Jump to content

Ghost of LL

Burnt Ends
  • Posts

    5820
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by Ghost of LL

  1. Just now, Kyrie Eleison said:

    "Hey Mike, I fucked a slut last week.  Lol."

    I would say that's not privileged, because it is not for the purpose of the rendering of legal advice.  

    But that's where we get into some grey area.  If there is an implied "what are the legal ramifications of that," then it probably is privileged.  And that necessarily requires a determination of the relationship between Cohen and Trump.  If Trump only ever talks to Cohen about legal matters, then the legal question is probably implied and it is probably privileged.  But if they have the type of relationship in which they routinely talk about the sluts they fuck without any consideration of any ancillary legal questions, then I would say it's not privileged.

    And that's what the taint team does--consider those questions.  And in considering those questions, they know that a federal judge is one day going to check their work.  And if they reach the wrong conclusion, they've fucked the entire prosecution.  So they're going to be super-conservative in their decisionmaking.

  2. Just now, jimmyjazz said:

    Can we get a clear explanation of what type of evidence might be damning yet inadmissible?  Could it be something as simple as "yeah, I robbed the bank but I'm going to plead not guilty"?

    With respect to the privilege, I think you've got it right.  If, for example, Cohen emails his secretary saying "can you please grab Title 18 of the United States Code and bring it to my office?  I need to know the elements of fraud against the United States after my discussion with Mr. Trump," that would be pretty damning, but would be completely inadmissible.  Or if, for example, after reading through Title 18, Cohen writes a memorandum to the file outlining the elements, concluding that Trump probably committed wire fraud, but identifying some possible defenses (e.g., insanity), that would be really really damning, but also completely inadmissible.

    • Like 1
  3. 18 minutes ago, Jhawk said:

    I appreciate the response.

    So where we sit is that the DA or taint team or whatever is going to hit control "F" on the inbox and files of Cohen and search "Russia" and anything they find in there that might incriminate anyone will be released.  If that is the case then there doesn't even need to be courts anymore.  Just get the tapes of the convos between client and attorney and either burn the witches or let them go.  No need for dog and pony shows.

    I really don't understand how this can happen in our system.  IF YOU ASSUME that Mueller is trying to nab trump, isn't this the equivilent of Mueller saying "I couldn't find anything on you so let's just look at your communication with your attorney and see if you have talked at all about my investigation or evidence I might have missed or even maybe a recorded conversation where you say "yeah we had the help with russia, but Mueller will never find out how."  Under the assumption that mueller's job is to chop off the head of the dragon then it's hard to see how this is anything but "get trump at all costs" move.

    That's not how any of this works.

    In order to get a warrant, you need to demonstrate to a judge that you have probable cause to believe that the search will reveal admissible evidence of a crime.  That requires an evidentiary showing sufficient to convince a judge that there is probable cause that a crime has been committed.

    The burden to get a warrant to search an attorney's files is much higher.  You need to have some specific indication that the attorney's files will contain non-privileged documents that evidence a crime.  Mere probable cause isn't going to cut it.

    Once the search is carried out, the investigators cannot see any privileged material--hence the need for taint team to be kept completely separate from the investigatory team.  If the investigatory team does see any privileged material, than not only that material but any other evidence that comes out of the investigation following up on the leads provided by that privileged material will be inadmissible.  And the question of admissibility is determined by a judge (and reviewed by a court of appeals).

    So no--federal investigators can't just go on a fishing expedition through privileged materials.  That's wrong on three levels.  First, they can't go on a fishing expedition; they have to get pre-approval from a judge who is going to prevent fishing expeditions.  Second, they can't review privileged material.  Third, if they do review privileged material, a judge will exclude not only the privileged material, but anything that results from their review, which would jeopardize the entire prosecution.

    So your concern of a Mueller run amok is really, really unfounded.

    • Like 1
  4. 19 minutes ago, Jhawk said:

    Can someone clear up the "taint team" for me?

    As far as we know, what is privileged and what isn't?  The reason I ask this is that this investigation seems to have no bounds (like manafart going down for unrelated business deals that were illegal).  If that is the case then what does the taint team really have to worry about?  If the scope is "stormy daniels" then I guess they would only search for evidence for that particular investigation.  But if the investigation is basically "anything the trump team/business/foundation/campaign did wrong" then why not just tell trump that he can't have a lawyer anymore?

    I expect that this is why the attorneys of the board (even the ones that are anti-trump) have a bit of an issue with this tactic, but can someone further explain to me how this is supposed to be above board and not just a free search of everything Trump and his attorney have talked about?

    I don't really understand what you're talking about here, but for a primer on the "taint team" theory, please refer back to my post on the last page.

  5. 6 minutes ago, Radical Larry said:

    Is this a sequel to your "My shoulder really hurts" thread on Shaggy? 

    Not really, since I didn't get injured.

    Damn--it's been a long time since I had any real good drunken shenanigans.  

  6. 1 minute ago, chainsaw said:

    Maybe the state should not have hitched its wagon to a single boom-or-bust industry.

    But in fairness, what is Oklahoma going to hitch its wagon to?  It's landlocked, and so it has no access to the economic benefits that a port brings.  It was never going to be a great banking or finance hub after Dallas was chosen to be the site for the regional Fed in 1913.  It doesn't have any natural beauty akin to Colorado or California that can be used to attract talented young people.  And yet, if you just dig down a few thousand feet, there's incredible wealth.

    What was their other choice?

  7. 13 hours ago, XR4ticlone said:

    I guess that's why we DON'T have a democracy.  ;)

    We have a Republic.  

     

     

    I'm 46 and went to public school in a very German part of Northern Iowa.   We had slightly higher than normal taxes there and an excellent school system.   My dad was on school board for 12 years during that time.  Of the 24 of us in my class 22 have 4 year college degrees or greater.  But at that point in time schools were basically controlled by the local community. 

    Even then, Iowa gave parents the right to open enroll to another school system if that was their choice. 

     

    No one wants to address the real problems with schools.  We have a very outdated, top down, inefficient methods of teaching.  We're not spending enough time on critical thinking, reading, writing, math, and science.  And yes, we've turned the schools into big social experiments.  

    I have zero faith that Gov can fix schools.  Common Core from all I've read and seen is really being driven by the book companies and testing companies.  So this 'XR wants to turn over education to greedy corporations!' is pretty fucking laughable.  That whole thing pisses me off more than you can imagine.  But once again we see that Big Gov doesn't limit Corp greed or corruption...it ENABLES it!  

    Look...I've got a choice for my kids.  You're not fucking me.  You are however fucking the poorest among us who can't pay for private schools, can't afford to move to a better district, and can't afford the time or money (loss) to home school.   

    Yes.  I want to turn it over to the parents.  Let them pick a school that meets their expectations, fits their child's needs, and has to earn their continued business.  

    Regardless of your party affiliation...there are endless assholes, crooks, and liars that will fuck up everything they touch....including education.  

    Unless you have choices. 

     

     

    A key problem, however, being the vouchers don't cover the full cost of a private education.  As a result, there are very few private schools in non-affluent areas.  And those that are in poor areas are often little more than thinly-veiled scams.  For example, see Deion Sanders' charter school.  

    There's a reason that vouchers have led to lower academic achievement everywhere they've been tried.

    Perhaps more importantly in a place like Texas, there simply aren't any private schools of sufficient size in rural areas.  Private schools are a creature of urban areas.  In Rural Texas, community and academic life is built around the public school system.  It's the largest employer; it's the center of the community's civic life; and it's a source of civic pride.

    The real question I have is: why do you hate Texas high school football?

    • Like 1
  8. 4 minutes ago, Dutchrudder said:

    So if the Dems somehow take back the House in November, when all the shit hits the fan, we could end up with President Pelosi, right?

    Not if you share my view that the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 is unconstitutional.

    If that's the case, you'd have President Mnuchin.

  9. 2 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

    I do, and am not anywhere near the 1%, and I can assure you that in my very recent experience Trump support remains surprisingly (to me) high.

    I'm just going by my club, which was probably 75% Republican when I joined in 2015.  It's now 50% vocal anti-Republican (I can't even call it Democratic), 45% nod and put your head down, and 5% Trumpy.

    Even if you assume that the 45% is still Republican, that's a big change.

  10. I generally agree that there are plenty of good places to eat in Trastevere.  But let's be a little bit honest--Trastevere is a bit out of the way.  Its across the river and up the hill from most of the stuff you're going to be visiting as a tourist.

    The problem is that there aren't just a whole lot of great restaurants in the tourist area that I've been able to find.

    One exception is Trattoria dei Foro Imperiali just two blocks from the Roman Forum.  The place is absolutely incredible.  It has a limited menu, but don't mind that--there's a list of daily specials that is usually at least as long as the menu.  And you want to order from the specials, because it's based on what has shown up in the market that morning.  It was one of the two best meals we had in Italy (the other being a bisteca alla fiortina at a little osteria in Montepulciano).  Reservations are compulsory.

    I would also say that one of the restaurants lining the piazza in front of the Pantheon is worth it.  The food isn't the best in town, and they're generally overpriced for what you get.  But if you get a table on the exterior, the dinner show is amazing.  The Piazza is alive with everything from street performers to tourists to folks just out walking around.  And all of that comes in front of the backdrop of the greatest surviving piece of ancient architecture.  It all just makes for a magical evening.

  11. 9 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

    I would have to guess, because Mueller let the USA-SDNY handle this, that it is getting pretty far afield from the trumpcampaigncollusion mandate.

     

    It may simply be criminal behavior by Trump, Trumpco and Cohen that precedes the election and campaign.

    That is one explanation.

    The other is that the New York team is the "taint team."  Any time the FBI obtains documents that may be attorney-client privileged, they set up a taint team to review those documents.  The taint team is completely separate from the main investigatory team, and they review the documents for privilege.  Only the documents that the taint team determines not to be privileged are forwarded to the investigatory team for its review.  

    That way, the investigatory team never sees anything that is privileged, and doesn't pursue any leads they obtain from privileged documents.  Keeping a separate team ensures that the investigatory team is completely free of the taint of having seen privileged material.

    Mueller could be so light on resources that he doesn't have enough manpower to form a taint team from inside the OSC.  And anyway--why do so when you can have it completely separated and outside the OSC?

    8 hours ago, cactusflinthead said:

    I wish it weren't so Anastasis. Look around man. Who else is standing with you? Those are your allies. 

    And here's the thing that I think is so interesting when it comes to college-educated whites in the next election.  Look around at who your allies are.  The whole permission structure for being a Republican in a certain socio-economic strata is being revoked.  You look around highly-educated workplaces and neighborhoods around this country, and it's just not socially acceptable to be pro-Trump.

    Look--whatever you do in the privacy of the voting booth is your business.  But I'm telling you that the country club discussions that were very pro-Republican just five years ago are very anti-Republican today.

    • Like 3
    • Fuck You 1
  12.  

    6 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

    U ppl old lol

    Yuck it up--the dude who broke his leg is 23.

    And even though the league rule is that you have to wear shin guards, he wasn't wearing anything.  He just had on white ankle-high socks.  So when that bone burst out the side of his leg, we all got to see it.

    I don't know that the shin guards would have helped.  Hell--it might have made it worse.  

  13. So a few months ago, I started playing indoor soccer.  I figured I need some extra exercise.  I hate jogging for no purpose, but if I'm running after a ball, somehow it's fun.  And anyway, I played soccer when I was 7 and watch Premier League every weekend--obviously, I'm going to have no problem.

    This is obviously a recipe for injury.  I really don't know what I was thinking.  On my team, we've had one pulled hamstring, one pulled quad, a pulled groin, a busted knee, and more than a few hangovers.

    But we're all pretty much healthy for yesterday, when we've got two games.  Fortunately, they're not in a row--there's another game between our first game and our second.

    First game goes well.  I score a goal.  I'm unreasonably happy for a guy who just scored a powerfully unathletic goal in a rec league adult soccer game.  But so it goes.

    Next game gets ready, and one of the teams doesn't have enough players.  So I and another of my teammates volunteer to play for them--that way we'll have a full team plus a substitute.  So we'll be playing three games in a row.  But hey, no problem, right?  After all, I'm a goal-scorer!

    I never got off the bench.

    About seven minutes into the game, there's a 50/50 ball to our (i.e., my adopted team's) keeper, who slides to get it.  The other team's forward goes hard for it, and collides with the keeper.  The keeper goes right over his foot as the foot and ankle twist.  The guy goes down in a heap and starts screaming.  Like really screaming.  I look down at his leg at about the same time everyone else looks at the leg, and we all see the same thing--a compound fracture of the tibia and fibula.  The leg below the break is twisted at a 90* angle and broken at a 45* angle to the rest of the leg.  And there's blood, but actually not as much as you would think given the size of the laceration.

    I've played a lot of sports as a kid and as an adult, but that's the first time I've ever seen that in person.  That was just horrifying to watch.

  14. I have to tell you--I'm powerfully uncomfortable with raiding lawyers' offices.  I recognize that in a lot of circumstances, the lawyer isn't acting as a lawyer, and so the materials aren't privileged.  But an investigator needs to be real circumspect about that kind of thing.

    • Like 4
  15. XR4's comments really are the bottom line--there is a large constituency in Oklahoma and elsewhere that is heavily invested in destroying the public school system in order to benefit the parochial school system.  The Oklahoma teachers already got most of their demands vis-a-vis salary, but that's only part of what they're asking for.  The education system in Oklahoma is so underfunded that 20% of schools have only four days of class per week.  Buildings are in poor repair, and textbooks are old and out of date.  In-class computers are almost unheard-of in Oklahoma. 

    And then conservatives throw up their hands and say "our education system sucks," as though they have no fault in its suckitude.

  16. Could easily be a false flag attack.
    Some people really want the US to pump more money into Syria. 

    Has it seriously not occurred to you that Russia could have lied about a coming false-flag operation because they knew Assad was going to use real chemical weapons in the near future?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  17. I know you say you don't want a minivan, but the Chrysler Pacifica Limited Hybrid is great.  That fucking thing has a USB port for every seat in the thing, and it gets 80 MPG on the highway.

    Look--I resisted the minivan.  But the sliding doors are such a game-changer.  You can just pull up somewhere, hit a button, and the kids climb in.  Hit the button again, and off you go.  You don't have to worry how close you are to another car and whether your kids will hit it with their door; there's none of that heartburn.  Just hit the button and the damned sliding doors open right up. 

  18. 7 minutes ago, 6th Street said:

    What's Hannity so outraged about? Mild joke about Melania's accent? 

    No shit--I mean, it's not like he called her a "gold-digging whore whose eyes betray the death of her soul after fucking a corpulent orange blob as the price of admission for her family to get into the United States."

    Oh, my mistake--that's not really a joke, is it?

    • Like 5
  19. And I think you're going to see a serious change in that before 2020.  There is an article in the Washington Post today about the Koch brothers' increasing alarm at the direction of the GOP, and their increasing willingness to talk to Democrats.  They are radical free-traders, and I think you're going to see more and more money put into candidates who are willing forcefully to espouse that view.

  20. 10 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    The Nigerians I've met are better educated and have a stronger work ethic.

    Well, of course.  I there are a lot of characteristics about the citizenry that are different.  But there is a big similarity between the states themselves: they are failed states owing almost entirely to the corrupting influence of the O&G industry.

×
×
  • Create New...