United We Stand - uwsboard.com

that attorney-client privilege is under attack among the low infos. This is a sneakily good narrative he’s pulling off.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

_________________
I love UWS!

Low info folks like Alan Dershowitz and Mark Geragos?

_________________
“At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child — miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats.”

― P.J. O'Rourke

Hot take

Precisely


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

_________________
I love UWS!

Ooooooooooooook

_________________
You losers lost, take off the vagina suit.

so renowned lawyers are wrong? And you are right?

stop drinking uncle festers kool aid, you are just getting dumber

Dershowitz was accepted to Marshall, but Yale was closer to home.

_________________
“At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child — miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats.”

― P.J. O'Rourke

Pretty simple. Attorney-Client privilege goes out the window if the attorney is engaging in a criminal act as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

_________________
I love UWS!

Hot take

Maybe it would just be easier if you provided us a link to the YouTube video you watched.

_________________
“At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child — miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats.”

― P.J. O'Rourke

?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

_________________
I love UWS!

Oh no. It's retarded.

_________________
“At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child — miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats.”

― P.J. O'Rourke

Takes get hotter

_________________
You losers lost, take off the vagina suit.

_________________
You losers lost, take off the vagina suit.

Yes or no question: do you believe Attorney-Client privilege exists when the attorney either assists their client in breaking the law or breaks the law themselves while conducting activities on the client’s behalf?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

_________________
I love UWS!

How are you even making the assessment that a crime took place? You're an idiot in general and here specifically have no idea what you're saying. You're already calling something a crime without bothering to comprehend that it's UnAmerican to raid an office to discover a crime. It works the other way, compelling evidence arrives first and then action takes place. And even then, they should have subpoenaed documents in question instead of raiding the office. Smart people can understand this.

_________________
You losers lost, take off the vagina suit.

How are you even making the assessment that a crime took place? You're an idiot in general and here specifically have no idea what you're saying. You're already calling something a crime without bothering to comprehend that it's UnAmerican to raid an office to discover a crime. It works the other way, compelling evidence arrives first and then action takes place. And even then, they should have subpoenaed documents in question instead of raiding the office. Smart people can understand this.[/quote]

I didn’t say a crime definitively took place. The FBI thinks a crime may have taken place, so that’s why they got a warrant to conduct the raid. Attorney-Client privilege goes out the window at that point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

_________________
I love UWS!

How are you even making the assessment that a crime took place? You're an idiot in general and here specifically have no idea what you're saying. You're already calling something a crime without bothering to comprehend that it's UnAmerican to raid an office to discover a crime. It works the other way, compelling evidence arrives first and then action takes place. And even then, they should have subpoenaed documents in question instead of raiding the office. Smart people can understand this.[/quote]

I didn’t say a crime definitively took place. The FBI thinks a crime may have taken place, so that’s why they got a warrant to conduct the raid. Attorney-Client privilege goes out the window at that point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]

Nope, you're stupid AF. A raid is only for extreme cases, like they think the docs will be destroyed immediately. This is another witch hunt.

_________________
You losers lost, take off the vagina suit.

Precisely


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]

so renowned lawyers are wrong? And you are right?

stop drinking uncle festers kool aid, you are just getting dumber[/quote]

Pretty simple. Attorney-Client privilege goes out the window if the attorney is engaging in a criminal act as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]Takes get hotter

[/quote]

Yes or no question: do you believe Attorney-Client privilege exists when the attorney either assists their client in breaking the law or breaks the law themselves while conducting activities on the client’s behalf?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]How are you even making the assessment that a crime took place? You're an idiot in general and here specifically have no idea what you're saying. You're already calling something a crime without bothering to comprehend that it's UnAmerican to raid an office to discover a crime. It works the other way, compelling evidence arrives first and then action takes place. And even then, they should have subpoenaed documents in question instead of raiding the office. Smart people can understand this.[/quote]

I didn’t say a crime definitively took place. The FBI thinks a crime may have taken place, so that’s why they got a warrant to conduct the raid. Attorney-Client privilege goes out the window at that point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]

what crime?????????? So far we heard thru leaks that is involves "hush" money.....FYI, NDA's are done by many people daily and it is not illegal, it is a contract. IF Trump boinked anyone that is also not illegal so what exact crime was there?

Of course that is the exception, and most understand that. They gray area is vacuuming up all info and having a Chinese Wall within the FBI review everything and ascertain what is relevant. THAT is a reach, particularly in the current environment and public thinking about the politicization of the DOJ and FBI. Should have only been able to take those documents specific to a proven case where attorney-client privilege doesn't exist.

And you believe destroying documents is out of the question?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

_________________
I love UWS!

Are you really this stupid? A raid is for the case where you know destruction is imminent. Like Hillary unleashing bit bleach on the server. It's not for you not liking Trump.

_________________
You losers lost, take off the vagina suit.

If the attorney broke the law or assisted in breaking the law, the privilege is revoked. I don’t work for the FBI, so I can’t tell you exactly what they’re investigating Cohen for.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

_________________
I love UWS!

You are completely missing the point, law enforcement cannot just go grab every document and hope there is a crime in there somewhere. Esp. with a lawyer as the evidence is tainted due to the way it was obtained.

The FBI must have believed that was imminent then.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

_________________
I love UWS!