when the attorney is no longer working for the client. The government was the client, and she can't disclose information she learned while representing it. There are also rules relating to the confidentiality of prosecution materials for the protection of potential witnesses, as well as grand jury proceedings. So there's very little she can say about the Epstein and Maxwell cases. I think they are trying to make her a scapegoat because she can't talk about the cases.

If I remember correctly, you have legal training, so I'll gladly accept your explanation.

I find legalese hard to understand but then there are those folk who know how to break it all down for us

could she comment on that?

would violate the privilege or reveal other confidential investigation materials.

WHO is the client?

A criminal case in federal court is captioned "United States vs. (Defendant)." "The government" is the people, or the representative of the people, of course, but as the entity that is the legal party, it's the government, represented specifically by the DoJ - which is why the capture of DoJ by Trump's goons is getting to be such a problem, because this DoJ doesn't represent the interests of the people.

thank you, yes that makes sense - crazy stuff but, still.....

I've been a long true crime buff (it's not the gore, it's the investigations that intrigue me) but legal issues confuse me greatly - I always appreciate DUers who will "break it down" for us

If not by some document she's signed along the way, then under her law license requiring attorney/client privilege. What *I* don't know if she can ever be compelled to testify before Congress, etc. and given immunity for her testimony. Surely, there are ways and means around things like this.

I imagine what this means is she couldn't write a tell-all book and/or share secret evidence. She could possibly still be 'a problem' for Trump, however, because I would think she could still imply, in so many words, that 'The DoJ are full of shit" without legal consequence, if they were to put out some phony-baloney, GQP-sanitized version of 'the files'. I'd think she could answer specifically formulated interview questions with responses like "I did not personally see (some bit of evidence that Bondi is saying exists)" or "I don't recall this ever being talked about around the office" types of responses.

She also probably knows the identities of a lot of people who know important things about the case who are NOT bound by the same rules she is. Victims, witnesses, ex-cops and other types of agents whom I would think she could legally call and suggest they go public with what they know.

Handily for Trump, though, now that she's fired, he can be all "she's just the disgruntled daughter of the disgraced PHONY COMEY!!!" and "all she ever did was bring covfefe to the real prosecutors, she doesn't know anything!". And the magababies and our credulous M$M won't pay her much heed as a result. She'll get an interview on Lawrence or Rachel, and a short article on page A15 of the NYT