Amateur Hour Continues

[evillawyer]

Sometimes those 3 stars surprise ya and beat the 5 stars.

But anyway, isn't this about truth and justice more so than legal procedure?

To continue the analogy, the game's played on the field, but I'd sure as hell take Saban over Butch Jones when it comes to sideline personnel.

 

[hog88]

To continue the analogy, the game's played on the field, but I'd sure as hell take Saban over Butch Jones when it comes to sideline personnel.

Perfect analogy of why lawyers and our legal system suck.

It's not about truth or justice.

 

[evillawyer]

Perfect analogy of why lawyers and our legal system suck.

It's not about truth or justice.

Suppose, for argument's sake, that Manafort is guilty as sin. He's not talking and he doesn't have to talk. A good lawyer will use the devices legally available to him to convince Manafort to talk. If Manafort talks, the truth is more likely to come out.

It's not like the truth just walks into court and discloses itself. You gotta have a good lawyer to explore leads, convince witnesses to talk, connect dots that are otherwise hard to connect, etc.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Suppose, for argument's sake, that Manafort is guilty as sin. He's not talking and he doesn't have to talk. A good lawyer will use the devices legally available to him to convince Manafort to talk. If Manafort talks, the truth is more likely to come out.

It's not like the truth just walks into court and discloses itself. You gotta have a good lawyer to explore leads, convince witnesses to talk, connect dots that are otherwise hard to connect, etc.

I like the Manafort example. I really want to see the courts consideration on the jurisdiction argument.

 

[hog88]

Suppose, for argument's sake, that Manafort is guilty as sin. He's not talking and he doesn't have to talk. A good lawyer will use the devices legally available to him to convince Manafort to talk. If Manafort talks, the truth is more likely to come out.

It's not like the truth just walks into court and discloses itself. You gotta have a good lawyer to explore leads, convince witnesses to talk, connect dots that are otherwise hard to connect, etc.

I don't consider putting the screws to friends, family and associates to get your guy the acts of a good lawyer. A good lawyer shouldn't have to ruin other people's lives to serve justice to the guilty.

I'm also 100% against and can't for the life of me understand how it's constitutional for prosecutors to freeze assets prior to conviction. You basically bankrupt someone then say hey, pay for a defense. It's a slime-ball tactic.

 

[Orangedogsrule]

Who ****ing cares what he said about it? Has any White House doctor ever come out and said anything negative about a President's health?

I can flat guarantee you the press never slammed a White House doctor the way he got hammered after giving the President a clean bill of health.

No, this is more childishness from the left screeching about anything and everything Trump related.

Grow up.

Anything, everything, and made up stuff. I was raised to be a Southern Democrat who participated in his party. But I soon learned, this is what they do and is the reason I left that despicable party. Twist any thing to their party line. If no "thing" exists, make up a lie.
The Democrat leadership is a snake's den of evil backstabbing self serving liars.
Now, the Republican leadership are only somewhat less evil. That's why I'll never be a Republican either. Unless a conservative centrist party emerges I can
wholeheartely support, I stay Independant.

 

[evillawyer]

Wouldn't the response of an innocent person have been something like "Cohen's not "flipping" on me because he has nothing to "flip" on. Everything Michael has done for me has been aboveboard and fully legal."

Trump defends Cohen after NYT report - CNNPolitics

 

[NorthDallas40]

Wouldn't the response of an innocent person have been something like "Cohen's not "flipping" on me because he has nothing to "flip" on. Everything Michael has done for me has been aboveboard and fully legal."

Trump defends Cohen after NYT report - CNNPolitics

Dude... put it in context with what he said.

"Michael is a businessman for his own account/lawyer who I have always liked & respected," Trump continued. "Most people will flip if the Government lets them out of trouble, even if........it means lying or making up stories. Sorry, I don't see Michael doing that despite the horrible Witch Hunt and the dishonest media!"

 

[evillawyer]

Dude... put it in context with what he said.

Why even go there though? He could have just said Michael ain't flipping because there's nothing Michael has done that's illegal. More importantly--why tweet anything at all about this!?!? He's inviting more accusations of obstruction by doing this.

Note a few hours after this tweet he tweeted he was considering another pardon. In other words, "Wink Wink Michael. Stay strong. Donny's got a pardon with your name on it."

 

[NorthDallas40]

Why even go there though? He could have just said Michael ain't flipping because there's nothing Michael has done that's illegal. More importantly--why tweet anything at all about this!?!? He's inviting more accusations of obstruction by doing this.

Note a few hours after this tweet he tweeted he was considering another pardon. In other words, "Wink Wink Michael. Stay strong. Donny's got a pardon with your name on it."

So we’ve all agreed (or a lot of us anyway) that Trump isn’t at his best when speaking/tweeting. And again you guys hang more on his words than we do.

With regard to the pardon mentioned. I know what I would do if I was Trump. I’d let it play out and then 5 minutes after the verdict is handed down if he’s found guilty of anything I’d issue a blanket pardon. And the only rationale I’d give is to tell the witch hunting left to go to hell, go straight to hell, do not pass go, do not collect $200

 

[TennTom]

Why even go there though? He could have just said Michael ain't flipping because there's nothing Michael has done that's illegal. More importantly--why tweet anything at all about this!?!? He's inviting more accusations of obstruction by doing this.

Note a few hours after this tweet he tweeted he was considering another pardon. In other words, "Wink Wink Michael. Stay strong. Donny's got a pardon with your name on it."

Most law scholars believe the Constitution prohibits him from exercising pardons to protect himself. The limits outlined in Article II Section 3, known as the "take-care clause", it says the President “shall take care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This is also contained within his oath. Fiduciary duty, as you know, means you can’t serve your own personal interests over the interests of your client or company or, in the case of the President, your country. This is why he hasn't pardoned Manafort, Flynn, Papadopolous or Gates.
He obviously can challenge this in court, but even if he did, New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has the ability to continue prosecuting Cohen, without worrying about Trump's pardons.

 

[luthervol]

So we’ve all agreed (or a lot of us anyway) that Trump isn’t at his best when speaking/tweeting. And again you guys hang more on his words than we do.

With regard to the pardon mentioned. I know what I would do if I was Trump. I’d let it play out and then 5 minutes after the verdict is handed down if he’s found guilty of anything I’d issue a blanket pardon. And the only rationale I’d give is to tell the witch hunting left to go to hell, go straight to hell, do not pass go, do not collect $200

That would be a fine message to send. He would also be sending the message that it doesn't matter how corrupt Trump and his associates may be, they are above the law and untouchable.

 

[luthervol]

That would be a fine message to send. He would also be sending the message that it doesn't matter how corrupt Trump and his associates may be, they are above the law and untouchable.

Don't overlook the fact that the "witch hunting left" is made up of republicans and supported by a republican congress. Minor detail.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Don't overlook the fact that the "witch hunting left" is made up of republicans and supported by a republican congress. Minor detail.

I could care less who was conducting this bull **** witch hunt since it never should have been conducted on the first place. And hell yes I would pardon every person who gets caught up in this and tell the Dims to pound sand. And I really could care less what your opinion is about it Luth.

 

[luthervol]

I could care less who was conducting this bull **** witch hunt since it never should have been conducted on the first place. And hell yes I would pardon every person who gets caught up in this and tell the Dims to pound sand. And I really could care less what your opinion is about it Luth.

Funny....you say you could care less who is conducting the bull**** and in the very same post once again rail against the Dims.

It's not the crazy Dims and the loony left. It's a republican congress and republican investigators and republican judges appointed by republican presidents.

Feel free to hate everything about the people involved with starting, carrying out, and continuing the investigation. Be as petty, vindictive, and bitter as you wish.....just TRY to direct all of your venom accurately.

.....that would be at everyone (dims and repubs, alike) but the trumpers.

And "couldn't care less" would be more impactful.

 

[Weezer]

They all do but not with equal frequency. That's like saying every MLB player occasionally strikes out. Sure they do; and when it's a player from your team your response is different than when it's a player from the opposing team. But either way, no matter what team, if a player strikes out more than any player in history, eventually he needs to get benched.

Reading through, this analogy represents what is wrong with politics and our country. "Your" team, "my" team... should be one team looking to better America. Even when opinions differ, you should work together to benefit the country. The partisan system we have does not accomplish that because each side is more interested in power than actually serving the country. George Washington warned what a two party system would do to the country, but no one listened.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Thanks for the grammar correction Webster. And you can shove that and the rest of your preachy speech up your butt.

There has been plenty of collusion and obstruction since 2016. You have the collusion of the DNC and Clinton campaign to rig the primary. After that spectacular failure you have the collusion between Barry Hussein’s admin and the Dims to launch the whole Trump/Russia smoke screen. And you have 15 months of obstruction by the Dims to try and stall any progress by Trumps admin. Another colossal failure.

And now, after that wonderful track record, the Dims level of butthurt is so bad we have this laughable federal suit completely on the basis that it was Hillary’s turn to win and we didn’t let her. GTF outta here with that laughable crap.

The Dims are listlessly adrift with no clear message. And they double down on stupid.

Can’t wait till 18 mos 1 day of Trumps presidency to gleefully point out to you he’s still your president.

 

[Weezer]

Most law scholars believe the Constitution prohibits him from exercising pardons to protect himself. The limits outlined in Article II Section 3, known as the "take-care clause", it says the President “shall take care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This is also contained within his oath. Fiduciary duty, as you know, means you can’t serve your own personal interests over the interests of your client or company or, in the case of the President, your country. This is why he hasn't pardoned Manafort, Flynn, Papadopolous or Gates.
He obviously can challenge this in court, but even if he did, New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has the ability to continue prosecuting Cohen, without worrying about Trump's pardons.

So why weren't these same restrictions applied to Clinton when he pardoned those associated with Whitewater?

I know, I know, "muh Clinton". My question isn't about the politics, it's about the law. Were Clinton's pardons not self serving? Yet they were allowed?

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

Thanks for the grammar correction Webster. And you can shove that and the rest of your preachy speech up your butt.

There has been plenty of collusion and obstruction since 2016. You have the collusion of the DNC and Clinton campaign to rig the primary. After that spectacular failure you have the collusion between Barry Hussein’s admin and the Dims to launch the whole Trump/Russia smoke screen. And you have 15 months of obstruction by the Dims to try and stall any progress by Trumps admin. Another colossal failure.

And now, after that wonderful track record, the Dims level of butthurt is so bad we have this laughable federal suit completely on the basis that it was Hillary’s turn to win and we didn’t let her. GTF outta here with that laughable crap.

The Dims are listlessly adrift with no clear message. And they double down on stupid.

Can’t wait till 18 mos 1 day of Trumps presidency to gleefully point out to you he’s still your president.

Tell us how you really feel about the situation.

 

[Weezer]

Wouldn't the response of an innocent person have been something like "Cohen's not "flipping" on me because he has nothing to "flip" on. Everything Michael has done for me has been aboveboard and fully legal."

Trump defends Cohen after NYT report - CNNPolitics

Trump is a horrible speaker. Haven't you pointed that out several times? So why do you think he would suddenly get better at it?

 

[NorthDallas40]

tell us how you really feel about the situation.

😬

 

[Weezer]

I get tired of feeling like I'm posting to defend Trump when that isn't really the case. What gets me is how Trump is vilified for things that were supposedly a non-issue when someone of the opposite party did the same, or at least something pretty damn similar. Where's the consistency? Either it's okay, and we're wasting time with this ****, or it's wrong, and the standard should apply to everyone.

 

[NorthDallas40]

I get tired of feeling like I'm posting to defend Trump when that isn't really the case. What gets me is how Trump is vilified for things that were supposedly a non-issue when someone of the opposite party did the same, or at least something pretty damn similar. Where's the consistency? Either it's okay, and we're wasting time with this ****, or it's wrong, and the standard should apply to everyone.

I consider myself libertarian and used to claim to be a moderate. I lean right on most all fiscal policy and several social policy while leaning left on other social policy. I’d like to think you need multiple points of view to get sound debate and solid legislation.

After the last 15 months screw it. The left is not interested in compromise and there is no amount of Preparation H that can cure their hurt.

So game on. Screw them and keep putting the screws to them I say.

 

[Weezer]

I consider myself libertarian and used to claim to be a moderate. I lean right on most all fiscal policy and several social policy while leaning left on other social policy. I’d like to think you need multiple points of view to get sound debate and solid legislation.

After the last 15 months screw it. The left is not interested in compromise and there is no amount of Preparation H that can cure their hurt.

So game on. Screw them and keep putting the screws to them I say.

There needs to be a middle ground where the needs of the country are met. I'm not out to screw the liberals. I just want consistency of expectation. If behavior is wrong, it's wrong, no matter who engages in it. Party affiliation should not matter.

 

[Orangedogsrule]

Both parties have bad actors. The Democrats have many more than Republicans or Independants.