Mueller Report Imminent

#9,505
#9,505
DC_Vol said:
So it sounds like the way to go is to hire a third party to retrieve the opposition research being offered by a foreign government?
Click to expand...

I think if the info is known to be from a foreign government entity by the recipient, and used as "oppo research" to further a campaign it gets shady.

I'm guessing if the foreign government knew that the ultimate recipient was going to use it as actionable intelligence in a campaign, it would be considered info given to further the interest of that government, and would probably be very shady and illegal.

I'm assuming this is still related to political info.
 
#9,506
#9,506
evillawyer said:
Blue balls making you cranky again? When are strzok, Comey, brennan, and the rest of the deep state cabal being locked up?
Click to expand...
When's Trump being impeached?


The system ultimately protects itself, and that will extend to Trump as well. No one in DC wants transparency because then we'd see just how crooked the machine is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol and AM64
#9,507
#9,507
Weezer said:
When's Trump being impeached?


The system ultimately protects itself, and that will extend to Trump as well. No one in DC wants transparency because then we'd see just how crooked the machine is.
Click to expand...

I've never seen a bigger fan of the moral equivalency game than you. Impeachment ain't going anywhere because of the turtle of the senate. But Trump has his Roy Cohn-toady in the DOJ. The strzok, page, Comey, Brennan, Steele, etc thing ain't going anywhere because there's no there there. Even Barr is not going to be able to conjure up anything because there was more than sufficient grounds to monitor Page.
 
#9,508
#9,508
evillawyer said:
I've never seen a bigger fan of the moral equivalency game than you. Impeachment ain't going anywhere because of the turtle of the senate. But Trump has his Roy Cohn-toady in the DOJ. The strzok, page, Comey, Brennan, Steele, etc thing ain't going anywhere because there's no there there. Even Barr is not going to be able to conjure up anything because there was more than sufficient grounds to monitor Page.
Click to expand...

If "there was more than suffiecient grounds to monitor Page." (Probable Cause)
When are they going to charge Page with anything?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#9,509
#9,509
37L1 said:
If "there was more than suffiecient grounds to monitor Page." (Probable Cause)
When are they going to charge Page with anything?
Click to expand...

You've answered your own question. More than sufficient to do X, doesn't entail more than sufficient to do y. If it did, you would just charge without investigating/monitoring. This is not hard stuff guys. People get searched/investigated all the time with no charges resulting. Doesn't entail the search/investigation was undertaken without probable cause.
 
#9,510
#9,510
evillawyer said:
I've never seen a bigger fan of the moral equivalency game than you. Impeachment ain't going anywhere because of the turtle of the senate. But Trump has his Roy Cohn-toady in the DOJ. The strzok, page, Comey, Brennan, Steele, etc thing ain't going anywhere because there's no there there. Even Barr is not going to be able to conjure up anything because there was more than sufficient grounds to monitor Page.
Click to expand...
You’re in denial.

Just because there aren’t widespread leaks to the press doesn’t mean nothing is happening.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BigOrangeD
#9,511
#9,511
AM64 said:
OK, things got dull, so I got educated. According to Presidential Departments | The White House




Duh, what would you think the job is? How exactly does that change the attorney/client privilege? "White House Counsel advises the President" ... isn't that what lawyers do?
Click to expand...

Why are you asking me? I’m just a humble parasite. Clearly you know more about this stuff than I do. You read the White House Counsel’s job description on the internet.

McGahn has his own lawyer who represented him during this investigation. Do you think his lawyer said “well we don’t have to talk to these guys at all. This information is privileged. But Donny, you just go ahead and commit malpractice and entangle yourself in an investigation into the President of the United States, who has the authority to fire you, and will certainly badmouth you on Twitter.”

Then after he gets fired, both he and his chief of staff, who was also an executive branch lawyer, who also testified, got jobs at pretty well-respected law firms. Would any respectable law firm have hired McGahn and retained him after the report came out of the report showed that he had “breached confidences” and sold out a client to the Feds? Think their clients would stick around for that?
You think Trump would hesitate to report him to his licensing body if he had breached confidence?

There’s got to be nearly 100 lawyers between the OSC, Jones Day, McGahn’s attorneys, and Trump’s legal team. All those attorneys just overlooked this legal issue that’s so obvious to you?

None of that made you think “hey maybe I’m wrong about this?”
 
#9,513
#9,513
evillawyer said:
I've never seen a bigger fan of the moral equivalency game than you. Impeachment ain't going anywhere because of the turtle of the senate. But Trump has his Roy Cohn-toady in the DOJ. The strzok, page, Comey, Brennan, Steele, etc thing ain't going anywhere because there's no there there. Even Barr is not going to be able to conjure up anything because there was more than sufficient grounds to monitor Page.
Click to expand...

This is a free country, you never surveil your opponents in an election. You get them together and explain the security threat and let them know there may be an investigation. This is not Russia, regardless of what the Democratic Party thinks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 37L1, AM64 and Orange_Vol1321
#9,514
#9,514
IPleadInsanity said:
This is a free country, you never surveil your opponents in an election. You get them together and explain the security threat and let them know there may be an investigation. This is not Russia, regardless of what the Democratic Party thinks.
Click to expand...
That's insane. You're saying that Trump was the FBI's opponent?
 
#9,517
#9,517
Stew Cook said:
That's insane. You're saying that Trump was the FBI's opponent?
Click to expand...

The FBI can't surveil a politician running for office on their own, that must go to the DOJ for clearance and I would hope the Executive Branch (that branch would then notify Congress). If not, then free elections are finished in this country, which I guess is what the Democratic Party wants from the way they run their primaries?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#9,518
#9,518
RockyTop85 said:
Why are you asking me? I’m just a humble parasite. Clearly you know more about this stuff than I do. You read the White House Counsel’s job description on the internet.

McGahn has his own lawyer who represented him during this investigation. Do you think his lawyer said “well we don’t have to talk to these guys at all. This information is privileged. But Donny, you just go ahead and commit malpractice and entangle yourself in an investigation into the President of the United States, who has the authority to fire you, and will certainly badmouth you on Twitter.”

Then after he gets fired, both he and his chief of staff, who was also an executive branch lawyer, who also testified, got jobs at pretty well-respected law firms. Would any respectable law firm have hired McGahn and retained him after the report came out of the report showed that he had “breached confidences” and sold out a client to the Feds? Think their clients would stick around for that?
You think Trump would hesitate to report him to his licensing body if he had breached confidence?

There’s got to be nearly 100 lawyers between the OSC, Jones Day, McGahn’s attorneys, and Trump’s legal team. All those attorneys just overlooked this legal issue that’s so obvious to you?

None of that made you think “hey maybe I’m wrong about this?”
Click to expand...

I'm cynical ... very cynical ... extremely cynical ... regarding anything that comes out of our "justice" system ... from decisions that become de facto law right up to the twisted logic behind those decisions. A lot of the stuff courts decide just don't make any sense ... of the common sense variety.

But my real question regarding one of those twisted pieces of judicial logic is simply "how the hell do you know when "attorney/client privilege" is a thing and when it isn't? It should be a simple question and answer not requiring legal guidance to answer a question of legal guidance. Anyone should know upfront when his discussion with a lawyer is not privileged because we've all grown up with the assurance that it is.

You see if that old thing about ignorance of the law being no excuse for a misdeed applies, then it's absurd that a lawyer needs a whole damn library to know what the law is. Another case of twisted legal logic because the common man would have no idea what is in those tens or hundreds of thousand of pages..
 
  • Like
Reactions: RavinDave and DC_Vol
#9,520
#9,520
ajvol01 said:
Have you read the Strzok/Page text messages?

Wake up.
Click to expand...

Sure I have, they should have kept the pillow talk on the DL.
IPleadInsanity said:
The FBI can't surveil a politician running for office on their own, that must go to the DOJ for clearance and I would hope the Executive Branch (that branch would then notify Congress). If not, then free elections are finished in this country, which I guess is what the Democratic Party wants from the way they run their primaries?
Click to expand...

If the Justice Department can't investigate possible foreign influence in a campaign, then we might as well call ourselves finished.

Otherwise, I'm no fan of how the DNC favors their favorites, but not a good look for the GOP to deny would be presidential primary challengers a voice, which might not look too bad at the moment, but as Trump keeps on Trumpin', that may prove to be regrettable.
 
#9,521
#9,521
nuclearjunky said:
It getting late and I don’t feel like doing research but I would like to know why you say he’s wrong.
Click to expand...

There are at least three ways attorney client privilege doesn't apply here:

First, arguably, is that there is no privilege regarding soliciting your attorney to commit a crime or to help with the commission of a crime. If McGahn believed he was asked to fire Mueller to obstruct justice, then there is no privilege. This is true in any attorney-client relationship.

Second, McGahn had effectively recused, or given Trump notice that he could no longer provide him legal advice with respect to the OSC investigation. According to McGahn, at the time Trump called to have him fire Mueller, he had already told Trump that he was a witness to what he believed was potentially obstruction of justice in the firing of Comey and that all matters related to the ongoing obstruction investigation should be directed through Trump's personal lawyers, not through McGahn. This effectively terminated any A-C relationship with respect to this issue, and resolved any mistake of fact regarding the existence of such a relationship. It put Trump on notice that he had no expectation of confidentiality with respect to statements made to McGahn about the OSC investigation. This is also significant to #3, below.

These were the two I had in mind when I initially posted that Trump wasn't McGahn's client. Depending on how you view it, that may have been a more accurate statement than Trump was never McGahn's client, because...

The most complicated of the three is the fact that McGahn was never Trump's personal lawyer. He was the White House Counsel, so he had an organizational client: The Office of the President. Privilege with respect to organizational clients is complicated because some organizations (like crime families) have tried to use it to hide evidence, and because organizations tend to have members, who may or may not have a privilege. It has developed that the privilege only applies to communications seeking legal advice. If you're asking for business (or in this case, political) advice or asking the lawyer to perform some act, there's no privilege. Obviously, this doesn't mean there can never be confidential communications between Trump and McGahn, there likely were, but Trump directing McGahn to take actions such as fire Mueller or produce false documents does not fall within the privilege.

Once McGahn has told Trump "I can no longer advise you on this matter, I'm a witness" Trump has no expectation that he can receive legal advice from McGahn, and all communications between he and McGahn regarding the OSC investigation should not be subject to attorney-client privilege.

There are other issues involving A-C P and organizational clients, but I didn't think any of them applied, here.

It's just more of the same nonsense that anybody who points out that Trump doesn't help bury Trump's **** must be incompetent or underhanded, and if you don't know how, you just make **** up.
 
#9,522
#9,522
Stew Cook said:
Sure I have, they should have kept the pillow talk on the DL.


If the Justice Department can't investigate possible foreign influence in a campaign, then we might as well call ourselves finished.

Otherwise, I'm no fan of how the DNC favors their favorites, but not a good look for the GOP to deny would be presidential primary challengers a voice, which might not look too bad at the moment, but as Trump keeps on Trumpin', that may prove to be regrettable.
Click to expand...

Sure there should be oversight, but why are you limiting it to campaigns? There's so much leakage it simply doesn't matter. We don't bother to stop "unsanctioned" demonstrations intended to deafen or block a legitimate speech or a rally. A minister can whip up a congregation without any legal action. A union can sanction a candidate. Of course, we know there's social media ... one person can reach many. Who knows what evil people like the Kochs or Soros do? Illegals can campaign for or against with impunity ... foreign influence? What about media spin? Are these not all things of value never totaled in the campaign donation ledger? Why worry about burning the biscuits when the damn house is on fire?
 
#9,523
#9,523
Stew Cook said:
Sure I have, they should have kept the pillow talk on the DL.


If the Justice Department can't investigate possible foreign influence in a campaign, then we might as well call ourselves finished.

Otherwise, I'm no fan of how the DNC favors their favorites, but not a good look for the GOP to deny would be presidential primary challengers a voice, which might not look too bad at the moment, but as Trump keeps on Trumpin', that may prove to be regrettable.
Click to expand...

They can investigate, and should investigate but it is not a normal situation spying on your political opponents in a Free society. It must be handled as a special matter and several branches of government should be involved for clarity. I would think you would first alert all parties since getting dirt on your opponent in an election is very attractive for any candidate, Hillary for example. Thats if you wanted to prevent the Russian influence in the campaign. If you just want to catch someone with hand in cookie jar then you follow the example we just experienced.
 
#9,524
#9,524
IPleadInsanity said:
They can investigate, and should investigate but it is not a normal situation spying on your political opponents in a Free society. It must be handled as a special matter and several branches of government should be involved for clarity. I would think you would first alert all parties since getting dirt on your opponent in an election is very attractive for any candidate, Hillary for example. Thats if you wanted to prevent the Russian influence in the campaign. If you just want to catch someone with hand in cookie jar then you follow the example we just experienced.
Click to expand...

Of course, there's the alternative. Actually debate the issues ... the real ones ... and leave mudslinging out of the equation ... maybe even hold candidates to promises made. Oh, yeah, campaign finance reform, too. No collection/laundering agents ... just deposits of nominal value (like under $100) by individuals, companies of any sort, unions etc, No endorsements outside the official campaign by anybody or any entity. But I'm far more worried about pig droppings falling from the sky than any of that happening.
 
#9,525
#9,525
evillawyer said:
You've answered your own question. More than sufficient to do X, doesn't entail more than sufficient to do y. If it did, you would just charge without investigating/monitoring. This is not hard stuff guys. People get searched/investigated all the time with no charges resulting. Doesn't entail the search/investigation was undertaken without probable cause.
Click to expand...
Sounds like there was no crime to charge him with and the PC was largely BS. If there was more than "sufficient" then it is more than likely that a crime has been committed and yet, here we sit with nothing to show that Page was guilty of breaking any law.

Maybe you should have said barely sufficient, then?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top