man these efftards are obtuse
the republic needs bill barr 10ft up brennan’s ass
the republic needs bill barr 10ft up brennan’s ass
next to speak col jessup
- Thread starter Rdcldad
- Start date
Sounds like you're reminiscing about the Kenyan in Chief...
I agree. Why was he so disappointing?
you think anything could have been done before mueller shut down his op?
you think this ukrainian whistleblower charade is anything but a last desperate gasp?
joe biden is on video running the quid pro playbook
you’ve been reduced to snarky potshots dave
real lick the flagpole firepower
So now we like testimony that affirms the facts and expresses opinions?
I'm having trouble keeping up.
Is it too much to ask for more evidencery facts and fewer opinions? Because it feels to me the Dems have rolled out witness after witness providing the latter, yet the only actual evidence rolled out (the transcript of the Ukraine phone call) has lacked significant substance.
I am with you. Time to start seeing more facts. Sucks we have to wait until after the recess, but a couple of weeks from now I expect something more to be presented than the transcript summary and the opening statements of the witnesses.
If I had to bet, you will start to see Rudy come into focus.
There's no way Rudy gets roped in without trashing all precedents on attorney-client privilege.
I don't think he has to testify for him to become the nexus of discussion and presentation of evidence about a Ukrainian quid pro quo and associated topics. Could be he testifies in some limited way but I doubt it.
To the extent Giuliani himself becomes a target of a criminal investigation (not the Congressional inquiry mind you) - attorney client privilege is pretty much worthless. Though that likely is one of those long drawn out ordeals - probably not resolved in any meaningful way until 2021.
To gather evidence against Cohen who was the subject of an ongoing criminal investigation?
If I was Rudy I would start shredding now...
No trashing of precedents needed.
Notable exception to attorney-client privilege is co-conspiring statements are not privileged, nor are statements leading to illegal conduct by an attorney or on behalf of his client.
I will also say this....there is a reason high offices have counsel separate and distinct from personal counsel to the office holder. Presidents, CEOs, law enforcement agency directors/chiefs can all act in official capacities and as individuals on their own behalf. It’s not a unitary situation legally. In official capacity they often have some privileges and immunities that they don’t have in their individual capacity.
I have always thought it really strange that Rudy, Trumps Private Counsel, was involved in any way with this Ukraine deal in the sense of being authorized to meet with Ukrainian officials about these investigations. IMO, that is indicative of private, personal conduct and advantage rather than official capacity work on behalf of the Office of the President.
For the record, I am still an investigate them all....make the results of the investigation fully public at the end...let the chips fall where they may guy. The statements above are not an indication that I have prejudged anything at this point.
I have always thought it really strange that Rudy, Trumps Private Counsel, was involved in any way with this Ukraine deal in the sense of being authorized to meet with Ukrainian officials about these investigations. IMO, that is indicative of private, personal conduct and advantage rather than official capacity work on behalf of the Office of the President.
For the record, I am still an investigate them all....make the results of the investigation fully public at the end...let the chips fall where they may guy. The statements above are not an indication that I have prejudged anything at this point.
This is what I am talking about in regards to Rudy becoming the Nexus of the case. He can't be both personal attorney and official envoy.
