- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 7/25/18 at 11:50 am to TigahsBrother
His legal analysis was correct.
Posted on 7/25/18 at 11:51 am to ninthward
quote:.
Cohen released it.
The NYT already had it. That's why Trump agreed to the release.
This post was edited on 7/25/18 at 11:52 am
Posted on 7/25/18 at 11:51 am to TJGator1215
quote:
Trump is fooked. Melt
WOW! Do you even realize that you agreed with the OP??
How is he FOOKED? What CRIME was committed?
TJgator1215
You are
Posted on 7/25/18 at 12:02 pm to SirWinston
quote:
They think the fact that Trump hit this dime piece when he was 60 AND MARRIED is some great shame
FIFY
Posted on 7/25/18 at 12:05 pm to TigahsBrother
You cannot infer anything about the recording released by Trump from that order. Was the one released part of the 12 or part of those still under consideration? Where did you get your law degree?
Posted on 7/25/18 at 12:06 pm to udtiger
quote:
Thus, by finding the communication was privileged (necessitating a waiver), the Court has already made a determination that there is nothing illegal being discussed.
The special master hadn't yet made her determination. So your entire argument is bunk.
Sorry. Better luck next time.
Posted on 7/25/18 at 12:09 pm to udtiger
quote:
The fatal flaw in the left
They are stupid little children
next thread.
Posted on 7/25/18 at 12:11 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
You cannot infer anything about the recording released by Trump from that order.
The special master hadn't yet made the determination as to whether or not the tape was privileged. The OP's entire argument rests on the assumption she has.
Posted on 7/25/18 at 12:13 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
It's potentially
You use this way too much here.
You are potentially going to get assaulted by a little old lady this evening.
Posted on 7/25/18 at 12:17 pm to TigahsBrother
The special master has ruled thousands of docs are privileged and thousands aren't. The analysis continues for hundreds of thousands more. The ruling you posted discusses tapes and states there are more. If the OPs facts are wrong it would change the analysis, clearly. If his facts are correct, his analysis is correct.
I would like to know which law you think was broken, since that is the entire point of the OP.
I would like to know which law you think was broken, since that is the entire point of the OP.
Posted on 7/25/18 at 12:26 pm to TigahsBrother
Hello Tuba!
Posted on 7/25/18 at 1:17 pm to udtiger
What I'm wondering as the TV is on in the background and I've now heard the recording and Davis harp on the "cash" thing 50 times is do they think we don't have ears? Trump pretty clearly said not to use cash. Even Cohen's reaction is obviously in response to DON'T, not DO.
Why is that the narrow focus of this thing when it's clear as day to anyone with ears that Davis is straight up lying about it?
Why is that the narrow focus of this thing when it's clear as day to anyone with ears that Davis is straight up lying about it?
Posted on 7/25/18 at 1:46 pm to shinerfan
quote:
The NYT already had it.
Jeez how the frick do you think they got it? Posted on 7/25/18 at 1:59 pm to GRTiger
quote:
Trump pretty clearly said not to use cash.
I mean, I know this is the white house line but this isn't what he said.
Posted on 7/25/18 at 2:05 pm to udtiger
quote:
Because communications regarding future illegal conduct IS NOT PROTECTED BY PRIVILEGE. In fact, there is an express exemption of such communications from the attorney-client privilege rules.
Thus, by finding the communication was privileged (necessitating a waiver), the Court has already made a determination that there is nothing illegal being discussed.
Im no lawyer. Is this accurate?
Posted on 7/25/18 at 2:07 pm to SundayFunday
quote:
Im no lawyer. Is this accurate?
first sentence is accurate.
The 2nd one is sorta accurate.
read thread for details.
Posted on 7/25/18 at 7:55 pm to ninthward
quote:
The NYT already had it.
Jeez how the frick do you think they got it?
Well it's certainly not in Cohen's interest soooo. . ., Leaky Bob Mueller?
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News