Open Thread

What’s on your mind?

Comments

[thesafesurfer]

When are some of the upstanding juris doctorates on the site going to address the massive fraud and corruption of federal government programs? How about the rampant election fraud across then nation. Better yet the disgusting waste and gross overcharging in higher education?

[Kazinski]

Reuters has an article about the disclosure that the FBI got the toll records of Kash Patel, and future WH COS Duzie Wiles in 2022-23. Compared with the toll record grabs of Congress, I don't think thats all that shocking, anymore.

But I did find this bit shocking:

In 2023, the FBI recorded a phone call between Wiles and her attorney, according to two FBI officials. Wiles' attorney was aware that the call was being recorded, and consented to it, but Susie Wiles was not.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/fbi-obtained-kash-patel-susie-wiles-phone-records-during-biden-administration-2026-02-25/

Under what possible circumstances would a Lawyer be justified in allowing the FBI to record a phone call with a client? A client that no allegation of wrongdoing was ever made, or indictment returned.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It’s likely that this is far worse than even this — while just a guess, my guess is that this is the attorney that was representing her when she testified before Jackoff Smith’s Inquisition.

We know that she testified, if prudent which she strikes me as being, she would have been represented by council, and what other business would have rationally been relevant? I mean, like, they wasted their time with her divorce attorney or the attorney writing her will?

So this raises three questions:

First, if the bar association actually existed to protect the public, should it not disbar this purported attorney? Other than permitting the opposing party access to a private lawyer council conference, which is what this was, what worse could a lawyer do to his client?

Second, Suzie Wiles strikes me as someone I would not want to cross, not a malicious bully, but someone you would not want to have legitimately mad at you. What recourse does she have — as a citizen, and not White House chief of staff?

And third, what did Jackoff and/or the Famous But Incompetent use to bully a presumably honest attorney into permitting this? Would he/she/it be able to use that as a defense in a disbarment proceeding much like one would be able to use an action performed at gunpoint? Could he bring Section 1983 Proceedings (or equivalent) against the FBI people involved?

And one other thing: Maryland is an all party recording state. What would be the implications if the actual recording was made by an FBI agent physically located in the state of Maryland?

Does that raise the very same issue that the state of Minnesota is attempting to raise with ICE? And if the FBI folks involved have been fired, does that destroy their federal immunity protections?

[David Nieporent]

We know that she testified, if prudent which she strikes me as being, she would have been represented by council,

For the umpteenth time, the word is "counsel," not "council."

First, if the bar association actually existed to protect the public, should it not disbar this purported attorney?

No. Courts, not bar associations, disbar people.

Could he bring Section 1983 Proceedings (or equivalent) against the FBI people involved?

No.

[not guilty]

"Under what possible circumstances would a Lawyer be justified in allowing the FBI to record a phone call with a client? A client that no allegation of wrongdoing was ever made, or indictment returned."

Assuming that Kazinski's question is not rhetorical, I can think of a few such circumstances.

The FBI is notorious for allowing only its agents to write Form 302 accounts of its interviews of prospective witnesses. That system is rife for abuse -- the agent can memorialize details helpful to the government while deep sixing anything potentially exculpatory. A lawyer's consent to an interview being recorded can help to ensure an accurate record of the conversation being preserved in the event of a later dispute about what was said.

An attorney conceivably could use that vehicle to communicate exculpatory information to the FBI and to avoid having to subsequently withdraw from representation in order to become a witness in the event of a dispute about whether the agency was on notice.

In the event that the client later testifies in court, and his/her credibility is attacked by either party, a prior consistent statement could be admissible to rehabilitate the client/witness.

Some states, e.g., Maryland, require consent of all parties to record a telephone conversation. In the other states and the District of Columbia, the consent of a single party to the conversation will suffice.

I don't think that the practice is necessarily wise. I would prefer to arrange an on the record interview of the client with the lawyer and a court reporter present. But Kazinski asked "under what possible circumstances," and these thoughts came to mind.

[Mr. Bumble]

You overlook the question of privilege in that the client was not made aware of the recording being made.

[not guilty]

Of course the client should be cautioned in advance not to say anything that he would wish to be protected by privilege.

That having been said, I don't think that this is a good practice at all.

[Kazinski]

Sure lawyers can sit in on FBI interviews with their clients consent. But I can't imagine how this surreptitiously recorded conversation was in his clients interest, sounds like he was doing it for his own benefit.

We already know the lawyer of one Trump co-defendent was reminded of a possible judgeship opportunity during discussions with the FBI, was there a similar benefit discussed here?

The article doesn't say so, but it appears Wiles didn't find out her lawyer set her up until Kash found the files. Certainly would be very interesting if it turns out he was promised she'd never find out when he gave his permission.

I can't see any scenario where he keeps his law license, especially in Florida if that's true.

[Brett Bellmore]

This was not an interview with a prospective witness, though. It was a phone conversation between an attorney and their client, recorded without the knowledge of the client.

I'm hard put to imagine any scenario where this is a legitimate thing to do, short of the attorney knowing in advance that the client is going to be discussing future criminal activities.

Well, maybe if they're discussing planning a picnic, nothing related to the law, and it's a one party state.

The other issue, of course, is the FBI under Biden having set up special storage protocols in an effort to keep the incoming administration from knowing about the existence of records exposing their plotting against that administration.

And some people say there is no "deep state".

[Michael P]

The articles description of the FBI-recorded call is "between Wiles and her attorney". That would be an exceedingly strange way to describe a telephone interview between Wiles and the FBI, and a poor description if anyone else was on the call.

If there were no other parties to the call, then the first and third theories you posit simply do not apply. The second would verge on malpractice: the client wasn't aware and thus might reveal privileged information during the call; if the client did know, it would suggest collision between client and attorney to ensure evidence looked a certain way.

I think the question was not whether the recording itself violated law, but whether the attorney's consent was ethical.

[David Nieporent]

This has been all over social media. But I cannot fathom any situation in which a lawyer could or would ever do this to his client. Even if the crime-fraud exception to a/c privilege applied — and given that no charges were brought against Wiles, that seems unlikely — no sane lawyer would ever agree to it. My guess is that something got garbled in translation, and Reuters' report is wrong.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think you misspelled "hope".

It's not actually that hard to imagine a situation in which a lawyer would do this to a client. You just have to abandon the assumption that the lawyer is ethical, and multiple potential scenarios become obvious.

[David Nieporent]

Mike Chase on Twitter suggests the only possible scenario where a lawyer might do this: if the lawyer himself (or herself) was the victim of crime by his/her client. E.g., if the client was somehow blackmailing the attorney.

But that still doesn't seem plausible, because Wiles was never charged with anything.

[Brett Bellmore]

Wow, you're really resistant to considering the most obvious explanation, that the attorney simply wasn't ethical.

[Kazinski]

Now that we are in an election year we are starting to see clear evidence of foriegn interference in the midterm election.

This is an example which appears to be from a right wing Asian Country, but I can't figure out any legitimate purpose.

Is there anything the DOJ can do to stop efforts like this? I know the Biden Administration tried in 2021, but nothing came of it.

https://x.com/i/status/2026895621559407094

[Dr. Ed 2]

I don’t see that as foreign interference in our election — instead, I see that more along the lines of an editorial cartoon in a foreign newspaper, a foreign newspaper exercising it’s right to comment an American politics.

I don’t know who provided the subtitles, but the audio clearly is not in English, and Trump wasn’t drawn in a way that any American would recognize him. And what makes you think a government did this as opposed to a private newspaper?

It’s actually a fairly accurate portrayal of what happened.

[santamonica811]

Kaz,
Thanks for the link. That was weird as fuck. The animators shaved about 50 years and 85 lbs off of Trump. This is the kind of propaganda that doesn't bother me. It's funny in its simplicity, it's obviously propaganda (ie, it doesn't try to fool its audience into believing that it's a real news report...it is animation, after all), and I don't think it's something that any Constitutional law could prevent. My view of the makers is: Knock yourselves out . . . not really hurting anyone.

[David Nieporent]

Is there anything the DOJ can do to stop efforts like this?

No. This has been yet another episode of Simple Answers to Stupid Questions, a rare one that doesn't involve Dr. Ed.

[Michael P]

Why do you think this was a foreign action rather than some US Chad who happens to like the anime aesthetic? (I only watched a couple of seconds of the video because, as a general rule, I believe "ain't nobody got time for that".)

[Frank Drackman]

Would anyone be comfortable getting on a plane with 19 of Representative Mullah Ill-hand Omar's male relatives??

[Michael P]

Is this a screening question for a new version of Canada's M*** Aid in Dying program?

[Mr. Bumble]

"Judge orders Greenpeace to pay $345m over Dakota Access pipeline protest"
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/feb/25/greenpeace-dakota-access-pipeline-protest

[jb]

Looks like the defamation judgment against Giuliani may not have been so over the top after all!

To take away the political valence, though: the wheels of justice seem totally immobile at this point. This suit is about a protest a decade ago, and it sounds like there's still going to be at least one more round of appeals before it's resolved. If a person or a company were really harmed by another, it seems pretty outrageous that you'd have to wait over ten years before seeing any compensation.

[Mr. Bumble]

Guess you haven't been paying attention to how slowly the wheels of "justice" move.

[Kazinski]

10 years is nothing, the Michael Mann v Steyn, Simberg, and NRO was filed in 2012 and wasn't finally settled until 2026.

Mann won the jury verdict, but after damages were reduced, and sanctions and attorneys fees were levied for presenting manufactured evidence, Mann was ordered to pay out over 500k, but did get his 5k in damages finally.

[apedad]

Man blew girlfriend away in AutoZone parking lot then took a walk because he 'just needed a new scenery'

An Ohio man who admitted to fatally shooting his girlfriend in an AutoZone parking lot will spend close to a decade in prison.

Darien Hobley, 22, pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter and tampering with evidence on Feb. 2 in connection with the shooting death of his girlfriend, 20-year-old Riley Jones.

Before issuing a sentence, (Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Judge Hollie) Gallagher said, "This is why people Mr. Hobley's age shouldn't have a weapon. They are not operating on all cylinders yet. This is a really tragic, tragic case. It's just awful."

https://lawandcrime.com/crime/man-blew-girlfriend-away-in-autozone-parking-lot-then-took-a-walk-because-he-just-needed-a-new-scenery/

"This is why people Mr. Hobley's age shouldn't have a weapon."

WHAT?!?!?

He's 22.

What age should be appropriate - especially when people of all ages use weapons illegally.

[apedad]

(80-year-old) Man 'would rather live in prison' than 'deal with' his 83-year-old wife, so he shot her dead: Police

https://lawandcrime.com/crime/f-you-you-bastard-florida-man-who-killed-wife-during-cruise-argument-said-he-preferred-prison-over-dealing-with-her-police-say/