d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate >
Poll > Trump 2016 > Trump Vs Clinton
Prev1179717981799180018013169Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Views: 461969Replies: 31684Track Topic
  Guests cannot view or vote in polls. Please register or login.
Member
Posts: 33,652
Joined: Oct 9 2008
Gold: 2,617.52
#17981
Apr 18 2018 11:34am
Quote (Goomshill @ Apr 18 2018 01:33pm)
Apologize for your cult leader's racism:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/18/politics/donald-trump-immigrants-california/index.html


Soooo... baby factories are only bad when the Chinese do it?
Member
Posts: 91,077
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,504.69
#17982
Apr 18 2018 11:35am
Quote (EndlessSky @ Apr 18 2018 11:15am)
So... he is a lawyer... and he was in contact with clients about legal advice... but its not considered practicing "law"

You bitches are so desperate :rofl:


attorney client privilege isn't a blanket that covers anything spoken between attorney and client. but it's happened plenty that lawyers use it to cover up for nasty behavior.

it's funny that you'd overlook the simple fact that HRC pulled this exact move to cover up correspondence with people who had passed the bar but didn't give her any legal advice.

the parallels between these two cases are so strong that any time you Stump for Trump you're arguing the HRC dindu nuffin. you partisan kids must really be loving this.
Member
Posts: 48,844
Joined: Jun 18 2006
Gold: 5,016.77
#17983
Apr 18 2018 11:37am
Quote (EndlessSky @ Apr 18 2018 12:15pm)
So... he is a lawyer... and he was in contact with clients about legal advice... but its not considered practicing "law"

You bitches are so desperate :rofl:


Huh? That's not what the article said, and it's not what I was implying. Learn to read.

Quote (Goomshill @ Apr 18 2018 12:21pm)
The rest of it was largely speculative, I'm not sure how much insight he can provide from outside the box. He just repeats the same things I've heard from all the other coverage- The investigation has clearly been going on months, we don't know what its about exactly, that it can't be just campaign finance violations because that's far too trivial, how relevant can his limited capacity as a lawyer vs fixer really be, etc etc.
He devoted the largest chunk of his text to excoriating Judge Wood for outing Hannity and barely remembering to dress it up in niceties and presumption of good faith. And even then he doesn't find any grounds to speculate how the Hannity outing could be explained as impartial. "That being the case, it is difficult to see what happened in court as anything other than a gratuitous shot at Hannity, which Trump partisans will naturally take as a sign that the investigation is political". Well if there's no real explanation for it as anything but a political low-blow, then those Trump partisans are reading it correctly.


Intelligent speculation is always fun to read or listen to. He's an experienced attorney who worked for SDNY, and he's not a raving lunatic like Joe DiGenova, but he's conservative, so the insight is credible at least. I seem to recall you speculating that the only reason for FBI raiding Cohen is FEC violations.

The Hannity part was also an interesting insight although I'd like to hear arguments from the other side.

This post was edited by IceMage on Apr 18 2018 11:37am
Member
Posts: 33,652
Joined: Oct 9 2008
Gold: 2,617.52
#17984
Apr 18 2018 11:39am
Quote (IceMage @ Apr 18 2018 01:37pm)
Huh? That's not what the article said, and it's not what I was implying. Learn to read.


>argument fails
>backpedal and gaslight

This post was edited by EndlessSky on Apr 18 2018 11:39am
Member
Posts: 46,668
Joined: Jan 20 2010
Gold: 22,164.69
#17985
Apr 18 2018 11:43am
Quote (IceMage @ Apr 18 2018 11:37am)
Intelligent speculation is always fun to read or listen to. He's an experienced attorney who worked for SDNY, and he's not a raving lunatic like Joe DiGenova, but he's conservative, so the insight is credible at least. I seem to recall you speculating that the only reason for FBI raiding Cohen is FEC violations.

The Hannity part was also an interesting insight although I'd like to hear arguments from the other side.


recall me speculating that FEC violations can't reasonably be grounds for it on their own. If I can figure that much out I'm not sure what insight the experienced attorney is providing.
I think the argument from the other side would be that it can't be a 'gratuitous shot at Hannity' if Judge Wood didn't know who the 3rd client was before she forced him to be outed publicly. For all she knew, it could be Linda Sarsour. The counterargument to his article is to dismiss the political fallout of that move as being unintentional. Unless she actually did know it was Hannity from being tipped off by the prosecution and their seized emails, or otherwise leaked to her. But more plausibly, she just knew that if Cohen was protecting someone, it must be juicy whoever it was, and that it was a gratuitous shot at Cohen's side.
Member
Posts: 48,844
Joined: Jun 18 2006
Gold: 5,016.77
#17986
Apr 18 2018 11:57am
Quote (EndlessSky @ Apr 18 2018 12:39pm)
>argument fails
>backpedal and gaslight


Why do I feel like you never read the articles we argue over?

Quote (Goomshill @ Apr 18 2018 12:43pm)
recall me speculating that FEC violations can't reasonably be grounds for it on their own. If I can figure that much out I'm not sure what insight the experienced attorney is providing.
I think the argument from the other side would be that it can't be a 'gratuitous shot at Hannity' if Judge Wood didn't know who the 3rd client was before she forced him to be outed publicly. For all she knew, it could be Linda Sarsour. The counterargument to his article is to dismiss the political fallout of that move as being unintentional. Unless she actually did know it was Hannity from being tipped off by the prosecution and their seized emails, or otherwise leaked to her. But more plausibly, she just knew that if Cohen was protecting someone, it must be juicy whoever it was, and that it was a gratuitous shot at Cohen's side.


Quote (Goomshill @ Apr 9 2018 03:17pm)
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/09/us/politics/fbi-raids-office-of-trumps-longtime-lawyer-michael-cohen.html

Dat attorney client privilege:

This investigation into russian interference in the 2016 election sounds like its on sure footing if Mueller is seizing attorney-client privileged communications in order to pursue potential minor FEC violations about a completely unrelated scandal on paying a porn star


I think it's clear that this insight is less valuable than one from a former SDNY attorney who has prosecuted many, many cases, and knows the law. That's just common sense.

There was reporting that Judge Wood was going to let the third name stay private until a CNN/NYT lawyer came to the podium and convinced her otherwise. That's some poetic justice right there.


Member
Posts: 46,668
Joined: Jan 20 2010
Gold: 22,164.69
#17987
Apr 18 2018 12:21pm
Quote (IceMage @ Apr 18 2018 11:57am)
There was reporting that Judge Wood was going to let the third name stay private until a CNN/NYT lawyer came to the podium and convinced her otherwise. That's some poetic justice right there.


and this is supposed to diminish the argument of political interference?
Member
Posts: 104,575
Joined: Apr 25 2006
Gold: 10,485.00
#17988
Apr 18 2018 12:24pm
Quote (Goomshill @ Apr 18 2018 01:33pm)
Apologize for your cult leader's racism:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/18/politics/donald-trump-immigrants-california/index.html




I believe Trump meant the concept that any children the illegal, aliens conceive and birth in the US are auto-citizens.
Like some one once said: "That's not immigration, that's invasion".

That is pretty much what's happening in the US. Low tech countries/cultures try to take over the US.
They can't take on the US militarily, so they will do it through the vote.

Me, I kind of like living in a 1st world country. I don't want to see it turned into yet another 3rd world country.
Member
Posts: 48,844
Joined: Jun 18 2006
Gold: 5,016.77
#17989
Apr 18 2018 12:28pm
Quote (Goomshill @ Apr 18 2018 01:21pm)
and this is supposed to diminish the argument of political interference?


Maybe, but mostly I posted it because it's hilarious. CNN and NYT are the two biggest media targets of the president. It is interesting that(if Natasha Bertrand is correct) the judge originally thought the name could remain private. I wonder what the lawyer said to her.

This post was edited by IceMage on Apr 18 2018 12:30pm
Member
Posts: 46,668
Joined: Jan 20 2010
Gold: 22,164.69
#17990
Apr 18 2018 12:29pm
Quote
There is a Revolution going on in California. Soooo many Sanctuary areas want OUT of this ridiculous, crime infested & breeding concept. Jerry Brown is trying to back out of the National Guard at the Border, but the people of the State are not happy. Want Security & Safety NOW!


Quote
crime infested & breeding concept

Quote
breeding concept


literal racist dog whistle from this orange tyrant. I was so outraged when I read this hate speech that my pussy hat almost slipped off my head

Quote (IceMage @ Apr 18 2018 12:28pm)
Maybe, but mostly I posted it because it's hilarious. CNN and NYT are the two biggest media targets of the president. It is interesting that(if Natasha Bertrand is correct) the judge originally thought the name could remain private.


well of course it could remain private. thats what "in camera" is all about.
If the judge consciously chose to expose something politically embarrassing at the behest of CNN and NYT, that would be almost as ridiculous as finding out she officiated George Soro's private wedding.

This post was edited by Goomshill on Apr 18 2018 12:32pm
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev1179717981799180018013169Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll

© 2003-2024 d2jsp  Contact