Mueller Report Imminent

#9,526
#9,526
Stew Cook said:
Yet the leaks about investigations only damaged Hillary.. Yeah, they must hate everyone.
Click to expand...

How could you say it damaged her...she had a 10 point lead on election day?? What stopped her, and justifiably so, was destroying the information on her illegal server requested by Congress. Bad luck she got caught otherwise she might be President now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#9,527
#9,527
IPleadInsanity said:
How could you say it damaged her...she had a 10 point lead on election day?? What stopped her, and justifiably so, was destroying the information on her illegal server requested by Congress. Bad luck she got caught otherwise she might be President now.
Click to expand...

Sure, but the FBI leaks about the reopening of the investigation did damage. Where did this occur to Trump during the campaign?
 
#9,528
#9,528
Stew Cook said:
Sure, but the FBI leaks about the reopening of the investigation did damage. Where did this occur to Trump during the campaign?
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with the Russia investigation? She ran an illegal operation, destroyed evidence and had secure information leaking everywhere even to Weiners laptop. It put the FBI, who was on her side, in a bad situation and I agree the publicity hurt her. But we were discussing the Russian interference in this thread.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ajvol01 and AM64
#9,529
#9,529
IPleadInsanity said:
What does that have to do with the Russia investigation? She ran an illegal operation, destroyed evidence and had secure information leaking everywhere even to Weiners laptop. It put the FBI, who was on her side, in a bad situation and I agree the publicity hurt her. But we were discussing the Russian interference in this thread.
Click to expand...

It suggests that the FBI wasn't out to get Trump, at leas to the point of leaking information about an ongoing investigation.
 
#9,531
#9,531
AM64 said:
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..
Click to expand...

So maybe the organization’s attorney should have to tell the individual the boundaries of the privilege when the conversation veers into questionable territory?
 
#9,534
#9,534
Stew Cook said:
Sure, but the FBI leaks about the reopening of the investigation did damage. Where did this occur to Trump during the campaign?
Click to expand...

You missed the whole point ... probably because Comey was counting on too much from the electorate. The server stuff was hanging over her head, so Comey came to the rescue and announced (to Congress ... the official DC leakers) that the FBI was investigating. Then Comey announced "all clear" ... nothing to see here ... just a little error in judgement ... she's good to go. Comey might have gotten his timing wrong ... since it's now election season rather than election day, but he definitely ran interference for her. He might also have not realized that we the people (some of us anyway) don't much like it when someone officially lies to us.
 
#9,536
#9,536
AM64 said:
You missed the whole point ... probably because Comey was counting on too much from the electorate. The server stuff was hanging over her head, so Comey came to the rescue and announced (to Congress ... the official DC leakers) that the FBI was investigating. Then Comey announced "all clear" ... nothing to see here ... just a little error in judgement ... she's good to go. Comey might have gotten his timing wrong ... since it's now election season rather than election day, but he definitely ran interference for her. He might also have not realized that we the people (some of us anyway) don't much like it when someone officially lies to us.
Click to expand...

AM64 said:
Wrong
Click to expand...

Except the case had been closed, the leaks were about possible additional information from the laptop. True, Comey said he felt the need to clarify, because Trump ran with the leak, suggesting she would soon be in jail.

Seems to me, the FBI, if we are using generalizations, was in Trump's court.
 
#9,538
#9,538
UT_VOLS13 said:
Impeachment dam breaking as Pelosi deputies tip hand: ‘We’ve already begun’
Click to expand...

Go for it. You gotta love the statements contained in the article

“We do believe that if we sufficiently, effectively educate the public, then we will have done our jobs, and we can move on an impeachment vote and it will stand, and maybe it will be what needs to be done to incent the Senate to act."
Click to expand...

“Impeachment is a political act, and you cannot impeach a president if the American people will not support it,” Nadler said Friday. “The American people, right now, do not support it because they do not know the story. They don’t know the facts.”
Click to expand...


So it's really not about proving guilt and all about brainwashing the public. Nice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dezul and tennvols77
#9,539
#9,539
Stew Cook said:
Except the case had been closed, the leaks were about possible additional information from the laptop. True, Comey said he felt the need to clarify, because Trump ran with the leak, suggesting she would soon be in jail.

Seems to me, the FBI, if we are using generalizations, was in Trump's court.
Click to expand...

The FBI may have closed the case, but see the attached story about impeachment and "educating" the public. Remember a lot of people also continued to believe the FBI rank and file disagreed with Comey.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol and Tennesseefan2019
#9,540
#9,540
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 by "moral equivalency" you mean fairness, then yes, I'm a fan of fairness. Right is right and wrong is wrong. It doesn't change because of one's partisanship.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77 and AM64
#9,541
#9,541
RockyTop85 said:
So maybe the organization’s attorney should have to tell the individual the boundaries of the privilege when the conversation veers into questionable territory?
Click to expand...

Yep. Maybe we should also revisit doctor/patient and clergy/flock confidentiality while we're at it. I don't think people individually hire the clergy, and insurance kinda muddies the doctor/client thing from your legal beagle perspective.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tennesseefan2019
#9,542
#9,542
AM64 said:
Yep. Maybe we should also revisit doctor/patient and clergy/flock confidentiality while we're at it. I don't think people individually hire the clergy, and insurance kinda muddies the doctor/client thing from your legal beagle perspective.
Click to expand...

Upjohn Co. v. United States - Wikipedia

When the mob and the President start using doctors and clergy to commit their crimes, those privileges will probably be defined more narrowly as well.
 

Attachments

  • D92776C5-A6FF-4B01-BCC2-D31890609E2B.png
    D92776C5-A6FF-4B01-BCC2-D31890609E2B.png
    276.6 KB · Views: 8
#9,548
#9,548
Stew Cook said:
The subject came up when the debate was about if he would have to testify to Mueller..

There was no attorney-client-privelidge because he isn't the personal attorney of the President. The reason being is that he is the counsel of The White House in an official capacity, which is subject to oversight, as opposed to in a personal capacity which is not.

Although Trump says he allowed McGahn to meet with Mueller, he had no choice outside of asserting executive privilege on certain subjects that McGahn might have witnessed outside of his official capacity.
Click to expand...

Thanks Stew. That’s sounds logical and I’ve been at a ball field since 730 this morn so if I think about it later I might dig deeper so I can argue with you and Rockytop but right now I’m focused on a few cold ones and a steak.
 
#9,549
#9,549
RockyTop85 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hey I appreciate that response and I will read it in detail tomorrow. Been at a softball field since 730 this morning. Cold drinks and a steak is what I’m focused on till tomorrow. And I do believe your actually practice Law for a living. Can’t say that for other folks that post here.
 
#9,550
#9,550
Smokey'sHandler said:
I would love to go back and count how many times in the past 2.5 years we’ve heard the Democrats say “we have got this new tidbit of information! Indictments are Imminent we have him now!”

You’d think after the first 10+ times of this you’d quit buying into it.
Click to expand...

*cough* Q Thread *cough*
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeppelin128
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top