Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

The Michael Cohen/Trump SDNY Investigation Thread

No Excuses

By No Excuses
in The Tailgate

Recommended Posts

Fresh8686

Fresh8686

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

At least in my laymen opinion, this sounds like the circumstances around Trump and a subpoena aren't really clear.

 

From the article:

The bolded part could cause issues.  It would most likely end up in front of the Supreme Court.  And considering their current makeup, it is impossible to guess how they would rule.

 

The way I see it, the two quotes below set the bar very high for evocation of executive privilege to avoid subpoena. They show that they see the president as secondary to the integrity of due process and put as first, the submission of all evidence when appropriate to protect the very integrity of the judicial system. In other words, they say that giving the president privilege in such a way that would derail the fair prosecution of a case under the law would erode the fundamental integrity of the judicial system. That in my opinion is strong language against total or unjustified immunity from subpoena and the acquiescence of the 3 prior presidents reinforces that. 

 

 

“The president's generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial and the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal justice," the court said in 1974.”

 

“We have made clear," the court said, "that in a criminal case the powerful interest in the 'fair administration of criminal justice' requires that the evidence be given under appropriate circumstances lest the 'very integrity of the judicial system' be eroded."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RedskinsFan44

RedskinsFan44

Posted
Posted

I think the absurd "I had no idea Cohen paid Daniels" lie was far more tenable than what Giuliani is trying to sell. This new lie has way too many specifics, "He paid Cohen back over a number of months", "He paid Cohen so much for doing nothing Cohen could make these kinds of payments no sweat", "Trump only found out about it ten days ago", "Cohen approached him for repayment a while ago". And from the standpoint of Cohen, he is still liable for making a contract without his clients knowledge. Tangled web.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fresh8686

Fresh8686

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Totally get what you are saying.  But see my comment about the current SC makeup.  And that is who would ultimately decide this.

 

I feel you. At least we’ve seen gorsuch go against trumps wishes once so far and side with liberal judges in a deportation case. That gives me some reason to believe they’ll treat seriously the criteria set by precedent when deciding what to allow as privileged. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Burgold

Burgold

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, Fresh8686 said:

 

The way I see it, the two quotes below set the bar very high for evocation of executive privilege to avoid subpoena. They show that they see the president as secondary to the integrity of due process and put as first, the submission of all evidence when appropriate to protect the very integrity of the judicial system. In other words, they say that giving the president privilege in such a way that would derail the fair prosecution of a case under the law would erode the fundamental integrity of the judicial system. That in my opinion is strong language against total or unjustified immunity from subpoena and the acquiescence of the 3 prior presidents reinforces that. 

 

 

“The president's generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial and the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal justice," the court said in 1974.”

 

“We have made clear," the court said, "that in a criminal case the powerful interest in the 'fair administration of criminal justice' requires that the evidence be given under appropriate circumstances lest the 'very integrity of the judicial system' be eroded."

 

At the beginning, the United States decided they wanted a President and not a King. Trump is going to try to test that. He acts and asserts that he is above all checks. Congress to their discredit is allowing this and serving to empower this belief. They are acting as nervous vassals. Lordlings sworn to serve their liege.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Llevron

Llevron

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Larry said:

Pointing out that the above messages MIGHT mean that Stormy’s lawyer was demanding payment before the election. (Because their leverage goes away, after the election). 

 

True. Though I think she has more leverage now than she ever did. But I still agree with you. No way anyone saw this current situation coming. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AsburySkinsFan

AsburySkinsFan

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, @SkinsGoldPants said:

So, wait, what is Cohen gonna say happened? The WH has already fallen in with Giuliani’s revelation. But, in the interest of full disclosure, I hope Giuliani’s spill was TOTALLY unplanned and a totally botch job that has screwed Trump!

Anything to get us through another Infrastructure Week!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Burgold

Burgold

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

 

Translation: I lied to you then. I will continue to lie to you now.  There is no good spin I can put on this. I do not regret lying to you. I think you are idiots for continuing to asking me questions that you now I will lie to you about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
haithman

haithman

Posted
Posted

So Rudy doesn't have all his facts straight and just started yesterday but based on the facts (that he apparently doesn't know yet) he totally understands that this is all a witch hunt, probably better than anybody. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

 

Like there are actually humans on this planet that believe this guy. What a world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tshile

tshile

Posted
Posted

I need to word this correctly to avoid being accused (falsely) of certain things.

 

I think it's appropriate to be outraged that our executive branch is not just constantly lying to us, but lying to us in the most obvious way. I used to think their thought was that we were too stupid to figure it out, but it's quite obvious it's worse than that - they just don't care that it's so easy to determine that they're lying. They know (unfortunately) we (the rest of the country) will do nothing about it. Not because we can't, but because we won't. We've elected political leaders that have no spine. As a whole, our political leadership does not have the backbone to do what is right.

 

I do find it funny that people are constantly surprised. We are over a year into this, more so if you count the campaign.  The shock and surprise every time another obvious lie is revealed is weird.

It's also obvious that they are, at least in part, sending people out to say contradictory stuff to muddy the waters.

 

This administration won an election by reducing the effect of what damning stories and accusations, things that individually would sink a campaign, by constantly muddying the waters with another scandal and another set of lies.

 

It seems that's their tactic for fighting the various investigations. Create such a **** storm of scandals and lies that no one group of people can successfully navigate through any one part of it to cause any consequences for the administration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...