Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For what it's worth
AVENATTI was not Daniels's attorney when she signed the NDA and took the money
HE would never have agreed to such a pile of excrement
I stand corrected. It was transferred to her attorney at the time.
Yes, I remember that whole thing where Devin Nunes's head was going to explode because the FBI intentionally mislead the FISA judge by failing to alert him that the Dossier was funded by politically motivated parties... until it was revealed that the FISA judge was expressly alerted that the Dossier was funded by politically motivated parties. I haven't heard anything from Nunes on the topic since.
''
Yeah. What happened to Nunes?
He had that middle of the night nonsense where he rushed breathlessly over to the WH with info he had gotten at the WH to begin with.
Then there was the bogus report from the House Intel committee which everyone promptly disregarded.
Then he was all about the FISA warrant. Turns out that was bogus as well.
Seems there was something else. But I've forgotten. Anyone recall?
Haven't seen hide nor hair of him or his low-wit conspiracies lately.
Where is your proof that there wasn't any evidence? Only every intel agency has already confirmed there was Russian interference. Release of hard evidence? Doesn't come till after the trial.
Standard stuff here.
You don't "prove that that there wasn't any evidence". Evidence is its own proof and the lack of it is proof of its non-existence, especially in a political investigation of a sitting President that has to be justified. It is known that there is no proof. They aren't sitting on anything. This isn't a secret. "This is standard stuff here" in regard to this investigation. I can tell that you get your legal knowledge from television. Hard evidence doesn't come after a trial. There is disclosure before a trial.
Quote:
This is a Republican investigation. That cannot be more clear. Anyone else notice... THE GOP IS DOING NOTHING TO DEFEND TRUMP.
A tired claim that has been discussed ad infinitum on this board elsewhere. You can't claim situational Republican rebellion based on the supposed evidence when most of them were anti-Trump running up to the election.
Quote:
If facebook gets found guilty of breaking the law, hopefully they get punished accordingly. We'd all be better off if facebook ceased to exist anyhow.
The issue isn't the mere 13 Russians on Facebook, whose advertisements will be unstoppable in the future, and who had no discernible effect on the election. The issue is the invention of a conspiracy narrative to undermine voter agency and to cover for the vast partisan corruption of our institutions that was revealed in the run up to the election
Quote:
However, none of that negates the very real facts that people involved with trumps campaign are being indicted after enough evidence has been gathered that they broke laws.
Prosecute everyone that you wish. You need Trump to justify this. Everything else looks exactly like desperation to justify the investigation. Again, its not what you do. Its how this plays out in the public sphere.
Quote:
Mom! Johnny kicked me in the heel so I'm gonna smack him upside the head so it's fine, just ignore what I'm going to do!
Interpreting your childish nonsense that is being substituted for argument, the prior poster was attempting to make a point about Trump agents meeting with Russians to gain Clinton dirt.
What came of it, anything? Because the DNC paid for Russian disinformation to discredit candidate Trump, and later to unseat POTUS, which was leaked to the media. It is still a strong subtextual foundation for a current investigation.
The situations are aren't similar in scope. Actions are what matter, and the Clinton campaign set off a nuclear bomb while Trump's team went to talk about one. Unless we are indicting Clinton and whomever else was involved in the Steel Dossier, you have absolutely nothing to speak to in regard to any Trump agent meeting with Russians for Clinton dirt.
Quote:
Based on your post I'm going to assume you were a cheer leader for the bengazzi investigation. You got to see that one through to the end. Now the shoe is on the other foot.
I generally support soldiers. However, the two situations aren't remotely similar in nature nor scope.
Quote:
Their guy can do no wrong and anyone who says otherwise is a traitor. Facts and the rule of law be damned, unless they support their narrative!
What narrative? We don't control the MSM. You do. You set the narratives. Your narratives are the cause of the entire investigation. What you are calling a "narrative" is a defense against he legal implications of your narrative. You could have let the election results stand in good faith, but now half of the nation reads this as your side's attempt to usurp democracy. That's the truth of the matter, and you'll have to deal with that for a long time to come.
That's the point that I've been trying to make here. If you are trying to convince anyone but the choir here, you aren't doing a good job. But your opponents here aren't who you have to convince. You have to convince the Trump base, or be ready for the political and social fallout. It's more than you are gambling for, I believe, because of how this looks. Its different in nature from most everything before. That's my point, and I'm not wrong about that (about how it looks, if not about your ultimately pointless rationalizations against how it looks).
Quote:
Of course they are! All of this is for show... All these people who have devoted their careers to upholding laws are just in a long con game and have been waiting patiently for today to come.
Hey Joe Law! Perhaps we'll see you again sometime when the liberals are harassing a cop out of his job because they think that killing all criminals of a certain skin color should be against the law. Hope to see you soon. Oh, and we know, wink, wink, all of that "upholoding laws" stuff is only for the losers who don't know about the rank partisan preference expressed by the very organizations issuing or executing on he warrants. Gotcha
Quote:
Pot... meet kettle...
Investigators at the top level are free to have their own politics. However, they've also been watched for years to make sure they can separate politics from doing their job. Those who fail to do so, are flushed out.
Uh huh. None of that is true whatsoever, based on what I know given my personal connection to a Harvard educated federal prosecutor that I went to high school with.
Last edited by CaseyB; 04-10-2018 at 05:00 PM..
Reason: name calling
This was a massive undertaking requiring many levels of serious scrutiny and approval, even probably overview from the Department of Justice in Washington DC and possibly put in front of Jeff Sessions ... and no leaks (imagine that).
Sessions may have gotten ulcers over this, but the DOJ is following protocol precisely.
Cohen didn't see it coming. These people are at the top of their game, very professional (they are accustomed to dealing with mobsters) and disciplined.
And as far as attorney-client privilege, that goes out the window if there is suspicion of conspiracy, correct? (Calling all C-D attorneys)
Suspicion of conspiracy? No, that is not correct.
The crime/fraud exception means that communications in furtherance of a crime or fraud are not privileged. So if you sit down with your attorney and say: "I robbed a bank this morning and my briefcase is full of the money I stole--where should I hide it?" And the attorney says, "the FBI will never look in the empty lot next to my office, you should bury it there." Those communications are not privileged. The attorney has become an accomplice--an accessory after-the-fact. No privilege attaches to communications furthering the crime.
We're kind of at the razor's edge, though. If client comes in and says, "I robbed a bank this morning and my briefcase is full of the money I stole." And the lawyer responds, "I can't accept stolen funds to pay for your defense, so we will have to trace the funds you use to pay for my services to legitimate sources. It is likely that you were on camera at the bank and once the FBI identifies you, they will obtain search warrants to search your car, home, and office for the stolen funds. They may also seek your bank and phone records. I can't tell you what to do with they money you've stolen, but I am making you aware of how the investigation is likely to proceed." The lawyer has crept up near the line, but hasn't quite crossed into accomplice territory.
Funny how the Loony Left is saying because attorney client privilege is sacrosanct, a judge allowing Cohen to be raided must mean there is something very, very important is to be found. Remember the FISA warrants anyone? Is there another phony dossier?
Leftists should be careful what they wish for. Two tier justice system is what political elites want to keep.
Rush is on now saying Mueller might be goading Trump to fire him because he has found nothing.
...
Probably best to go back to listening to Rush Limbaugh.
"Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, admonished President Donald Trump for his recent remarks entertaining the idea of firing special counsel Robert Mueller, who is investigating potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. "I have confidence in Mueller, the president ought to have confidence in Mueller, and I think to answer your question, it would be suicide for the president to want—to talk about firing Mueller," Grassley said Tuesday in an interview on Fox Business."
And to put Grassley's comments into perspective
He has been very reluctant to call witness that the Democrats on his committee wanted to call
He went out of his way to be helpful to witnesses that were more likely to be supportive to Trump's position--
Like Trump's long time secretary for Trump company who is living/working in NYC
He sent "staffers" w/o any Senators themselves on a weekend trip to interview her vs having her appear before the Committee in Washington so that ALL the Senators GOP and Democrats could ask her questions directly...
That was viewed as VERY unsatisfactory by the Democrats on the committee...
Grassley in the past HAS BEEN more willing to thwart Democrats in their attempt to get more information and call more witnesses...which makes it seem that he is willing to act as a foil to truth searching...
So if he now is coming out on national TV--although a "faux news" channel to warn Trump that attempting to fire Mueller is not going to be allowed to stand---
Then I hope someone in the WH is listening
I wouldn't bet on it
Word is that Don McGahn could very likely be looking for the exit
If he leaves maybe Dershowitz would be WH counsel---who knows who Trump could come up with
But McGahn has been one voice of reason with respect for the law or at least Trump's affinity for shooting himself in the foot and has tried to keep him from going off the deep end firing various people including Mueller
No that is not true. Trump has a big brain and is really, really smart and will run circles around the smaller brained Mueller.
Absolutely. What would a Stable Genius have to fear by matching wits with a glorified beat cop? I'm pulling for Trump to go in there and show him who's the boss!
The crime/fraud exception means that communications in furtherance of a crime or fraud are not privileged. So if you sit down with your attorney and say: "I robbed a bank this morning and my briefcase is full of the money I stole--where should I hide it?" And the attorney says, "the FBI will never look in the empty lot next to my office, you should bury it there." Those communications are not privileged. The attorney has become an accomplice--an accessory after-the-fact. No privilege attaches to communications furthering the crime.
We're kind of at the razor's edge, though. If client comes in and says, "I robbed a bank this morning and my briefcase is full of the money I stole." And the lawyer responds, "I can't accept stolen funds to pay for your defense, so we will have to trace the funds you use to pay for my services to legitimate sources. It is likely that you were on camera at the bank and once the FBI identifies you, they will obtain search warrants to search your car, home, and office for the stolen funds. They may also seek your bank and phone records. I can't tell you what to do with they money you've stolen, but I am making you aware of how the investigation is likely to proceed." The lawyer has crept up near the line, but hasn't quite crossed into accomplice territory.
I think that is a generous reading of the attorney's culpability
He should have stopped after "I can't accept stolen funds to pay for your defense"...
And maybe suggested making a plea deal...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
