Discussion: Wisconsin GOPers Won't Release $850K Law Firm Contract In Gerrymandering Case

TPM Article Topics
1
Wisconsin GOPers Won't Release $850K Law Firm Contract In Gerrymandering Case Wisconsin GOPers Won't Release $850K Law Firm Contract In Gerrymandering Case Back to article
1 Like
2

Corrupt cheesehead criminals conceal complicit contract.

20 Likes
3

I don’t know Wisconsin public records laws, but I find it hard to believe that the fee agreement would be excluded from them. It’s not like the agreement said, “The Law Firm agrees to defend the gerrymandered districts that the Clients drew,” right? Right?

7 Likes
4

Confusing headline. To ‘release’ has a technical legal connotation–you release someone from a contract and the obligations it imposes. Better here to use Wisconsin GOP won’t “disclose” the contract.

18 Likes
5

Did this article really say the new Dem Atty Gen will DEFEND the maps??

5 Likes
6

Pummel the GOP bastards! Scottie’s call for transparency is BS!

1 Like
7

They buried the lead.

Yes, you are right. We are suckers.

2 Likes
8

Vos’ spokesperson told the newspaper that the document was covered by attorney-client privilege.

Ummm…since this is being paid for by the state…wouldn’t the “Client” be the people of Wisconsin???

11 Likes
9

WTF…what is that about? Anybody know???

3 Likes
10

An engagement letter is typically not covered by privilege. It is discoverable, at least where it is relevant. The fact that the law firm was hired is public and not confidential, and so is the nature of the representation. So is the cost of the engagement. It is difficult to think of anything in the engagement that even conceivably might be attorney-client privileged information. And that’s putting aside the WI public disclosure laws. Sounds like Vos is one of those who thinks that just because there’s a communication with an attorney means that it is attorney-client privileged. That’s not how it works.

8 Likes
11

Fee agreements are not covered by attorney-client privilege. Total bullshit lie.

They are usually subject to the attorney’s ethical duty not to disclose client confidences. That is not the same thing as privilege. A client can reveal confidential information without risking a claim of a general waiver of the privilege.

This is as big a pile of shit as the claim that non-governmental witnesses can invoke executive privilege.

15 Likes
12

Yes he did and I’m rather pleased as he is doing his job no matter how distasteful. A REPUG on the other hand would refuse.

1 Like
13

“How can we cheat if you know what we’re doing”

5 Likes
14

If the lower court found the maps unconstitutional and the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, doesn’t that mean the lower court’s decision stands? Too bad the legislature and/or legislators can’t be sued or fired for malfeasance.

1 Like
15

Perhaps that’s why the GOP needs to bring in outside legal support? While it’s the AG’s job to defend the state, that doesn’t mean he’s required to conceal evidence in the process or otherwise cheat and lie.

5 Likes
16

Apart from just fee agreements, the GOP can’t have it both ways. Either the client is the State or it’s the RNC. If it’s the State, then it’s the people’s business. If it’s the RNC, then the RNC, not taxpayers, must foot the bill.

13 Likes
17

Also, too.

1 Like
18

If they’re using taxpayer money to activities that they themselves contend are not taxpayer business, would the crime/fraud exception apply automatically?

4 Likes
19

Pretty sure that’s never automatic, but maybe the new AG can get a wiretap and find out what’s going on there. I’d settle for a wire tap :smiley:

2 Likes
20

LibTARD criminaL overreach. LIke TRUMP’s lawyer whO HE hardly EVEN knows, theY WANT TO break into BARTLIT beck and get attorney CLIENT PRIVILEGED documents to spy.

4 Likes