Welcome to PILOT SPIN!
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
I am starting to hate Silicon Valley. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Amazon, MSN, Google, Yahoo, and the rest of these Far Left activists. Zuckerberg admitted their bias, and yes they did help Obama, and that was OK to the Media, of course. Morons.
They get rocked in November.
News conference at 0900 CDT today.
Would someone be able to help me set up a go fund me account to bring Lucifer to Wisconsin for a tearful farewell party for Ryan? I think he would like to be here.
And yet Level Wing claims that nobody is trying to undo the election! Mueller and his handlers are almost there.
We don’t know at this point what the prosecutors are looking for but, if it relates to payments made to porn star Stormy Daniels, that would not seem to justify so potentially intrusive a search of the president’s lawyer’s confidential attorney-client files.
Civil libertarians should be concerned whenever the government interferes with the lawyer-client relationship. Clients should be able to rely on confidentiality when they disclose their most intimate secrets in an effort to secure their legal rights. A highly publicized raid on the president’s lawyer will surely shake the confidence of many clients in their lawyers’ promises of confidentiality. They will not necessarily understand the nuances of the confidentiality rules and their exceptions. They will see a lawyer’s office being raided and all his files seized.
I believe we would have been hearing more from civil libertarians— the ACLU, lawyer’s groups and privacy advocates — if the raid had been on Hillary Clinton’s lawyer. Many civil libertarians have remained silent about potential violations of President Trump’s rights because they strongly disapprove of him and his policies. That is a serious mistake, because these violations establish precedents that lie around like loaded guns capable of being aimed at other targets. I have been widely attacked for defending the constitutional rights of a president I voted against. In our hyper-partisan age, everyone is expected to choose sides: either for or against Trump. But the essence of civil liberties is that they must be equally applicable to all. The silence among most civil libertarians regarding the recent raid shows that we are losing that valuable neutrality.
Yes, I'm aware of that. My statement that I would like to see the PC for the raid means that I seriously doubt a judge would have issued the warrant for the payoff, and qualified it by suggesting that the only way through that needle hole was if there is some kind of evidence that the payoff was not made by an account from the lawyer.
It's my opinion and has been for a while that Cohen has committed a gross violation of atty privilege if he did pay her with his own money, and it can NOT be traced back to an approval by the client(Trump). Which leads me to consider that notwithstanding the money came from the atty account, it has been authorized by the principal(Trump). Further, I consider that Cohen has also breached his atty trust by talking about it to anyone. He wanted his name in the papers, and when accused of the payoff, a simple 'no comment' was the best and only course of action, after the first mistake of paying her off was made.
Now we're down the rathole. He paid her off was the first mistake. Second was talking about it. Third was to admit where the money came from(personal acct), and now the prosecution investigator has tons of stuff to work with, so they can get further up the campaigns rectum where the real dirty stuff is located.
This whole stripper deal would have died in a few days if the WH had just ignored it. 'No comment' is all it takes. Even if it's true that he banged her back in 1996. The whole thing is smelling worse all the time. The next leak will be what the FBI finds in the atty documents, and things may get much worse from there. The media is rabid for this salacious stuff.
168 bar members in congress, and 50 in the senate. If they had any scruples, they would be writing legislation right now to fix this. But - since they have no scruples, it won't get done. And I'm not one who calls for 'more laws' all the time. Nor do I want lawyers to have any kind of special extra-judicial exceptions. But - investigations of lawyers for private clients is a road filled with potholes.
I would like to know the probable cause for the judge to issue such a broad warrant. Cohen has publicly stated on several occasions that the money paid to the stripper came from his personal account. He's on record with that. Which means, the judge would need to have credible contravening evidence to issue such a warrant. Alternately, this could be one of those sweet FISA warrant-less deals where the black coat brigade shows up and takes everything without so much as a how-de-do.
Allahpundit is also surely correct when he reasons that this cannot just be about Stormy Daniels, her payoff, and a potential campaign finance violation. Mueller is very likely trying to flip Cohen, who knows a lot about his client's dirty laundry -- perhaps more so than anyone in the world, including the client himself. The Special Counsel probably isn't too interested in porn stars, hush money, and FEC infractions. He is, however, reportedly keenly interested in Cohen's work on behalf of Trump business interests in eastern Europe. The Wall Street Journal article highlighted above mentioned that angle, and this recent story from McClatchy delves deeper into the same subject. Meanwhile, former Bush White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, who's read all of the legal eagles' takes, wonders aloud if the feds had a warrant to monitor Cohen's phone calls, too.
It's really hard for authorities to get permission to seize privileged communications between a lawyer and his a client (effectively treating the lawyer as part of a criminal conspiracy), and doing so requires a complex process of an independent committee vetting those communications for the purposes of the investigation. This situation is very much an exception to standard attorney-client privilege rules, and such exceptions are not granted lightly
Your in laws are just poor losers, and the grapes taste sour to them. If Hillary had won the Electoral College, and thus the Presidency, and Trump the Popular Vote, they would be extolling the virtues of our system that's been in place, and worked for hundreds of years.
They can make up excuses all they want, but what they are advocating is DEMOCRAT MOB RULE due to the urbanization of America. The huge metro areas (cities, and suburbs) across the nation are solidly BLUE now. They control entire states like CA, NY, NJ, MD, IL, MA, CT, RI, PA, etc. It is a disturbing trend, and could mean the end of the two party system in the U.S.
The fact that Trump was elected, and many Governors, and State legislators are Republican shows the resiliency of those voters outside of metro areas. But, I fear it can not be sustained.
The special counsel’s office is investigating a $150,000 donation a Ukrainian businessman made to President Donald Trump’s charity in 2015, according to a new report.
The donation, from steel magnate Victor Pinchuk, pales in comparison to contributions he gave to the charity Bill and Hillary Clinton set up. The billionaire has contributed $13 million to the Clinton Foundation since 2006 and had access to Hillary Clinton while she served as secretary of state.
But Special Counsel Robert Mueller is not investigating The Clintons. Instead, he is conducting a broad investigation of Donald Trump, including the flow of foreign money into various Trump-controlled entities.
http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2011/06/15/revisiting_mueller_and_the_anthrax_case/
I'll just leave this here.
