Jump to content

Horndog

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    960
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Horndog

  1. 2 hours ago, Pig Bellmont said:

    You’re quibbling over the enforcement mechanism. Rule says you can’t. If you do it anyway, typically the opposing party will have to file a motion, and then the court would issue an order striking or disallowing the inconsistent legal position with the one previously relied on by the Court in the other matter

    One point of clarification.  A litigant can  assert inconsistent positions in different cases -- and sometimes within the same case. The preclusion comes into play once a final ruling is made and the position taken by the litigant is essential to that ruling. When that happens the issue has been decided, either for or against that party, and should not be open to re-litigation by that party. But as pointed out, another party has to make the judge aware of the prior ruling. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  2. 47 minutes ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

    Maybe you should take a look at the experience of some of the judges that fuckstick appointed.  

    Your point is absolutely right, some of those judges had never seen the inside of a courthouse. But Cannon herself does not fall into that category.  She was an Assistant U. S. Attorney in the Southern District of Florida for seven years; 2 years in major crimes litigation and five years in the appellate division.  I have no idea about her judicial temperament, but she is not without some qualification.  She should be very familiar with criminal practice and procedure. 

  3. Reluctantly, I am with Twicehorn on most of this.  I, too, would love to see the dotard publicly tarred and feathered, then dropped headfirst into a YUGE bucket of steaming shit, and then washed off with tapwater from Jackson, MS., before being hauled off to a maximum security prison and being assigned to a cell full of violent sex offenders.  But we can't just jettison the entire judicial system because we don't like the asshole.  We all know that he had classified documents and other government records he had no right to possess which, coupled with our blinding hatred of the dotard and our awareness of past crimes, generates the urge to move straight to the punishment phase. But on the whole, law enforcement having the exclusive right to review the documents is somewhat troubling.  However much we side with the government in this situation, the bigger purpose is served by eliminating any possible flaws or defects now, rather than later (see Page, Carter).  

    There is a bit of horse and cart problem.  The DOJ says, hey it's good, we only got documents that he has no right to.  Is a Judge required to take that at face value, without any ability to independently confirm?  We can all be skeptical of the Judge's motivation, but it is also true that several dotard appointees were involved in the election suits and ultimately applied the law correctly.  I am willing to see how this plays out a bit longer.  The tell may well be the name of the person named as Special Master and the authority granted/limitations imposed.  If Cannon truly has an agenda, it should be evident when we hear who has been appointed and what specific functions that person is supposed to perform. 

    The point upthread about the dotard's right to appeal is very true.  If Cannon had rejected the request altogether, he would have appealed and created further delay.  And then if the Circuit Court reversed, it would have been with instructions on how to proceed.  So months from now we might be back at this same point. 

    The judicial process can be painful and frustrating, but if we are truly a country of laws and  not men, then the process has to play out.

    • Hook 'Em 3
    • Like 1
  4. 35 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

    I'm not sure what you're saying.  Attorney client privilege belongs to the client, not the attorney.  Only trump can waive the privilege.  The privilege also only applies to communications regarding legal advice.  Her spouting off on tv about the criminal case would never be subject to attorney client privilege.  Nor would her witnessing crimes her client was committing.  She presumably is providing (bad) legal advice in the NY AG case, and her conversations with trump about that case are privileged unless trump talks about them, which maybe he's stupid enough to do.

    The exact question posed was: "Anything she says publicly is no longer protected by atty client privilege correct?"

    That question was specifically directed at this quote from a dotard lawyer: "Habba: I’m somebody who has been in his office.. I have firsthand knowledge. I have never seen that. That is not the way his office looks.. He has guests frequently there."

    Those statements by Habba concern her own personal observations of the the dotard's office, not any communications between her and the dotard.  They are not privileged and never will be.   I agree that if a lawyer is stupid enough to repeat in public something that a client said to the lawyer during an attorney-client communication (e.g. the dotard told me he hid the documents in a toilet bowl tank), the privilege belongs to the client and is not waived by the lawyer's incompetence.  But that's not what we are talking about. 

    • Hook 'Em 2
  5. 44 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

    There's still attorney client privilege.  She may be disqualified from representing him, however, as she's now almost certainly a witness in the criminal case against him.  There's nothing privileged about who she saw entering his office at mar a lago, where he kept classified documents lying about.  If the FBI hasn't talked to her yet, I'm sure they will be now.

    The question was about her public statements. Those would not be privileged because by definition they are not communications between lawyer and client.

  6. Just glanced through the DOJ Brief, and there were a couple of interesting things I did not know:

    • When the 15 boxes were returned earlier in the year, NARA found classified documents that had been "unfoldered" (i.e. taken out of their folders containing the classified markings) and were intermingled with other records.  It is an accepted rule of nature that documents are inanimate and do not remove themselves from folders  and envelopes.
    • Some of the papers had been "torn up." 
    • The DOJ had  "multiple sources" of information that classified records remained at MAL after the attorney's certification to the contrary. 

    Per Chuck Rosenberg (former federal prosecutor) on MSNBC last night, not only are classified documents maintained in the brightly-colored large-font-labeled folders, but the documents themselves have individual classification markings for each paragraph.  Once they are removed from the marked folders, anyone looking at the documents has immediate knowledge of their classification status.  

  7. 2 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

    I’m going to disagree with you. She submitted a statement to the FBI with the intent of communicating in substance that she/Trump did a search and no documents responsive to the subpoena were left behind. You don’t get to lie to the FBI bc you put some BS “to the best of my knowledge” statement. She knew or should have known the statement was false. This is obstruction

    Quite likely.  But my point is that the DOJ could have pushed back and required a stronger certification based on actual knowledge and without the qualifiers.  Especially since this involved highly sensitive document. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  8. 59 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

      But at best for Bobb, she is disqualified from representing trump because she's now a witness to his lies in the ongoing case.  She may also be charged as a coconspirator if she signed that certification knowing that trump was hiding sensitive national security documents.  

    I'm surprised that DOJ accepted this Certification as an indication of compliance with the Subpoena.  It has all sorts of indicators of unreliability.

    • "I have been designated to serve as Custodian of Records" rather then "I am Custodian of Records".  (Who made the designation?  When?)
    • "Based upon information that has been provided to me . . . "  (What information?  Who provided it?  When?)
    • The information is true "to the best of my knowledge."  (What is the knowledge and how was it acquired?)

    This is hardly a document that can be used as a basis for perjury.  It would not be considered as competent evidence in a civil case. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  9. 2 hours ago, Roofle said:

    Does anyone have pictures of the two new video screens in the south endzone? CDC said they were being installed a few weeks ago.

    I think they moved the center field scoreboard from D-F.

    • Haha 1
    • Rage+1 1
  10. 4 hours ago, TheStoicPaisano said:

    Doctor of Neighborhood

    Walker came around a bit before my time — though I seem to remember a magazine cover doing push-ups with his wife on his back. 

    He claimed he did 1000 situps and push-ups every day, or some such BS.

×
×
  • Create New...