FBI Raids Office of Trump Lawyer Michael Cohen

[boyst]

9 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Redacted

If this is all your argument can turn to because you are unable to discuss the full matter of something then you need to sshut up. 

 

You do a disservice to Credible arguments that are made by educated people on the matter. 

 

You make the Board unreadable

Edited April 10, 2018 by Boyst62

[Coach Tuesday]

6 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Again, I ask you, is it problematic that the FBI has performed an end run around attorney-client privilege, a necessary hallmark of our entire system of jurisprudence, in order to gain access to information about a person investigating/prosecuting wide spread malfeasance and corruption in that agency?

 

Is this something the intelligence apparatus of a free country should be doing?

 

This answer is why there will be an actual shooting war in this country.

 

You are, quite literally, dismissing people posing legitimate concerns about the intelligence apparatus/legal system of our nation launching end runs around the basic legal protections that the entire notion of a free country rests upon as cry babies.

 

This cannot stand, Gary.  This is not clever.  This is the collapse of our system.  This is where desperation sets in.

 

Oh please.  There has been no "end run around" anything.  You're such a psychotic conspiracy-monger.  Everything the Left does is an attack on fundamental freedoms, and the survival of the State is imperiled.  Please, enough with the John Galt melodrama.  The attorney-client privilege is a strong - but penetrable - doctrine.  The crime/fraud exception is well-recognized.  SDNY judges and magistrates are not "on the take" - this was a judicially-authorized search, not some coup or grand conspiracy.

1 hour ago, LA Grant said:

 

?

Well, I know I can't wait to see it.

 

I suspect it will go down exactly as every prior conversation with you has — you, searching for ways to dismiss the points; me, attempting to get you to engage on the facts and issues at hand; you, scampering away to avoid making any statements of your own.

 

Tom may as well be the mascot for modern American conservative. His tactics are the same: Distract. Attack the messenger. Avoid the issues. Claim the other side is either lying or stupid (depending on which trait serves your argument in the moment).

 

Tom has no ideas of his own, and based on his posting history, appears to only be interested in his own vanity and power. In this case, that vanity & power are related to... a message board. In his mind, he's convinced he's making some really great points. He also thinks he's something of a humorist, or at least that's the form his smugness has taken. "Sniping retards from the balcony."

 

He's PPP's Colonel Kurtz - he lords over the zombie hordes, the one-eyed old king in the land of the blind.

[row_33]

so LA Grant has basically spent 100 hours a week on here?

 

too bad this doesn't pay anything

 

 

[Coach Tuesday]

7 hours ago, Boyst62 said:

Come in. Drop a stupid statement and then don't return.

 

It doesn't do you much justice. You're a smart guy, Coach, different opinions are welcome. But, if you're coming to PPP to engage the old curmudgeons with #feelings and nonsense you won't get far.

 

Trump has done far less, if anything, to degrade this country than Mueller, the IC and all of those behind this coup.  At the end of the day there is one thing that has been tremendously unexpected: Trump still stands.

 

You're right about the drop-ins, I shouldn't do that - but this place is such a cesspool, a Fox & Friends circle-jerk.  You say "different opinions are welcome" but most of you don't want discussion or divergent views.  You folks mistake the echo of your own voices with some kind of broad, national consensus.  People like me avoid this place because it's toxic and, frankly, boring.  Whenever someone pursues a counter-argument with any real vigor, he or she gets called an idiot by  DC Tom, and the rest of you snicker like hyenas because "someone got emotional" - isn't that just hilarious?  Someone getting emotional?  

 

Here is a challenge: see if you (the broad "You") can respond to a discussion about potential crimes committed by Trump and his cronies, without resorting to the words "But Obama," "But Hillary," or "But CNN..."  see how many posts you can run up without that happening - I bet you don't get farther than 2 or 3 in a thread.

 

As for me being a smart guy, that's debatable.  You and I aren't so far off in terms of our actual views about human nature, and I suspect we'd enjoy having a beer (and a shot) together.  Unfortunately PPP - "the taint of TBD" - doesn't bring out the best in people.

Edited April 10, 2018 by Coach Tuesday

[Deranged Rhino]

1 hour ago, LA Grant said:

 

I've quite patiently answered virtually every question thrown my way.

 

Now you've just gone to straight out lying...

 

You've DODGED every question, the ones you haven't dodged (or ignored because your manhood is missing), you reframe in intellectually dishonest way. 

 

You're an asshat who prides himself on asshattery.

 

If you weren't lying, you would have answered the question posed to you in this thread. You claim there's evidence for collusion - I asked you to provide it - and you responded with crickets. 

Why? Because you're a dishonest asshat.

[Coach Tuesday]

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Now you've just gone to straight out lying...

 

You've DODGED every question, the ones you haven't dodged (or ignored because your manhood is missing), you reframe in intellectually dishonest way. 

 

You're an asshat who prides himself on asshattery.

 

If you weren't lying, you would have answered the question posed to you in this thread. You claim there's evidence for collusion - I asked you to provide it - and you responded with crickets. 

Why? Because you're a dishonest asshat.

 

Are we anti-lying now?  Yes or no, is lying bad?

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, Coach Tuesday said:

Are we anti-lying now?  Yes or no, is lying bad?

 

Name one time I've abided lying in an intellectual discussion. 

 

You can't. Because it's cowardly. But that's all LA Asshat has to offer. Cowardly dishonesty passed off as what he thinks is intellectual elitism. 

[DC Tom]

10 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Now you've just gone to straight out lying...

 

You've DODGED every question, the ones you haven't dodged (or ignored because your manhood is missing), you reframe in intellectually dishonest way. 

 

You're an asshat who prides himself on asshattery.

 

If you weren't lying, you would have answered the question posed to you in this thread. You claim there's evidence for collusion - I asked you to provide it - and you responded with crickets. 

Why? Because you're a dishonest asshat.

 

Not just intellectually dishonest, but fallacious.  The entirety of his posts are based on the Appeal to Outrage fallacy.  

 

No ****, I've seen some of his arguments listed in books as examples of fallacies. 

[Warren Zevon]

2 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Not just intellectually dishonest, but fallacious.  The entirety of his posts are based on the Appeal to Outrage fallacy.  

 

No ****, I've seen some of his arguments listed in books as examples of fallacies. 

 

"Itching his balls on the balcony"

[DC Tom]

1 minute ago, garybusey said:

 

"Itching his balls on the balcony"

 

It is hilarious that you are all so upset about my avatar.    Really, that's the best you bring to the table?  You could at least accuse me of being guilty of the "Sniping at retards from the balcony" fallacy.  No less stupid...but at least it would be original.

[Deranged Rhino]

3 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

It is hilarious that you are all so upset about my avatar.    Really, that's the best you bring to the table?  You could at least accuse me of being guilty of the "Sniping at retards from the balcony" fallacy.  No less stupid...but at least it would be original.

 

He's still learning how avatars work, clearly, based on his swings at the plate recently. He thought turning his own into an asshat was somehow a slam against other posters rather than what it really was: an accurate self-description.

 

Kind of like a warning label on cigarettes: reading asshat posts can cause cancer. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(don't worry, pot will cure it... or copious amounts of Tom Petty)

[snafu]

7 hours ago, HappyDays said:

 

The fact that you're asking this question tells me you still don't understand what happened. The FBI raid on Cohen might have nothing to do with Trump. They're investigating Cohen for possible crimes that he committed. Completely separate from anything Mueller is investigating. Unless Trump was committing crimes with Cohen in which case he is also screwed.

 

 

If what's bolded is true, then they can't run in and take all of Cohen's files unless every file contains suspected evidence of crimes. That's overbroad and it isn't Constitutionally protected activity.

 

How about the FBI goes to your lawyer's office because they think that person (not you) is committing a crime, and  they sweep up your file and read your private - potentially offensive - matters because they're casting a wide net?  Your lawyer would have a right to fight that overbroad warrant, and you'd be able to get any evidence thrown out if they came after you because of what they found.

 

If their goal was just to squeeze your lawyer to turn over on some other target, then that's a crappy way of going about business.  If they never use any of the information in Court, but just leak it out to smear rivals, then that's worse.  It makes the President's political opponents look like the fascists.

 

[Deranged Rhino]

Cohen's raid is about Sater. Who is Sater and why does he matter?

(those are the relevant questions people really interested in what's happening should be digging into)

[snafu]

7 hours ago, garybusey said:

 

What would be problematic is Mueller sweeping potential crimes under the rug. 

 

You mean like Mueller's predecessor, Comey, did?

 

[Coach Tuesday]

15 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

If what's bolded is true, then they can't run in and take all of Cohen's files unless every file contains suspected evidence of crimes. That's overbroad and it isn't Constitutionally protected activity.

 

How about the FBI goes to your lawyer's office because they think that person (not you) is committing a crime, and  they sweep up your file and read your private - potentially offensive - matters because they're casting a wide net?  Your lawyer would have a right to fight that overbroad warrant, and you'd be able to get any evidence thrown out if they came after you because of what they found.

 

If their goal was just to squeeze your lawyer to turn over on some other target, then that's a crappy way of going about business.  If they never use any of the information in Court, but just leak it out to smear rivals, then that's worse.  It makes the President's political opponents look like the fascists.

 

 

That might be a decent argument - if it had happened.

[Deranged Rhino]

2 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said:

 

That might be a decent argument - if it had happened.

 

His point is you don't know if it did or didn't. Hence the reason for concern rather than blind approval. The track record of abuse in this matter is clear and unambiguous making blind trust more than naive at this point; it's willful ignorance. 

 

Partisanship is blinding. This is an issue that goes beyond partisanship despite being cloaked in exactly that. 

[LA Grant]

44 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Name one time I've abided lying in an intellectual discussion. 

 

You can't. Because it's cowardly. But that's all LA Asshat has to offer. Cowardly dishonesty passed off as what he thinks is intellectual elitism. 

 

Well you're lying right now, for one thing, since I did respond to your request for "collusion evidence." Twice, in fact. Receipts, b*tch.

 

Of course, like you've also done here, you are somehow able to reconcile ignoring 90% of my post or questions to you, then turn around and accuse me of dishonesty.

 

It is incredible to watch you work.

[snafu]

8 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said:

 

That might be a decent argument - if it had happened.

 

It is a decent argument and it seems to be what happened.  The reports are that they took everything and they're sorting out what's usable and what's not.  How does that sound acceptable to anyone?

 

[LA Grant]

Just now, snafu said:

It is a decent argument and it seems to be what happened.  The reports are that they took everything and they're sorting out what's usable and what's not.  How does that sound acceptable to anyone?

 

It was both acceptable & wise.

 

The warrant allowed for a raid of all of Cohen's relevant materials because they didn't trust him to turn them over or destroy the evidence. Considering Cohen's long history, it's not at all shocking the judge agreed & signed the warrant.

 

The rules were followed. Attorney-client privilege remains sacrosanct. Only the diehard Trumpers are crying foul, as they do with everything they don't like. It's old.

[snafu]

2 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

It was both acceptable & wise.

 

The warrant allowed for a raid of all of Cohen's relevant materials because they didn't trust him to turn them over or destroy the evidence. Considering Cohen's long history, it's not at all shocking the judge agreed & signed the warrant.

 

The rules were followed. Attorney-client privilege remains sacrosanct. Only the diehard Trumpers are crying foul, as they do with everything they don't like. It's old.

 

There are many times when this saying applies:  "just because you can, doesn't mean you should".  In my opinion, this was one of those times.  "All of Cohen's relevant materials" does not equal "all of Cohen's materials".  See the difference?