Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Same s**t different day wrote:

Whataboutism and more made-up Hillary conspiracies that have been disproved millions of times. You must be incredibly stupid to keep falling for that crap.

No, Hillary was a crook who stole millions. You are a blind bias sheep that is upset she lost. Ha, ha, ha! California is where she got her popular votes. She got crushed otherwise. Sad little gender bias sissy still upset. Enjoy the next few years, as I will.

LOL ... Republicans do not want Trump in 2020.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/19/politics/congress-republicans-trump-second-term/index.html

Shot Down wrote:

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

Gary,

You are reasoning by believing in an obvious charlatan and then attempting to allow him to be above the law.

And then you are convinced the opinions you mirror have some basis in fact.

And then the charlatan is such an idiot the rational world easily concludes he is heavily influenced by the Russian State.

He knows how to communicate to the unwashed masses like an alligator knows how to hunt. He's got that working for him. Nothing else though.

Gary also has failed to take into account that Gorsuch was the deciding vote in the SCOTUS shooting down Trump's immigration ban. So,

NO wall

NO Obamacare repeal

NO Immigration ban

. . .

So much winning.

Anything Trump does Trumps the evil corrupt witch H. Clinton. She would have been worse than her rotten husband.

Found another Jim Jones Kool Aid drinking MFer.

Not Shot Down wrote:

Anything Trump does Trumps the evil corrupt witch H. Clinton. She would have been worse than her rotten husband.

DiscoGary wrote:

Let me get this right. You guys have talked yourselves into blaming Hannity for the violation of long standing practices of keeping the names of third parties secret in a grand jury hearing?

All legal standards are falling in this scorched earth effort to get rid of Trump.

You didn't get this right. You got it completely wrong.

This had nothing to do with a grand jury hearing. Where in the world did you get that idea? This was an ordinary public hearing concerning the handling of evidence. So your bull about grand juries doesn't apply.

I merely pointed out that Hannity made a strategic mistake. He trusted an attorney to look out for his interests while that attorney was not representing him. If Hannity wanted his own interests protected he should have hired his own lawyer. So yes, to the extent he could have gotten a better outcome with his own attorney, Hannity is to blame.

All legal standards and procedures have been followed to the letter. You have utterly failed to point to anything the government has done wrong.

Any of you conservatives who are so terrified of government tyranny got anything to say about this?

https://articles.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2018/04/upstate_ny_farmer_says_ice_officers_stormed_his_farm_without_a_warrant_cuffed_hi.amp?__twitter_impression=true

No Money wrote:

Count Chocula wrote:

If Hannity is not a client (according to Hannity), then why would Cohen's lawyer name him as a client? That is the one part that I do not understand.

Because Cohen did something for Hannity and no money was exchanged. Trump did not pay Cohen to handle the porn star escapade. The same applies to Hannity. But it appears that this investigation into Cohen has to do with where Cohen got money to "fix" Trump's problem, and whatever he did for Hannity. No contracts were signed. No retainers were paid. No fees were charged. Those are all legal alarm bells. How does Cohen explain the money part of his job of "fixing" things?

Right, I guess I'm just confused about what defines someone as a 'client'. If Hannity did not pay Cohen, then there is no attorney-client privilege to be violated. And the same would go for Trump, at least when it comes to the Daniels payment (since he had no knowledge of it, apparently).

Count Chocula wrote:

Right, I guess I'm just confused about what defines someone as a 'client'. If Hannity did not pay Cohen, then there is no attorney-client privilege to be violated. And the same would go for Trump, at least when it comes to the Daniels payment (since he had no knowledge of it, apparently).

Criminal activities cannot be hidden by playing a game where, no contracts are signed, no attorney fees are paid, but money is spend to fix a problem. That may be where the Cohen investigation is going. I think the government has connected most of the dots and the raid was to get some documentation to support the case. If I am correct expect the Cohen case to get a lot more interesting.

Just a continuation of the last 17+ months:

09/30/16 GOP Blocks Probes Into Trump-Russia Ties

12/11/16 Obama and Congress Knew About Russian Hacking—And They Did Nothing (context: "McConnell was nakedly partisan in his decision to stifle the intelligence", "[Obama] wanted bipartisan support—and when McConnell rebuffed this effort ... the White House decided to take the cautious route to “name and shame” the Russians").

12/12/16, McConnell rejects special panel for Russia election allegations

02/14/17 Speaker Paul Ryan declines to support independent Russian investigation after Flynn's resignation

02/27/17 GOP intelligence chairman Devin Nunes: “There’s no evidence of anything” regarding Russia-Trump campaign contacts

03/01/17 House Democrats Lose Another Bid To Investigate Trump, But Don't Plan To Quit

03/21/17 Day 1 of "Devin Nunes colluded with the White House to obstruct the Russia probe" (Timeline here)

03/29/17 House Republicans cancel all hearings on Russian investigation, blame Democrats

05/09/17 F.B.I. Director James Comey Is Fired by Trump

05/10/17 James Comey Fired: McConnell Rejects Calls for Prosecutor

05/10/17 Paul Ryan rejects calls for special prosecutor in Russia investigation

05/17/17 GOP blocks House vote on independent Russia-Trump investigation

05/31/17 Nunes ‘acted separately’ from House Russia probe by unilaterally issuing subpoenas on ‘unmasking’

June, 2017 01/25/18 Trump moved to fire Mueller in June, bringing White House counsel to the brink of leaving

08/28/17 Republican floats measure to kill Mueller probe after 6 months

10/10/17 Nunes Subpoenaed Firm Behind Trump Dossier Without Telling Democrats

11/03/17 Republicans seek special counsel's removal from Russia probe

11/04/17 McConnell: No need to pass bills to protect Mueller

~December, Nunes leading multiple House Intelligence Committee Republicans in a secret investigation into Mueller without telling the Democrats in committee

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/devin-nunes-targeting-mueller-and-the-fbi-alarms-democrats-and-some-republicans-with-his-tactics/2017/12/30/b8181ebc-eb02-11e7-9f92-10a2203f6c8d_story.html

//todo: January Nunes memo shenanigans

//todo: Trump blocks Democrat's memo Trump allows Democrat's memo but only after redacting portions of it

01/25/18 Trump moved to fire Mueller in June, bringing White House counsel to the brink of leaving

01/30/18 McConnell: Mueller ‘seems to need no protection’

//todo GOP side of HIC concludes investigation, blames Obama for lack of action, says Russia did not help Trump and if anything they actually helped Hillary, says "unmasking" needs to be investigated, not Russia

03/20/18 Republicans dismiss legislation to protect special counsel

//todo "House committee subpoenas Justice Department for Clinton, Carter Page and McCabe records", House Republicans Lay the Groundwork for Trump to Fire Rosenstein

04/10/18 Trump poised for clash with justice department amid fears he'll fire Mueller - After raid on office of Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, White House says president ‘believes he has the power’ to fire special counsel

04/10/18 McConnell sees no need to protect Mueller

04/10/18 Trump Sought to Fire Mueller in December

04/17/18 Several House Republicans endorse bill to protect Mueller

04/17/18 McConnell won’t allow vote to bill to protect Mueller

Count Chocula wrote:

No Money wrote:

Because Cohen did something for Hannity and no money was exchanged. Trump did not pay Cohen to handle the porn star escapade. The same applies to Hannity. But it appears that this investigation into Cohen has to do with where Cohen got money to "fix" Trump's problem, and whatever he did for Hannity. No contracts were signed. No retainers were paid. No fees were charged. Those are all legal alarm bells. How does Cohen explain the money part of his job of "fixing" things?

Right, I guess I'm just confused about what defines someone as a 'client'. If Hannity did not pay Cohen, then there is no attorney-client privilege to be violated. And the same would go for Trump, at least when it comes to the Daniels payment (since he had no knowledge of it, apparently).

You don't have to pay to be a client of an attorney. There is no requirement that money exchanges hands.

As I understand it, if Cohen is helping with a legal matter, and is not engaged in a crime, then attorney-client privilege applies. The "helping with a legal matter" is important here. If he is just acting as a business partner or something like that then you can't invoke the privilege. When it comes to Trump, it appears that most of what Cohen was doing just involved work as a businessman and not a lawyer.

Where is that money wrote:

Count Chocula wrote:

Right, I guess I'm just confused about what defines someone as a 'client'. If Hannity did not pay Cohen, then there is no attorney-client privilege to be violated. And the same would go for Trump, at least when it comes to the Daniels payment (since he had no knowledge of it, apparently).

Criminal activities cannot be hidden by playing a game where, no contracts are signed, no attorney fees are paid, but money is spend to fix a problem. That may be where the Cohen investigation is going. I think the government has connected most of the dots and the raid was to get some documentation to support the case. If I am correct expect the Cohen case to get a lot more interesting.

I agree. You can't deliberately avoid becoming an official client and then try to claim privileges that only apply to official clients.

Apropos of Cohen clients, why hasn't this receive more coverage?

https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2018/03/trump-donor-ukraine-criminal-probe-180307124432781.html?__twitter_impression=true

Count Chocula wrote:

Where is that money wrote:

Criminal activities cannot be hidden by playing a game where, no contracts are signed, no attorney fees are paid, but money is spend to fix a problem. That may be where the Cohen investigation is going. I think the government has connected most of the dots and the raid was to get some documentation to support the case. If I am correct expect the Cohen case to get a lot more interesting.

I agree. You can't deliberately avoid becoming an official client and then try to claim privileges that only apply to official clients.

It is also very interesting that two legal cases were dropped this week. One is Cohen's defamation suits against BuzzFeed and the research firm Fusion GPS over the preparation and publication of the Trump-Russia dossier. The other being Karen McDougal winning the rights to her story about Trump back from the National Enquirer.

Count Chocula wrote:

Where is that money wrote:

Criminal activities cannot be hidden by playing a game where, no contracts are signed, no attorney fees are paid, but money is spend to fix a problem. That may be where the Cohen investigation is going. I think the government has connected most of the dots and the raid was to get some documentation to support the case. If I am correct expect the Cohen case to get a lot more interesting.

I agree. You can't deliberately avoid becoming an official client and then try to claim privileges that only apply to official clients.

Ding ding ding. Consideration is not a requirement for a professional/client relationship. You can work for "free" and it still means you worked for that person/company. It's even worse here, Cohen lost attorney-client privilege because Trump, Hannity and Cohen said they didn't do business (but they did of course) and now he has to still account for the money. How many home-equity loans can one take to help friends conceal expensive affairs without their knowledge?

If I use an attorney for a RE closing and I don't pay him a retainer first, I'm not protected by attorney-client privilege? That doesn't sound right.

Monkeys typing wrote:

Apropos of Cohen clients, why hasn't this receive more coverage?

https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2018/03/trump-donor-ukraine-criminal-probe-180307124432781.html

For those that don't know, this is Client #2 for Cohen.

If I understand the story correctly, Cohen, out of the infinite fountain of goodness gushing from his heart, arranges a payout to Broidy's baby momma. (not his wife, his side piece) Broidy was a yuuuge rain maker for the RNC in the 2016 election cycle.

I wonder how Broidy and Hannity end up associated with Cohen. Let's hope it is made public!

Askerer of questions wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

You don't have to pay to be a client of an attorney. There is no requirement that money exchanges hands.

As I understand it, if Cohen is helping with a legal matter, and is not engaged in a crime, then attorney-client privilege applies. The "helping with a legal matter" is important here. If he is just acting as a business partner or something like that then you can't invoke the privilege. When it comes to Trump, it appears that most of what Cohen was doing just involved work as a businessman and not a lawyer.

If I use an attorney for a RE closing and I don't pay him a retainer first, I'm not protected by attorney-client privilege? That doesn't sound right.

I think that is the issue here. If you use an attorney for some sort of legal transaction (like real estate), then you are a client. How much you pay (if at all) is irrelevant. But Hannity is claiming that he is not a client of Cohen. For this to be true, Cohen cannot have performed any legal transactions for Hannity. And if that is true, then none of their interactions should be protected by attorney-client privilege.

wake up please wrote:

Just a continuation of the last 17+ months:

More Nunes shenanigans for your list. He basically lies to his committee members and goes straight to Trump, breaking the basic principals of the American system. This is how fascism prospers.

And then a biased, but basically accurate assessment of the Nunes manufactured controversy.

Askerer of questions wrote:

If I use an attorney for a RE closing and I don't pay him a retainer first, I'm not protected by attorney-client privilege? That doesn't sound right.

You may not be protected by attorney-client privilege if both you and your lawyer claim there wasn't a real professional relationship. You can't have it both ways. Hannity's response is very vague... he wants to admit he's met and consulted with Cohen but doesn't want to admit they actually did business. Cohen is using the "he didn't pay me" argument to prove that there was no consideration and thus no actual professional work.