|
Replies: 17
| visibility 1
|
Heisman Winner [111801]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 73822
Joined: 9/10/03
|
|
|
|
 |
All-In [26518]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 20669
Joined: 9/2/02
|
Hope you didn't get an aneurysm coming up with that one.***
1
Jul 11, 2023, 1:30 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [27167]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15715
Joined: 1/26/22
|
LOL. Truth!!!***
Jul 11, 2023, 1:32 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7162]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 9724
Joined: 10/6/21
|
Re: I think figured out what MAGA really stands for
3
Jul 11, 2023, 1:53 PM
|
|
It’s horrifying that M.Garland has found a way for prosecutors to upend attorney client privilege as a tactic of coercing attorneys to turn against their clients.
It’s either jail or backstab your client … but only if you are a lawyer defending Trump (or maybe also to be RFK, Jr. if he can survive the full on onslaught of the Democrat establishment’s propaganda media machine).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [111801]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 73822
Joined: 9/10/03
|
Re: I think figured out what MAGA really stands for
4
Jul 11, 2023, 2:10 PM
|
|
attorney client privilege does not extent to criminal activity by both parties, sorry to be the one to tell you this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13166]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14174
Joined: 11/2/15
|
So, it extends until both parties are convicted?
2
Jul 11, 2023, 2:51 PM
|
|
You can indict a ham sandwich.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7219]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9456
Joined: 12/18/13
|
It's not Garland who decides this.
Jul 11, 2023, 7:33 PM
|
|
It's a judge, but of course in MAGAland everyone (even conservative judges) are part of the deep state out to get em.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7162]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 9724
Joined: 10/6/21
|
Re: I think figured out what MAGA really stands for
2
Jul 11, 2023, 8:02 PM
[ in reply to Re: I think figured out what MAGA really stands for ] |
|
Classified materials retention by ex-presidents has never been prosecuted before (Bill Clinton, GWB, Obama come to mind). Nor has this been prosecuted for people who never had any special presidential privileges for removing classified documents in the first place (Sandy Berger, Hillary Clinton, & Mike Pence jump out).
US law follows stare decisis. Admittedly (to my limited understanding) prosecutorial conduct is not a stare decisis situation; since DoJ chose to ignore previous presidents and high level cabinet + VPs for classified materials retention, it is a huge stretch to randomly start the ‘criminal activity by client + lawyer ‘ excuse to prosecute a lawyer and intimidate him into turning against his client.
Never been done in a classified materials case before, but suddenly when Trump is concerned, all kinds of contortions come to life in hopes of finally getting that Bad Orange Man.
Context matters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7219]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9456
Joined: 12/18/13
|
lol
Jul 11, 2023, 8:08 PM
|
|
Y'all either know that what Trump did was unprecedented (refusing to give materials back) and choose to ignore this fact, or you are paying so little attention to this case you shouldn't be posting about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7162]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 9724
Joined: 10/6/21
|
Re: lol
3
Jul 11, 2023, 9:26 PM
|
|
Trump had every right to challenge the DoJ’s order to cough up the classified materials. His argument (presidential privilege under Article 2 of The Constitution) made his team’s argument legitimate.
You are a judge, aren’t you? When a defendant is arguing against a government order and has foundation for making that argument, then does the legal system a.low this to play out according to the law, or does the prosecution get to say ph_que the law and do it?
It is also unprecedented for the DoJ to force an ex-president to return classified materials which he acquired during his time as president. DoJ didn’t even ask Obama to return his. Neither GWB nor GHB. DoJ requested Clinton to return the tapes which were believed to be recordings of conversations between Clinton and foreign leaders, but Clinton said pound sand and the courts agreed with Clinton. Precedent exists for ex-presidents to refuse DoJ requests to turn over materials of national security concern.
But the rules change when Trump is the ex-president.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associate AD [828]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 3982
Joined: 4/14/09
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24829]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42596
Joined: 7/31/10
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2053]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 2989
Joined: 11/29/22
|
Re: I think figured out what MAGA really stands for
Jul 11, 2023, 3:08 PM
[ in reply to Re: I think figured out what MAGA really stands for ] |
|
Except that's not what's happening at all, but you know that.
You can't commit a crime and hide behind attorney/client privilege, that's not what it is.
Also, again, democrats don't have some magical ability to drum up false claims. They still have and will go through republican counterparts and have the ability to speak up if something is amis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34114]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33623
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: I think figured out what MAGA really stands for
3
Jul 11, 2023, 3:41 PM
[ in reply to Re: I think figured out what MAGA really stands for ] |
|
It’s horrifying that M.Garland has found a way for prosecutors to upend attorney client privilege as a tactic of coercing attorneys to turn against their clients.
You mean the crime-fraud exception? It's pretty basic, not a magic trick.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24829]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42596
Joined: 7/31/10
|
Again.... Hog Chit.***
1
Jul 11, 2023, 8:52 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13166]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14174
Joined: 11/2/15
|
Make Another Ghey Angry***
3
Jul 11, 2023, 4:18 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7219]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9456
Joined: 12/18/13
|
Have y'all turned against log cabin republicans?***
Jul 11, 2023, 7:34 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5696]
TigerPulse: 92%
Posts: 12173
Joined: 9/28/08
|
Re: I think figured out what MAGA really stands for
Jul 11, 2023, 4:45 PM
|
|
Have to admit, Balm got a laugh out of me 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 17
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
