Little more to say at the moment, but this tracks with much of what we have been finding in documents, and it will likely involve some of the same people.
If Manos did his work related to DNC hack attribution without a formal contract or "second" agreement with the DOJ or FBI, any material he was given may not be protected by the attorney-client communication, party communication, or attorney work product privileges. In fact, if that is the case, those privileges may have been waived. In other words, if there was no such agreement, you may be able to access the information he was given via FOIA if you make that argument. In other words, you might not be limited to the DNC attribution he did, but also may be able to access the instructions and underlying information he was given.
Also, if Manos was not covered by privilege, they may not be able to redact stuff in the DNC attribution on that basis. Strongly recommend you look at that.
I used to do a lot of investigation stuff as an atty, both in gov't and out. Feel free to contact me if what I am trying to say here isn't clear.
Interesting. The government intervened into a whistleblower lawsuit. I am assuming you were aware of that suit already. As far as the intervention, do you know what the government alleges its injuries/damages to be?
If Manos did his work related to DNC hack attribution without a formal contract or "second" agreement with the DOJ or FBI, any material he was given may not be protected by the attorney-client communication, party communication, or attorney work product privileges. In fact, if that is the case, those privileges may have been waived. In other words, if there was no such agreement, you may be able to access the information he was given via FOIA if you make that argument. In other words, you might not be limited to the DNC attribution he did, but also may be able to access the instructions and underlying information he was given.
Also, if Manos was not covered by privilege, they may not be able to redact stuff in the DNC attribution on that basis. Strongly recommend you look at that.
I used to do a lot of investigation stuff as an atty, both in gov't and out. Feel free to contact me if what I am trying to say here isn't clear.
Interesting. The government intervened into a whistleblower lawsuit. I am assuming you were aware of that suit already. As far as the intervention, do you know what the government alleges its injuries/damages to be?