Assuming that Tom does indeed possess proof that the current president of the USA was personally bribed by foreign companies, you find it 'ridiculous' and 'insulting' to suggest that he should provide such proof to competent law enforcement because maybe some things are bigger than his attorney-client privilege? Is this because of your 'all politicians are corrupt so we should just let them get away with everything' theories again?
While I'm not going to make any judgements on whether, ignoring laws, a lawyer in Tom's position should violate attorney-client privilege in order to share important information that would incriminate their attorneys, I will say that the privilege is essentially ironclad in positions like this.
So the question is then "should a lawyer violate a promise he has made to his clients, with the understanding that the attorney-client relationship undergirds basically the entire legal system and that he will be almost certainly be disbarred for the violation?"
I don't think it's ridiculous or insulting to say that he should, but I also think you're underselling the importance of confidentiality.
~Camilla
Ghavrel is Ghavrel is Ghavrel
*MySmiley*