Hope they win 1000 times what they are suing for.

[5.4MarkVIII]

what's the big deal, Trump hires a lawyer

Lawyer has other clients

end of story???

should be the end of the story but the left needs to take down trump so bad that apparently now any one affiliated with trump and anyone affiliated with someone who is affiliated with trump is fair game.
tyipicaly to get a warrent there has to be very specific list of what they are looking for and what thay will take down to words they plan on useing to search computers. but in this case they took everything and fo some reason no one can explain he was forced to name his other cliants. how is that relivent? so a roofer commits a crime and goes to court is he going to be forced to make public everyone he ever fixed a roof for?

but no its not a witch hunt

[92redragtop]

So you have a lawyer that potentially broke one or more laws (plus violated the rules of the Bar that could cause him to lose his licence to practice law) in certain dealings on behalf of his client(s), acting as a bribery/payoff agents for 2 of 3 clients - apparently his current specialty - may or may not have been in Eastern Europe during a certain notable period of time, and any number of other questionable or shady dealings on behalf of 1 client - no cockroaches in this house. A propaganda TV mouthpiece who railed (almost appearing to take it "personally") on anything to do with any investigation of said lawyer's activities and investigations into such activities, without acknowledging a conflict of interest - got it.


"and fo some reason no one can explain he was forced to name his other cliants" - so multiple judiciaries/legal hurdles were cleared to get warrants to access this material without supporting documentation/evidence, and the court material presented in court does not include such rationale (disclosure: I haven't searched for it) - quite the Putinesque style operation.

[92redragtop]

I was unaware of those details, or alleged details. If only alleged shouldn't his clients remain unnamed until he gets convicted?

I haven't paid that much attention to it except for brief snippets but avoided the internet rabbit hole of looking at public releases of the documentation. Had my own stress dealing with/negotiating with lawyers, bankers, etc., over the past few weeks.

Evidence would be required for prosecution and defence - the courts would have to hear arguments for and against opening the records (plus I believe going after a lawyer's records require a higher level of due diligence and proof - it appears in the US at least) before ruling to allow them opened in court. I think it was only the third client was revealed in court - the other 2 may have been previously known for paying women to stay quiet (Trump and senior RNC guy), and the 3rd alleged "client" was revealed in court. Apparently he only had 3 clients last year?

[5.4MarkVIII]

I was unaware of those details, or alleged details. If only alleged shouldn't his clients remain unnamed until he gets convicted?

All of that is pretty much word for word the CNN talking points. Not one of which has been proven. Aside from stormy danials was traveling around trying to sell her I had sex with trump story and They payed her to sign a non disclosure agreement. (Which is not illegal)


She then broke the agreement and is interviewing around like a victim. Even though she openly admitted that the reason she has sex with trump was becasie she hoped it would earn her a job.
(Both those things are in a way illegal.)

[5.4MarkVIII]

I haven't paid that much attention to it except for brief snippets but avoided the internet rabbit hole of looking at public releases of the documentation. Had my own stress dealing with/negotiating with lawyers, bankers, etc., over the past few weeks.

Evidence would be required for prosecution and defence - the courts would have to hear arguments for and against opening the records (plus I believe going after a lawyer's records require a higher level of due diligence and proof - it appears in the US at least) before ruling to allow them opened in court. I think it was only the third client was revealed in court - the other 2 may have been previously known for paying women to stay quiet (Trump and senior RNC guy), and the 3rd alleged "client" was revealed in court. Apparently he only had 3 clients last year?

That’s kind of the point. The way it’s looking the typical rules for attaining a warrent and the subsequent information wasn’t followed.

The media isn’t focusing on that becasie all they want to do is bring down trump.

And there where more clients but they dont fit the agenda. So they are being ignored.

[92redragtop]

I haven't seen/read the court documents so I don't know how anyone can say rules/process were broken (or not) by the respective Justice Departments, government prosecutors, district court judges, etc. Have you guys seen the court docs?

Either way, we're off topic now as this was about the crazy folks and tin-foil conspiracy theories at Infowars and the victims' families.

[5.4MarkVIII]

I haven't seen/read the court documents so I don't know how anyone can say rules/process were broken (or not) by the respective Justice Departments, government prosecutors, district court judges, etc. Have you guys seen the court docs?

Either way, we're off topic now as this was about the crazy folks and tin-foil conspiracy theories at Infowars and the victims' families.

I’m not a lawyer but lawyers that have been discussing it are saying it would almost be unprecedented for a warrent to allow them to take everything, and not just info directly related to the case
More so since they are using the acquired info for both the stormy danials deal. And the Russian investigation.

We won’t know for sure until all the info comes out but currently it’s not going forward as it normally would.
Especially since what' are they investigating?
They say it’s related to the stormy danials issue
But that was a non disclosure agreement
That’s not illegal.

Then they said the 100k could under very specific circumstances be counted as an in kind contribution which would be a campaign donation violation.

Okay not great. But that happens in every single election.

Obama’s last election the found over 2 million in campaign violations. They said bad Obama’s pay that back. So he payed back 40k of the 2 million.

There was no fbi shinanigins.
There was no court order for Obama’s lawyer or staff to make public all the other peole they worked for
So what’s the difference here?

Only Trump.

But definitely not a witch hunt.

[1quikgt]

Didn’t this thread start off on the topic of Alex Jones and Sandy Hook? Now all I see are posts about Cohen, Clinton, Obama and Trump. All of which has nothing to do with ZR’s original topic.

[RedSN]

Didn’t this thread start off on the topic of....

it might get on track yet

[5.4MarkVIII]

Didn’t this thread start off on the topic of Alex Jones and Sandy Hook? Now all I see are posts about Cohen, Clinton, Obama and Trump. All of which has nothing to do with ZR’s original topic.

That’s usually how conversations work