U.S. Politics 2018

[FJAG]

For $1.00 Cohen can be one of his lawyers and everything that comes with the relationship, can he not? Always wondered if there was any truth to that.

IMHO there is actually no need for a retainer although a retainer, even $1.00, can be taken as evidence that the two parties intended that there be a relationship of lawyer/client. The hallmark, in my mind, is that the twp parties intended that there be a legal relationship so that one individual is seeking legal advice and the other is giving it with the intent on both parties that the advice shall be kept confidential. It is a common law concept and not a constitutional one. As such legislation can expand or abridge its scope. Attorney-client privilege is different in the various states than solicitor-client privilege in Canada. For a general statement of the law, see here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney%E2%80%93client_privilege

The big exception is disclosure where the communication was for the purpose of furthering a crime or fraud which is what the prosecution is saying is the issue in the Cohen case. In addition there is the fact that the privilege does not apply where the attorney is acting as a business advisor or some other non-legal role. Lawyers frequently act in that manner with business entities. It strikes me with Cohen, who claims he used $130,000 of his own money to pay off Stormy without advising Trump what he was doing, who has only three clients (one of which is another 1.6 million hush payment arrangement) and advising Hannity without compensation, that his business model is very far removed from the usual lawyer-client relationship. Just because you're qualified as a lawyer and may be called to the bar doesn't mean that what you are doing is providing legal advice. Sometimes you're just the go-to fixer.

:cheers:

 

[Pencil Tech]

IMHO there is actually no need for a retainer although a retainer, even $1.00, can be taken as evidence that the two parties intended that there be a relationship of lawyer/client. The hallmark, in my mind, is that the twp parties intended that there be a legal relationship so that one individual is seeking legal advice and the other is giving it with the intent on both parties that the advice shall be kept confidential. It is a common law concept and not a constitutional one. As such legislation can expand or abridge its scope. Attorney-client privilege is different in the various states than solicitor-client privilege in Canada. For a general statement of the law, see here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney%E2%80%93client_privilege

The big exception is disclosure where the communication was for the purpose of furthering a crime or fraud which is what the prosecution is saying is the issue in the Cohen case. In addition there is the fact that the privilege does not apply where the attorney is acting as a business advisor or some other non-legal role. Lawyers frequently act in that manner with business entities. It strikes me with Cohen, who claims he used $130,000 of his own money to pay off Stormy without advising Trump what he was doing, who has only three clients (one of which is another 1.6 million hush payment arrangement) and advising Hannity without compensation, that his business model is very far removed from the usual lawyer-client relationship. Just because you're qualified as a lawyer and may be called to the bar doesn't mean that what you are doing is providing legal advice. Sometimes you're just the go-to fixer.

:cheers:

The Consigliere.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

IMHO there is actually no need for a retainer although a retainer, even $1.00, can be taken as evidence that the two parties intended that there be a relationship of lawyer/client. The hallmark, in my mind, is that the twp parties intended that there be a legal relationship so that one individual is seeking legal advice and the other is giving it with the intent on both parties that the advice shall be kept confidential. It is a common law concept and not a constitutional one. As such legislation can expand or abridge its scope. Attorney-client privilege is different in the various states than solicitor-client privilege in Canada. For a general statement of the law, see here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney%E2%80%93client_privilege

The big exception is disclosure where the communication was for the purpose of furthering a crime or fraud which is what the prosecution is saying is the issue in the Cohen case. In addition there is the fact that the privilege does not apply where the attorney is acting as a business advisor or some other non-legal role. Lawyers frequently act in that manner with business entities. It strikes me with Cohen, who claims he used $130,000 of his own money to pay off Stormy without advising Trump what he was doing, who has only three clients (one of which is another 1.6 million hush payment arrangement) and advising Hannity without compensation, that his business model is very far removed from the usual lawyer-client relationship. Just because you're qualified as a lawyer and may be called to the bar doesn't mean that what you are doing is providing legal advice. Sometimes you're just the go-to fixer.

:cheers:

I've attached a copy of the US District Attorney's Office reply to Cohen's attempt to obtain a temporary restraining order against the evidence gathered. If you go down to page four of the document you will find this staement;  "[a]nd seek evidence of crimes, many of which have nothing to do with his work as an attorney, but rather relate to Cohen’s own business dealings.  As set forth below, unlike a search of a traditional law office, the information gathered thus far in the investigation suggests that the overwhelming majority of evidence seized during the searches will not be privileged material, but rather will relate to Cohen’s business dealings."

Also, at the bottom of page four and later in page five we have these two statements; "The FBI agents who seized materials pursuant to the search warrants were filter agents who are not part of the investigative team and have been walled off from those AUSAs [Assisstant US Attorneys] or FBI personnel assigned to the investigation (the “Investigative Team”)" and,

" The Filter Team is composed of AUSAs who have had, and will have, no involvement in the investigation.  The Filter Team is prohibited from disclosing, directly or indirectly, the substance of any material under its review to the Investigative Team, unless and until the Filter Team has determined that the material is not privileged."

The rest of the document goes on to give reasons why Cohen's restraining otder should be denied. Interesting reading.




.

 

[FJAG]

I've attached a copy of the US District Attorney's Office reply to Cohen's attempt to obtain a temporary restraining order against the evidence gathered.

Thanks for that link. A well written brief that states the law clearly and concisely.

:cheers:

 

[Altair]

Democratic Party sues Russia, Trump campaign and Wikileaks, claiming conspiracy to help Trump win 2016 election.

 

[Altair]

Wait,  there's more

McCabe to sue Trump admin for defamation and wrongful termination

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/384152-mccabe-to-sue-trump-admin-for-defamation-wrongful-termination%3Famp&ved=0ahUKEwii4dKHq8naAhWG3YMKHfXaClIQqUMIIDAA&usg=AOvVaw2Dnym518CQIr1YwRkW_ThE&ampcf=1

 

[tomahawk6]

Which is more corrupt US or Canadian politics ? I am thinking that it would be the former.

 

[Remius]

Which is more corrupt US or Canadian politics ? I am thinking that it would be the former.

I think a certain level of corruption in the US is more tolerated in the US than it is here.  And expected to certain degree.  Stuff they might be allowed to do there would be unthinkable here.

But...I think Canadian politicians can be just as corrupt.  Just at a different level.  We think 10 000$ is a big deal whereas no one blinks an eye in the Us over something like that.

 

[Lumber]

I think a certain level of corruption in the US is more tolerated in the US than it is here.  And expected to certain degree.  Stuff they might be allowed to do there would be unthinkable here.

But...I think Canadian politicians can be just as corrupt.  Just at a different level.  We think 10 000$ is a big deal whereas no one blinks an eye in the Us over something like that.

The Provincial Government in Nova Scotia (NDP) fell more or less simply because the Premier bought a $2k laptop for one of his kids and charged it to the province.

 

[a_majoor]

Long article at link, which asks the question that probably gnaws the never Trumpers and Democrats daily: What if the President is doing a great job? Obviously, the jury will be out for decades (maybe longer, "The Forgotten Man" is a pretty damning critique of FDR, and was written in 2008).

https://www.weeklystandard.com/irwin-m-stelzer/even-if-donald-trump-is-making-america-great-again-what-comes-next

After Trump
IRWIN M. STELZE

Never say Never. That’s what some of the Never Trumpers are saying, and even more are thinking. Both in private. They are afflicted with a nagging suspicion. Trump might, how shall they whisper it, Make America Great Again.

The tax bill has given the economy a bit of a tailwind, most Americans have more money in their pockets, and corporations have greater incentives to step up spending and to bring some funds home. The NAFTA trade agreement with Mexico and Canada likely will be revised to America’s advantage. The president’s decision to punish Assad for crossing the red line that Obama refused to enforce is popular and his decision to defer to his military advisers and keep the response targeted so as not to induce a response from Russia has met with broad approval. His threats against North Korea—my nukes are bigger than your nukes—appalled the fastidious members of the establishment diplomatic community, but have led Kim Jung-un to say he will shut down a nuclear test site, suspend all missile tests and negotiate a peace treaty with South Koreas.

Then there is China. Trump has done what previous administrations failed to do: forced China to make some concessions, opening at least a crack in the wall it has erected against imports. Majority-owned American financial firms will gain entry into several sectors, and tariffs on made-in-America automobiles will come down, while the United States tightens restrictions on intellectual property theft by the Chinese regime, in part by limiting China’s ability to buy tech-heavy U.S. firms. Even dyed-in-the-cotton-apparel free-traders are now conceding that the president’s negotiating tactic—threaten to bring down the international system, unless it gets fixed—is working. And should have been tried administrations ago.

These successes, many that could turn out to be less substantial than they now appear, don’t mean that those offended by the Trump tweets, by his vulgarity, by his economy with the truth long after it has been made clear to him that his preferred narrative is plain wrong, will vote for him. Or that conservatives are reconciled to his assault on government institutions, the checks and balances built into the system, and the civil tone that a successful democracy must maintain if it is to survive. They do, however, mean that re-election in 2020 is now more likely than it has been in several months, especially since the Democratic wannabes are forming a circular firing squad in preparation for a series of primary fights for their party’s nomination.

More at link

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Long article at link, which asks the question that probably gnaws the never Trumpers and Democrats daily: What if the President is doing a great job? Obviously, the jury will be out for decades (maybe longer, "The Forgotten Man" is a pretty damning critique of FDR, and was written in 2008).

https://www.weeklystandard.com/irwin-m-stelzer/even-if-donald-trump-is-making-america-great-again-what-comes-next

More at link

I guess we should hold off on judging Obama then.....

 

[Altair]

I guess we should hold off on judging Obama then.....

Obviously that's different.

 

[mariomike]

https://www.weeklystandard.com/irwin-m-stelzer/even-if-donald-trump-is-making-america-great-again-what-comes-next

QUOTE

"Trumpites with nativist attitudes and little regard for the moral code that has guided most past presidents"

END QUOTE

Does the base care?

“He's not perfect, but ...”

“He tweets / says things, but ...”

“What about when Hillary ...?

”What about how Obama ...?

“What about ...?”

 

[beirnini]

I guess we should hold off on judging Obama then.....

Or how about Hillary? That'd be a good start...

 

[Brad Sallows]

"Trumpites with nativist attitudes and little regard for the moral code that has guided most past presidents"

Which makes them different in what way from the people who defended Bill Clinton?

 

[beirnini]

"Trumpites with nativist attitudes and little regard for the moral code that has guided most past presidents"

Which makes them different in what way from the people who defended Bill Clinton?

For one Clinton was a neoliberal globalist in favour of international trade and trade agreements, so it's unlikely many of his supporters were very much into protecting the interests of native-born or established inhabitants against those of immigrants.

For another, if you think there is an equivalence between defending Bill Clinton's consensual adult relations with a subordinate and Trump's "grab 'em by the pussy" then clearly Op Honour is failing miserably in its' mission.

 

[Brad Sallows]

There is no equivalence between Trump's remarks about women, and the long chain of rapes and lesser sexual assaults alleged against Clinton.  You should read more extensively about the doings of the Clintons before you elect to defend either of them.

 

[beirnini]

There is no equivalence between Trump's remarks about women, and the long chain of rapes and lesser sexual assaults alleged against Clinton.  You should read more extensively about the doings of the Clintons before you elect to defend either of them.

If allegations of sexual misconduct is the bar then Trump is at least as guilty on that front. The difference still remains you won't see a Clinton defender brush off misogyny as "locker room talk". Throw in Trump's bigotry, racism, mockery of disabilities, denigration of veterans and veteran families, incitement to violence, and countless other moral code transgressions and you are absolutely right: There is absolutely no equivalence between defenders of Clinton and Trump. Defending Clinton might be difficult, defending Trump should be impossible.

 

[mariomike]

If allegations of sexual misconduct is the bar then Trump is at least as guilty on that front. The difference still remains you won't see a Clinton defender brush off misogyny as "locker room talk". Throw in Trump's bigotry, racism, mockery of disabilities, denigration of veterans and veteran families, incitement to violence, and countless other moral code transgressions and you are absolutely right: There is absolutely no equivalence between defenders of Clinton and Trump. Defending Clinton might be difficult, defending Trump should be impossible.

Bill Clinton has been out of office for over 17 years.

But, it seems we feel the need to continue discussing him in US Politics 2018.

Perhaps we need a Bill and Hillary Clinton and President Obama thread?

Clinton restrained his resentment of the FBI while Trump's spirals out of control.

But Clinton never fired his FBI Director, as Trump did.

Clinton never publicly called for his FBI Director to be jailed either, as Trump has done with Director Comey.

Trump spews hyperbole and nonsense. He promises to build a wall and he promises that Mexico will pay for it. He instructed his first White House press secretary, Sean Spicer, to insist his inauguration had the largest crowds in history.

If Trump has nothing to hide, he will let Special counsel Robert Mueller continue his investigation.

 

[Jarnhamar]

We need a OMGF drumt Trump!!!! 111  anic:    thread.