from Judge Howell today about this investigation. She is the Chief of the DC District Court. She handles the grand jury materials/issues.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YsMfZlp2h787RCmTEzivj6fPNYkouL2U/view?usp=sharing

/1

After reading the redacted ruling, I can tell you a few things. First, Judge Howell did NOT find that any lawyer engaged in "crime-fraud" and permit the seized materials to be reviewed on that basis. Rather, she said there was no attorney client privilege in the messages. /2

So a little explanation. When the govt seizes your documents or devices & it finds that you have communications with a lawyer, there are procedures to screen the trial team from those potentially attorney-client privileged communications. /3

They set up what is called a "filter" or "taint" team, so one team reviews the allegedly attorney-client materials and keeps it from the other team. You just have to trust that this is all on the up & up, & there's no funny business. /4

If the materials are relevant to the prosecution & there is an argument that can be made that the materials are not covered by the attorney client privilege or that the privilege can be legally overridden, then the govt files a motion to the judge overseeing the grand jury. /5

One way to override the attorney client privilege is for the lawyer to be participating in the alleged criminal activity being investigated. Note to young lawyers: don't do that. /6

If the judge finds that lawyer is involved in the crime, then the privilege doesn't hold up and the prosecution can get the materials. That's not what Judge Howell did here; she reserved ruling on that theory. /7

Instead, she ruled that the materials were not covered by the attorney client privilege, because even though an attorney is on the email address, there are people on the messages who are not attorneys. /8

Having a 3rd party on attorney client communications destroys the privilege, unless that 3rd person also shares the privilege like perhaps a co-defendant in a case, or is an agent of the lawyer, or is covered by another privilege, like a spouse. /9

Here, Judge Howell said a non-lawyer who was apparently not an agent of the lawyer who is on the communications destroyed the privilege, so the govt can get the email messages. /10

There's an entire blacked out (redacted) section on "Background" of the case so maybe it explains what the relationships of the people are to one another because based on what's not redacted, you can't see why the judge so easily concludes that the person breaks the privilege./11

A couple of interesting notes. At first blush I thought these materials were seized from lawyer's offices, but having read the papers I think not now. The caption description of the "offices" doesn't seem right for lawyers. /12

Also, the govt seized a shit-ton of devices (that's a technical legal term I learned at Gtown, btw); so if it was from lawyers' offices, I would expect this to be a more massive analysis. /13

It has more the feel of another kind of office that was communicating sometimes with their client and also with a lawyer working with that client too. It's definitely two offices on the caption, but apparently one lawyer. /14

I will read it again tomorrow & make notes (cause I'm going to follow this case) & I'll correct this thread if I see a reference to a second lawyer, but I read it thru pretty carefully just now & I think it's just one lawyer, but multiple others & multiple clients. /15

There is definitely a politician involved in this because the exchange is: pardon for political contributions. But, it's not clear who that is & how much they know about it. & FBI has a theory of indirect benefit - check out footnote 7. /16

What FBI thinks it has doesn't always hold up. It could be something slightly or totally different from what they think. For example, maybe the people who want the pardon are being told its a "political contribution," but really the schemers are pocketing the money themselves./17