Jump to content


Member Since 17 June 2013 - 10:05 AM
Offline Last Active Apr 19 2018 10:48 AM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: The Trump Phenomenon

18 April 2018 - 01:05 PM

View PostLFC, on 18 April 2018 - 11:06 AM, said:

FMI generally what "pool" would a special master be drawn from?

As I understand it if the judge doesn't like any of them then the court can just pick someone they think is qualified.

In Topic: The Trump Phenomenon

18 April 2018 - 09:03 AM

View PostLFC, on 17 April 2018 - 02:00 PM, said:

Yeah, I guess I'm just not gettin' it. I reread what I posted and see that there's a maybe nod towards Team Trump but generally it would be perfectly normal for the DOJ, though not any attorneys involved in the case, to handle this.

Like I said the use of DOJ attorneys for the review sounds like it's completely normal. I don't get your comparison of that to a defendant's independent representation and really don't understand bringing up the government's right to access items not covered by attorney-client privilege, something I haven't heard anybody deny, not even Team Trump. It kind of feels like we're having two different conversations.
Advocating for a special master seems like a reasonable thing for Cohen's lawyers to do, I'm no lawyer but I would think that when the President's own correspondence might be in the hands of these government lawyers having a 3rd party sift through it first might be good plan regardless of the partisan leaning of the president or the lawyers involved. Seems like maybe a fairly small price to pay to maybe close an appeal loophole that might be opened up otherwise?
Not to mention how crappy it would be to be an innocent 3rd party in all this that happens to have some dealing with Cohen for some reason that then ends up being the leading story on InfoWars because what's-his-face there has invented some link between you and George Soros and then he proceeds to ruin your life for the next decade.. (although how you could have innocent dealing with Cohen is, I guess, an exercise left to the reader but a concept the court would still have to consider.)

In Topic: Renamed: The 2018 Mid-Term Elections

17 April 2018 - 11:03 AM

View Postgmat, on 17 April 2018 - 10:51 AM, said:

No one in the electorate finds it convincing. Everyone thinks it’s stupid. If I had to bet, I would bet he was drunk.

The conversation is, how well, or not, did the Cockburn for Congress organization, and Ms Cockburn inparticular, handle this offensive distraction by a family member; and how does that bode for the upcoming cage match with Garrett.
I can't speak for the United States with any authority but I can assure you that up here in the Great White North I have had actual conversations with people where I had to explain in great detail why in principle attacking someone for being a lawyer for a bad person is an indefensible act. On one occasion I can say with absolute certainty I failed to persuade the other party and that the people listening to me make the argument seemed likewise unimpressed with my logic. (Be reminded that I live in place populated almost exclusively with partisan Conservatives.)
This brings me great sadness when I think of it.

In Topic: Renamed: The 2018 Mid-Term Elections

17 April 2018 - 10:44 AM

View Postgmat, on 17 April 2018 - 09:35 AM, said:

Then Cockburn’s husband, Andrew the Irish Journalist, takes umbrage and tweets, “Leslie was defending the environment while other (sic) were defending rapist ...” meaning Sneathern, a defense attorney.
Attacking defense attorneys for being defense attorneys is the stupidest non-partisan thing in politics, that anyone in the electorate finds it convincing is the stupidest non-partisan thing in society.

In Topic: Russia Investigations

15 April 2018 - 10:53 AM

View Postbaw1064, on 15 April 2018 - 12:55 AM, said:

He's not going to resign, it's just not in his makeup to do so...
I have to disagree with this point, Trump never quits in the same way he "never settles a lawsuit" if being President gets too hard he might very well quit, and within a week he will be claiming that, "Actually I didn't quit the presidency.." in some speech to some crowd for a fundraiser for some event that is actually just designed to line his pockets. I think Trump's character is infinitely malleable because his capacity for rationalization is infinite. When you can make a justification for any action after the fact and actually believe what you are saying about it you end up having no "makeup" to speak of, your character is completely unmoored from reality.