|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 20 2017 00:03 Plansix wrote:
Xdaunt is correct that there isn’t a venue for them to raise the claim at this point. But also this is something that should be raised by the attorney representing the specific person charged, rather than the vaguely assigned campaign counsel. Beyond a naked attempt to discredit the investigation, I don’t see many people legal world saying this has any merit.
No venue to raise a claim? What about this quote from a Washington Post article on it.
"But he said if Trump’s team had a valid legal claim, there is a standard avenue to pursue — they would file a sealed motion to the judge supervising the grand jury and ask the judge to rule the emails were improperly seized and provide a remedy, like requiring Mueller’s team to return the emails or excluding their use in the investigation."
|
On December 20 2017 00:34 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2017 00:03 Plansix wrote:
Xdaunt is correct that there isn’t a venue for them to raise the claim at this point. But also this is something that should be raised by the attorney representing the specific person charged, rather than the vaguely assigned campaign counsel. Beyond a naked attempt to discredit the investigation, I don’t see many people legal world saying this has any merit. No venue to raise a claim? What about this quote from a Washington Post article on it. "But he said if Trump’s team had a valid legal claim, there is a standard avenue to pursue — they would file a sealed motion to the judge supervising the grand jury and ask the judge to rule the emails were improperly seized and provide a remedy, like requiring Mueller’s team to return the emails or excluding their use in the investigation."
I stand corrected. Though the campaign’s attorney couldn’t raise that, since he doesn’t represent any of the defendants in front of the potential grand juries. Or at least that is my understanding.
|
I wouldn't do it in front of the grand jury -- even assuming that I had notice of the grand jury. I'd wait for the charges to be filed and then try to torpedo the main case.
|
On December 20 2017 00:48 xDaunt wrote:
I wouldn't do it in front of the grand jury -- even assuming that I had notice of the grand jury. I'd wait for the charges to be filed and then try to torpedo the main case.
You don't need to be convicted of a crime to be impeached. If some emails which blatantly show corruption/collusion are thrown out on a technicality it won't just end there... the content of those emails WILL be leaked and the outrage will only increase if it looks like they are hiding this.
|
On December 20 2017 00:48 xDaunt wrote:
I wouldn't do it in front of the grand jury -- even assuming that I had notice of the grand jury. I'd wait for the charges to be filed and then try to torpedo the main case.
Which again, is why the defense is bad. If they wanted to sink the case, they would wait until the charges are brought and not flag for them in the middle of the investigation.
On December 20 2017 00:54 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2017 00:48 xDaunt wrote:
I wouldn't do it in front of the grand jury -- even assuming that I had notice of the grand jury. I'd wait for the charges to be filed and then try to torpedo the main case. You don't need to be convicted of a crime to be impeached. If some emails which blatantly show corruption/collusion are thrown out on a technicality it won't just end there... the content of those emails WILL be leaked and the outrage will only increase if it looks like they are hiding this.
That isn’t really a factor in the discussion. We are discussing the merit of the claim based on when the defense decided to raise it. They raised it at a time when the investigator could correct the problems raised by the potential tainted evidence.
|
The trump lawyer who went to the press is a third party to the Mueller investigation. He does not represent trump or anyone else investigation, he was only a transition lawyer. So you’d have to think defense lawyers involved in the investigation would’ve done what they could to protect their clients 4th amendment rights. One thing I know for sure is that the FBI routinely seizes people’s email accounts and does not allow those people’s lawyers to review for privilege. Look up “taint teams.”
|
One of our senior attorneys said that flagging potential defenses for the FBI is a pretty good way to get hit with a malpractice suit. That was just his opinion, but it might be why Trumps attorney didn't bring it up.
|
On December 20 2017 00:48 xDaunt wrote:
I wouldn't do it in front of the grand jury -- even assuming that I had notice of the grand jury. I'd wait for the charges to be filed and then try to torpedo the main case.
if you had a defense to make, right?
they didn’t do this though? hmm.. instead opting to use public opinion instead. do you think there’s nothing to be read between the lines here? or is it common practice to play your hand publicly rather than attacking the evidence in court?
|
On December 20 2017 01:07 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2017 00:48 xDaunt wrote:
I wouldn't do it in front of the grand jury -- even assuming that I had notice of the grand jury. I'd wait for the charges to be filed and then try to torpedo the main case. if you had a defense to make, that is exactly what you would do. they didn’t, though. right? hmm.. instead opting to use public opinion instead. do you think there’s nothing to be read between the lines here? or is it common practice to play your hand publicly rather than attacking the evidence in court?
Of course they didn't do it. They haven't had the opportunity to do it yet.
|
On December 20 2017 01:11 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2017 01:07 brian wrote:On December 20 2017 00:48 xDaunt wrote:
I wouldn't do it in front of the grand jury -- even assuming that I had notice of the grand jury. I'd wait for the charges to be filed and then try to torpedo the main case. if you had a defense to make, that is exactly what you would do. they didn’t, though. right? hmm.. instead opting to use public opinion instead. do you think there’s nothing to be read between the lines here? or is it common practice to play your hand publicly rather than attacking the evidence in court? Of course they didn't do it. They haven't had the opportunity to do it yet.
so it is common practice then to play your hand publicly ahead of time?
i’m no expert, but i think this is a trick question. especially considering you yourself said you wouldn’t. are you saying then the campaign lawyers are less qualified than yourself? this would not be surprising. but your defense of them in this case is, or would be if you were anyone else.
|
The Republican tax bill that the House and Senate are set to pass as soon as Tuesday night would give most Americans a tax cut next year, according to a new analysis. However, it would by far benefit the richest Americans the most. Meanwhile, many lower- and middle-class Americans would have higher taxes a decade from now ... unless a future Congress extends the cuts.
The average household would get a tax cut of $1,610 in 2018, a bump of about 2.2 percent in that average household's income, according to a report released Monday by the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan think tank that has been critical of the tax overhaul plan.
However, extremes make averages, and the benefits would be much larger for richer households. A household earning $1 million or more would get an average cut of $69,660, an income bump of 3.3 percent. Compare that to the average household earning $50,000 to $75,000, which would get a tax cut of $870, or 1.6 percent.
Source
This is a great tax bill. I plan on being in that 1% come this time next year, so I am all for it. Sorry peasants. Eat cake. /s
|
On December 20 2017 01:11 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2017 01:07 brian wrote:On December 20 2017 00:48 xDaunt wrote:
I wouldn't do it in front of the grand jury -- even assuming that I had notice of the grand jury. I'd wait for the charges to be filed and then try to torpedo the main case. if you had a defense to make, that is exactly what you would do. they didn’t, though. right? hmm.. instead opting to use public opinion instead. do you think there’s nothing to be read between the lines here? or is it common practice to play your hand publicly rather than attacking the evidence in court? Of course they didn't do it. They haven't had the opportunity to do it yet.
Right, so instead of springing this on the investigation when they do get the opportunity they spend a letter to congress advising it to change the rules so that this way of gaining information cannot be used in the future. Alerting the investigation that they need to avoid the emails in building their case (if the allegation is correct).
Seems... strange.
Your inability to admit that the allegation is baseless has lead you to the only possible defense, utter incompetence.
|
On December 20 2017 01:12 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2017 01:11 xDaunt wrote:On December 20 2017 01:07 brian wrote:On December 20 2017 00:48 xDaunt wrote:
I wouldn't do it in front of the grand jury -- even assuming that I had notice of the grand jury. I'd wait for the charges to be filed and then try to torpedo the main case. if you had a defense to make, that is exactly what you would do. they didn’t, though. right? hmm.. instead opting to use public opinion instead. do you think there’s nothing to be read between the lines here? or is it common practice to play your hand publicly rather than attacking the evidence in court? Of course they didn't do it. They haven't had the opportunity to do it yet. so it is common practice then to play your hand publicly ahead of time? i’m no expert, but i think this is a trick question. especially considering you yourself said you wouldn’t. are you saying then the campaign lawyers are less qualified than yourself? this would not be surprising. but your defense of them in this case is, or would be if you were anyone else.
I don't know what calculation that Trump's attorneys are making. I don't know all of the facts that they do, so it's not really my place to second guess them. To the extent that they are airing the defense now, I don't think that they are doing anything to compromise it given scope of the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.
|
On December 20 2017 00:58 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2017 00:54 On_Slaught wrote:On December 20 2017 00:48 xDaunt wrote:
I wouldn't do it in front of the grand jury -- even assuming that I had notice of the grand jury. I'd wait for the charges to be filed and then try to torpedo the main case. You don't need to be convicted of a crime to be impeached. If some emails which blatantly show corruption/collusion are thrown out on a technicality it won't just end there... the content of those emails WILL be leaked and the outrage will only increase if it looks like they are hiding this. That isn’t really a factor in the discussion. We are discussing the merit of the claim based on when the defense decided to raise it. They raised it at a time when the investigator could correct the problems raised by the potential tainted evidence.
My point is that it is likely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. If there is no incriminating privileged emails, then there was never going to be a harm anyway so losing them is whatever; they just correct it like you said.
However if there are incriminating emails then it is reasonable to think they will come out, one way or another since an indictment isn't 100% necessary for impeachment.
|
On December 20 2017 01:29 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2017 01:12 brian wrote:On December 20 2017 01:11 xDaunt wrote:On December 20 2017 01:07 brian wrote:On December 20 2017 00:48 xDaunt wrote:
I wouldn't do it in front of the grand jury -- even assuming that I had notice of the grand jury. I'd wait for the charges to be filed and then try to torpedo the main case. if you had a defense to make, that is exactly what you would do. they didn’t, though. right? hmm.. instead opting to use public opinion instead. do you think there’s nothing to be read between the lines here? or is it common practice to play your hand publicly rather than attacking the evidence in court? Of course they didn't do it. They haven't had the opportunity to do it yet. so it is common practice then to play your hand publicly ahead of time? i’m no expert, but i think this is a trick question. especially considering you yourself said you wouldn’t. are you saying then the campaign lawyers are less qualified than yourself? this would not be surprising. but your defense of them in this case is, or would be if you were anyone else. I don't know what calculation that Trump's attorneys are making. I don't know all of the facts that they do, so it's not really my place to second guess them. To the extent that they are airing the defense now, I don't think that they are doing anything to compromise it given scope of the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.
I'm not sure Trump's lawyers have earned the benefit of the doubt.
|
On December 20 2017 01:47 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2017 01:29 xDaunt wrote:On December 20 2017 01:12 brian wrote:On December 20 2017 01:11 xDaunt wrote:On December 20 2017 01:07 brian wrote:On December 20 2017 00:48 xDaunt wrote:
I wouldn't do it in front of the grand jury -- even assuming that I had notice of the grand jury. I'd wait for the charges to be filed and then try to torpedo the main case. if you had a defense to make, that is exactly what you would do. they didn’t, though. right? hmm.. instead opting to use public opinion instead. do you think there’s nothing to be read between the lines here? or is it common practice to play your hand publicly rather than attacking the evidence in court? Of course they didn't do it. They haven't had the opportunity to do it yet. so it is common practice then to play your hand publicly ahead of time? i’m no expert, but i think this is a trick question. especially considering you yourself said you wouldn’t. are you saying then the campaign lawyers are less qualified than yourself? this would not be surprising. but your defense of them in this case is, or would be if you were anyone else. I don't know what calculation that Trump's attorneys are making. I don't know all of the facts that they do, so it's not really my place to second guess them. To the extent that they are airing the defense now, I don't think that they are doing anything to compromise it given scope of the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. I'm not sure Trump's lawyers have earned the benefit of the doubt.
I like how you make this pronouncement as if you have any fucking idea what you are talking about.
User was warned for this post
|
On December 20 2017 01:47 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2017 01:29 xDaunt wrote:On December 20 2017 01:12 brian wrote:On December 20 2017 01:11 xDaunt wrote:On December 20 2017 01:07 brian wrote:On December 20 2017 00:48 xDaunt wrote:
I wouldn't do it in front of the grand jury -- even assuming that I had notice of the grand jury. I'd wait for the charges to be filed and then try to torpedo the main case. if you had a defense to make, that is exactly what you would do. they didn’t, though. right? hmm.. instead opting to use public opinion instead. do you think there’s nothing to be read between the lines here? or is it common practice to play your hand publicly rather than attacking the evidence in court? Of course they didn't do it. They haven't had the opportunity to do it yet. so it is common practice then to play your hand publicly ahead of time? i’m no expert, but i think this is a trick question. especially considering you yourself said you wouldn’t. are you saying then the campaign lawyers are less qualified than yourself? this would not be surprising. but your defense of them in this case is, or would be if you were anyone else. I don't know what calculation that Trump's attorneys are making. I don't know all of the facts that they do, so it's not really my place to second guess them. To the extent that they are airing the defense now, I don't think that they are doing anything to compromise it given scope of the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. I'm not sure Trump's lawyers have earned the benefit of the doubt.
You should, within reason. Attorneys are far more accountable for their actions in cases like that than any defendant. Hence why most of the high powered firms in DC didn’t take Trump as a client.
|
On December 20 2017 01:50 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2017 01:47 On_Slaught wrote:On December 20 2017 01:29 xDaunt wrote:On December 20 2017 01:12 brian wrote:On December 20 2017 01:11 xDaunt wrote:On December 20 2017 01:07 brian wrote:On December 20 2017 00:48 xDaunt wrote:
I wouldn't do it in front of the grand jury -- even assuming that I had notice of the grand jury. I'd wait for the charges to be filed and then try to torpedo the main case. if you had a defense to make, that is exactly what you would do. they didn’t, though. right? hmm.. instead opting to use public opinion instead. do you think there’s nothing to be read between the lines here? or is it common practice to play your hand publicly rather than attacking the evidence in court? Of course they didn't do it. They haven't had the opportunity to do it yet. so it is common practice then to play your hand publicly ahead of time? i’m no expert, but i think this is a trick question. especially considering you yourself said you wouldn’t. are you saying then the campaign lawyers are less qualified than yourself? this would not be surprising. but your defense of them in this case is, or would be if you were anyone else. I don't know what calculation that Trump's attorneys are making. I don't know all of the facts that they do, so it's not really my place to second guess them. To the extent that they are airing the defense now, I don't think that they are doing anything to compromise it given scope of the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. I'm not sure Trump's lawyers have earned the benefit of the doubt. I like how you make this pronouncement as if you have any fucking idea what you are talking about.
‘we had to let Flynn go because he lied to the FBI’
|
On December 20 2017 01:56 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2017 01:50 xDaunt wrote:On December 20 2017 01:47 On_Slaught wrote:On December 20 2017 01:29 xDaunt wrote:On December 20 2017 01:12 brian wrote:On December 20 2017 01:11 xDaunt wrote:On December 20 2017 01:07 brian wrote:On December 20 2017 00:48 xDaunt wrote:
I wouldn't do it in front of the grand jury -- even assuming that I had notice of the grand jury. I'd wait for the charges to be filed and then try to torpedo the main case. if you had a defense to make, that is exactly what you would do. they didn’t, though. right? hmm.. instead opting to use public opinion instead. do you think there’s nothing to be read between the lines here? or is it common practice to play your hand publicly rather than attacking the evidence in court? Of course they didn't do it. They haven't had the opportunity to do it yet. so it is common practice then to play your hand publicly ahead of time? i’m no expert, but i think this is a trick question. especially considering you yourself said you wouldn’t. are you saying then the campaign lawyers are less qualified than yourself? this would not be surprising. but your defense of them in this case is, or would be if you were anyone else. I don't know what calculation that Trump's attorneys are making. I don't know all of the facts that they do, so it's not really my place to second guess them. To the extent that they are airing the defense now, I don't think that they are doing anything to compromise it given scope of the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. I'm not sure Trump's lawyers have earned the benefit of the doubt. I like how you make this pronouncement as if you have any fucking idea what you are talking about. ‘we had to let Flynn go because he lied to the FBI’
Never under estimate the ability for a client to not listen to their attorney.
|
Is there a good calculator for tax bill stuff? Or is it changing so much that nothing is accurate? Every single article I see talks about stuff like 30-70k vs million. What about the stuff in between!?!?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
