|
the FBI raided and seized michael cohen's files with a warrant after months of electronic surveillance (supposedly though not confirmed because they believed he was about to destroy evidence), roughly 0.1% of which were privileged, sequestered them from the investigative team, and has spent three months with a special master reviewing all of the privilege designations is this what the shadow of fascism looks like
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 04:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 06:44 |
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:However. While we can all agree that team trump is packed with narcissistic assholes who don’t know when to shut the gently caress up, that does still leave the problem of FBI raiding and seizing privileged materials. It's not a problem. We've gone through this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 04:59
|
|
|
We were talking about first amendment and government restrictions. Keep up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 04:59
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:It's not a problem. We've gone through this. So seizing 4 million files from a lawyer, not even knowing if they a relate to representation of Trump, and letting a “taint team” of prosecutors decide what is and is not privileged is ok by your book?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 05:13
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:letting a “taint team” of prosecutors decide what is and is not privileged is ok by your book? that isn't happening
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 05:15
|
|
|
eke out posted:is this what the shadow of fascism looks like Nah I’m pretty sure it’s gonna be executive branch employees who serve at the pleasure of Jeff freaking Sessions being tasked as judge and jury over who gets thrown out of the country or detained without a right to a speedy trial because a white collar mobster used his lawyer to pay off a porn star he couldn’t even get to be his full time mistress. I guess what I’m trying to say is looking at it that way, administrative law is pretty hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 05:19
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:So seizing 4 million files from a lawyer, not even knowing if they a relate to representation of Trump, and letting a “taint team” of prosecutors decide what is and is not privileged is ok by your book? Never thought I'd see this day.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 05:35
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:What if they actually afford more individual rights in total, but just not the specific, v. special American rights to carry around a gun or call someone the n-word in public? Rights aren't zero-sum. We should strive for as many individual rights as possible. We don't need to triage them, or trade them. Though you could probably fool enough people into believing that they needed to 'sacrifice' the specific rights you want to take away from them today, in order you to give them other, vaguer rights tomorrow. e: Today Discendo is the more correct vox, but Nurnberger Rostbratwurst is the most correct bratwurst. joat mon fucked around with this message at 05:49 on Jul 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 05:40
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Rights aren't zero-sum. We should strive for as many individual rights as possible. We don't need to triage them, or trade them. Rights absolutely have costs. If you give an absolute right to property, or to speech, then society would barely function. The government can't stop me from threatening to murder people constantly? That's bad. The government can't build any roads or run any waterways because I somehow bought a little strip of property the divides two geographic areas? That's bad. Some rights are more valuable than others. The preservation of some rights would be an outright net negative for most individuals. If we pretend that more individual rights is always better, we're living in a fantasy world. Vox Nihili fucked around with this message at 05:58 on Jul 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 05:49
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:So seizing 4 million files from a lawyer, not even knowing if they a relate to representation of Trump, and letting a “taint team” of prosecutors decide what is and is not privileged is ok by your book? Surely there has to be a way to investigate lawyers for crimes. If there isn't then I've been going about everything wrong
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 05:53
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Europhilia is disgusting and it's important to remember to the "old world" doesn't have birthright citizenship and is despicable THE 2018 American Patriot has logged on. He doesn't know much about Europe, but he knows it's Bad.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 05:53
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Surely there has to be a way to investigate lawyers for crimes. If there isn't then I've been going about everything wrong Actually, giving incriminating evidence to a mob lawyer co-conspirator should be an absolute shield, forever, or our vaunted profession will fade into irrelevance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 05:54
|
|
|
The rights stuff is a good discussion but I'm going to bed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 05:56
|
|
|
eke out posted:that isn't happening Actually yes. It is. It was still put forward by the judge as a valid option if the special master takes too long. Vox Nihili posted:Never thought I'd see this day. Blow me. mastershakeman posted:Surely there has to be a way to investigate lawyers for crimes. If there isn't then I've been going about everything wrong There is. Joat suggested a pretty good system. In no universe should that system involve career prosecutors deciding what is admissible. There is no way they can truly be neutral on the question of admissibility, even with the best intentions. And even if they can, a huge part of a fair system is perception. It’s why we have voir dire for juries. I know I could evaluate evidence fairly and enforce the concept of reasonable doubt. But if a jury has a bunch of prosecutors, cops, and crime victims on it, can we really expect a defendant (or his family in the gallery)To believe the trial was fair? Basically, this thread: Yesterday: prosecutors are all jackboot unethical thugs who only care about convictions at any cost. Today: a prosecutor is a fine upstanding officer of the court who can fill the role of a neutral magistrate. (As long as someone I don’t like is the target)
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 07:22
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:Rights absolutely have costs. If you give an absolute right to property, or to speech, then society would barely function. The government can't stop me from threatening to murder people constantly? That's bad. The government can't build any roads or run any waterways because I somehow bought a little strip of property the divides two geographic areas? That's bad. Some rights are more valuable than others. The preservation of some rights would be an outright net negative for most individuals. So basically you want to warp the fighting words doctrine (which already covers a lot of your examples) to include deplorable political speech the way we’ve warped eminent domain to include “we want to gentrify because property taxes benefit us all just like a highway”
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 07:26
|
|
|
I will say, the way an upstanding lawyer like Michael Cohen is being treated really gives me pause on pursuing the profession
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 07:28
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:So basically you want to warp the fighting words doctrine (which already covers a lot of your examples) to include deplorable political speech the way we’ve warped eminent domain to include “we want to gentrify because property taxes benefit us all just like a highway” Nah, the comparison to the "fighting words doctrine" (more accurately the clear and present danger doctrine) is just an example of how limitations on speech can function (basically, carve-outs to the First Amendment that exist for the sake of public safety). It would have to be its own "thing." Realistically though there's no way to make it happen under current SCOTUS doctrine at all without a constitutional amendment, so it's just a policy position. I do appreciate the attempt to analogize to the expansion of eminent domain, while unfair it's definitely better than blarzgh's analogy to the war in Iraq etc., I'll give you that much. Vox Nihili fucked around with this message at 08:21 on Jul 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 08:19
|
|
|
If a federal warrant signed off on by a federal judge, with approval from a top DOJ official, and then the appointment of a special master to review over a million items, with Cohen’s team being allowed to challenge whether something should be designated as ACP is not sufficient, what is the proper/appropriate standard of protection?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 08:56
|
|
|
First off.... so now we trust the impartiality and benevolence of the DoJ? Good to know. Second. The warrant came after lengthy electronic surveillance. What did that entail and who authorized it? And upon what grounds? Also... “you appreciate the attempt”? Aren’t you darling. If you’re going to be a condescending douche at least go all in.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 13:49
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:So seizing 4 million files from a lawyer, not even knowing if they a relate to representation of Trump, and letting a “taint team” of prosecutors decide what is and is not privileged is ok by your book? Sorry how do you know that part, or what they knew/ thought they were looking for
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 14:05
|
|
|
Can you loving believe they stole tom hagens journal. How loving dare they. I'm so goddamn mad online
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 14:07
|
|
|
I for one think it’s awesome that the FBI raided Cohen’s files and terrorist ambulance posted:Can you loving believe they stole tom hagens journal. How loving dare they. I'm so goddamn mad online Lol
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 14:15
|
|
|
Oh no! But in the constitution it says blah blah
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 14:17
|
|
|
terrorist ambulance posted:Sorry how do you know that part, or what they knew/ thought they were looking for NYT reports a number of the documents related to completely different clients. And I imagine what they were looking for would be laid out in the warrant.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 14:29
|
|
|
As someone who lives and is qualified and practices in a jurisdiction that has everything Nazi banned, like Germany (although to a lesser extent: they won't have to, for example, censor a Wolfenstein game like they do in Germany), but which is also so dysfunctional that it's barely even a jurisdiction, especially when it comes to criminal matters, I can assure you that that alone doesn't work
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 14:33
|
|
|
.
Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 04:09 on Jul 13, 2021 |
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 15:02
|
|
|
All I know is that there’s a killer German bar and grille in Columbus with a literal sausage buffet. The Jamaican jerk sausage is killer. They also have cream puffs the size of a large grapefruit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 15:31
|
|
|
Go to law school, beat your mom to death with a bat. Then try to represent yourself. https://abovethelaw.com/2018/07/harvard-law-school-graduate-accused-of-murdering-his-mother-wants-to-represent-himself/
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 15:34
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Actually yes. It is. It was still put forward by the judge as a valid option if the special master takes too long. it didn't happen though, like at all. they're almost done with all the documents, which have all gone through the special master, so prosecutors aren't actually reviewing any of the things they seized eke out fucked around with this message at 15:42 on Jul 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 15:40
|
|
|
Not really. I’m more speaking in the abstract about my concerns re: raiding a lawyer’s offices in general. And to preemptively make Hoshi shut the gently caress up, I said the same thing when Cully Stimson suggested investigating lawyers representing GITMO detainees.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 15:40
|
|
|
eke out posted:it didn't happen though, like at all. it's not happening Judge considered it a valid option. That’s still a problem. Anything short of a ruling saying “no. You can’t do that” isn’t enough imo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 15:41
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Judge considered it a valid option. That’s still a problem. Anything short of a ruling saying “no. You can’t do that” isn’t enough imo. so your problem isn't with what is actually going on with michael cohen's files but a possibility that did not take place, okay
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 15:44
|
|
|
eke out posted:so your problem isn't with what is actually going on with michael cohen's files but a possibility that did not take place, okay No. My problem is with a ruling that explicitly left the door open. This isn’t an abstract hypothetical. This is a judge explicitly saying “I think this option is also legit if plan a takes too long.” Do you seriously not see the difference?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 16:01
|
|
|
Well luckily Trump did nothing wrong. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1020642287725043712?s=20
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 16:10
|
|
|
The fact none of his handlers have taken away his Twitter makes me believe we are all part of the most elaborate episode of Punkd ever.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 16:11
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:The fact none of his handlers have taken away his Twitter makes me believe we are all part of the most elaborate episode of Punkd ever. They admitted yesterday that the details about the tape were leaked by Trump's people at the suggestion of Rudy. The tape had been ruled privileged. I assume I'm part to change the story from the piss tape, and also because Rudy said it was "exculpatory"
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 16:16
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:No. My problem is with a ruling that explicitly left the door open. This isn’t an abstract hypothetical. This is a judge explicitly saying “I think this option is also legit if plan a takes too long.” Do you seriously not see the difference? that door was left open because people in Cohen's position have every incentive in the world to make the process take as long as possible, which happened in previous SDNY cases where they'd appointed a special master. so far, other than preserving objections for the record, they haven't actually challenged a single decision by the special master, and they're moving fast enough that the judge has continued to give them more time as needed, so it feels like that sword hanging over them is working pretty well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 16:22
|
|
|
The “sword” should not be “we’ll let prosecutors view poo poo that might turn out to be privileged if you drag your feet”
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 16:53
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:They admitted yesterday that the details about the tape were leaked by Trump's people at the suggestion of Rudy. The tape had been ruled privileged. It was to change the headlines away from Trump being Putin’s rentboy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 16:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 06:44 |
|
|
If there's a special master what's the reason to ever have a setup for prosecutors from the same agency look at potentially privileged docs? I don't understand why the judge would do that.Look Sir Droids posted:It was to change the headlines away from Trump being Putin’s rentboy. Yeah he's done this forever, he's very good at controlling the media. It's pretty funny because there is a negative 500% chance Trump or his family ever get in legal peril for anything so he can just make all the Cohen, manafort, Papadopoulos, Dutchman with horrible hair, etc stuff pop in the news for no harm to him mastershakeman fucked around with this message at 17:03 on Jul 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 17:01
|
|