Except there has to be a known violation and then specific records can be admissible . You can't grab everything and have a "disinterested party (FBI)" pour thru them to see what you find that might make a case. I'm surprised the bar association and ACLU aren't going nuts over this.HooFighter wrote:You know a judge would have had to sign off on a search warrant. Just imagine the amount of probable cause evidence they would have to present in this particular case.cwtcr hokie wrote:so what, again, how is any of what they took usable? attorney-client privilege, never mind that even if Trump was banging some washed up pron star 12 YEARS AGO nobody gives a crap. As for the $130k, Trump can spend his cash anyway he wants to, don't you agree?
And attorney-client privilege, well....
And I thought the $130K came from his good buddy Michael Cohen? If so, that's an illegal campaign donation. If not, it's at least money laundering.The attorney-client privilege does not apply when a client consults a lawyer for the purpose of furthering an illegal or fraudulent act. United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 563 (1989); In re Antitrust Grand Jury, 805 F.2d 155, 162 (6th Cir. 1986); In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Duces Tecum, 773 F.2d 204, 206 (8th Cir. 1985); United States v. Horvath, 731 F.2d 557, 562 (8th Cir. 1984); cf. Clark v. United States, 289 U.S. 1, 13-14 (1933). The so-called “crime-fraud exception” removes the protection of the attorney-client privilege for communications concerning contemplated or continuing crimes or frauds. This exception encompasses criminal and fraudulent conduct based on action as well as inaction.
$130,000
Forum rules
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
-
- Posts: 11220
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:29 am
Re: $130,000
- awesome guy
- Posts: 54187
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
- Party: After 10
- Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Re: $130,000
Yep. Dershowitz is calling them out on this. It's hilarious watching The Unusuals all of a sudden taking an extremely aggressive position on investigations.133743Hokie wrote:Except there has to be a known violation and then specific records can be admissible . You can't grab everything and have a "disinterested party (FBI)" pour thru them to see what you find that might make a case. I'm surprised the bar association and ACLU aren't going nuts over this.HooFighter wrote:You know a judge would have had to sign off on a search warrant. Just imagine the amount of probable cause evidence they would have to present in this particular case.cwtcr hokie wrote:so what, again, how is any of what they took usable? attorney-client privilege, never mind that even if Trump was banging some washed up pron star 12 YEARS AGO nobody gives a crap. As for the $130k, Trump can spend his cash anyway he wants to, don't you agree?
And attorney-client privilege, well....
And I thought the $130K came from his good buddy Michael Cohen? If so, that's an illegal campaign donation. If not, it's at least money laundering.The attorney-client privilege does not apply when a client consults a lawyer for the purpose of furthering an illegal or fraudulent act. United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 563 (1989); In re Antitrust Grand Jury, 805 F.2d 155, 162 (6th Cir. 1986); In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Duces Tecum, 773 F.2d 204, 206 (8th Cir. 1985); United States v. Horvath, 731 F.2d 557, 562 (8th Cir. 1984); cf. Clark v. United States, 289 U.S. 1, 13-14 (1933). The so-called “crime-fraud exception” removes the protection of the attorney-client privilege for communications concerning contemplated or continuing crimes or frauds. This exception encompasses criminal and fraudulent conduct based on action as well as inaction.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
- UpstateSCHokie
- Posts: 11998
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:31 pm
Re: $130,000
As is Alan Dershowitz:133743Hokie wrote: Except there has to be a known violation and then specific records can be admissible . You can't grab everything and have a "disinterested party (FBI)" pour thru them to see what you find that might make a case. I'm surprised the bar association and ACLU aren't going nuts over this.
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2018/04/ ... relations/You know, if this were — the shoe were on the other foot, if this were Hillary Clinton being investigated, and they went into her lawyer’s office, the ACLU would be on every television station in America jumping up and down. The deafening silence of the ACLU and civil libertarians about the intrusion into the lawyer-client confidentiality is really appalling.”
However, I am not surprised. Its long been known that the ACLU is a partisan organization.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” ― Voltaire (1694 – 1778)
-
- Posts: 18547
- Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm
Re: $130,000
That's the one place where it gets interesting. Raiding the office over a payment seems excessive. We do know that the bank reported suspicious activity of some sort. And there would have to be probable cause on a violation, which I'm guessing there was.133743Hokie wrote:Except there has to be a known violation and then specific records can be admissible . You can't grab everything and have a "disinterested party (FBI)" pour thru them to see what you find that might make a case. I'm surprised the bar association and ACLU aren't going nuts over this.HooFighter wrote:You know a judge would have had to sign off on a search warrant. Just imagine the amount of probable cause evidence they would have to present in this particular case.cwtcr hokie wrote:so what, again, how is any of what they took usable? attorney-client privilege, never mind that even if Trump was banging some washed up pron star 12 YEARS AGO nobody gives a crap. As for the $130k, Trump can spend his cash anyway he wants to, don't you agree?
And attorney-client privilege, well....
And I thought the $130K came from his good buddy Michael Cohen? If so, that's an illegal campaign donation. If not, it's at least money laundering.The attorney-client privilege does not apply when a client consults a lawyer for the purpose of furthering an illegal or fraudulent act. United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 563 (1989); In re Antitrust Grand Jury, 805 F.2d 155, 162 (6th Cir. 1986); In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Duces Tecum, 773 F.2d 204, 206 (8th Cir. 1985); United States v. Horvath, 731 F.2d 557, 562 (8th Cir. 1984); cf. Clark v. United States, 289 U.S. 1, 13-14 (1933). The so-called “crime-fraud exception” removes the protection of the attorney-client privilege for communications concerning contemplated or continuing crimes or frauds. This exception encompasses criminal and fraudulent conduct based on action as well as inaction.
You can also get search warrants if there is some evidence of or reason to believe, that documents and communications are getting destroyed.
The Sessions appointed Trump supporter isn't going to sign off on a flimsy search warrant.
-
- Posts: 13399
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm
Re: $130,000
actually wrong on both counts, if it did come from trump he can spend his money however he wants to, your ASSUMPTION is it comes from campaign funds. IF it came from Cohen as is reported then it is a big nothing.HooFighter wrote:You know a judge would have had to sign off on a search warrant. Just imagine the amount of probable cause evidence they would have to present in this particular case.cwtcr hokie wrote:so what, again, how is any of what they took usable? attorney-client privilege, never mind that even if Trump was banging some washed up pron star 12 YEARS AGO nobody gives a crap. As for the $130k, Trump can spend his cash anyway he wants to, don't you agree?
And attorney-client privilege, well....
And I thought the $130K came from his good buddy Michael Cohen? If so, that's an illegal campaign donation. If not, it's at least money laundering.The attorney-client privilege does not apply when a client consults a lawyer for the purpose of furthering an illegal or fraudulent act. United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 563 (1989); In re Antitrust Grand Jury, 805 F.2d 155, 162 (6th Cir. 1986); In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Duces Tecum, 773 F.2d 204, 206 (8th Cir. 1985); United States v. Horvath, 731 F.2d 557, 562 (8th Cir. 1984); cf. Clark v. United States, 289 U.S. 1, 13-14 (1933). The so-called “crime-fraud exception” removes the protection of the attorney-client privilege for communications concerning contemplated or continuing crimes or frauds. This exception encompasses criminal and fraudulent conduct based on action as well as inaction.
-
- Posts: 13399
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm
Re: $130,000
check your facts, Berman had recused himself from the raid and had ZERO to do with signing off on it, shockingly they found some judge that signed off on it.... hmmmm... yea, prob hard to find a judge that has TDS.HooFighter wrote:"Leftist deep state"
-
- Posts: 11220
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:29 am
Re: $130,000
Apparently it was funded by a HELO that Cohen took out.cwtcr hokie wrote:actually wrong on both counts, if it did come from trump he can spend his money however he wants to, your ASSUMPTION is it comes from campaign funds. IF it came from Cohen as is reported then it is a big nothing.HooFighter wrote:You know a judge would have had to sign off on a search warrant. Just imagine the amount of probable cause evidence they would have to present in this particular case.cwtcr hokie wrote:so what, again, how is any of what they took usable? attorney-client privilege, never mind that even if Trump was banging some washed up pron star 12 YEARS AGO nobody gives a crap. As for the $130k, Trump can spend his cash anyway he wants to, don't you agree?
And attorney-client privilege, well....
And I thought the $130K came from his good buddy Michael Cohen? If so, that's an illegal campaign donation. If not, it's at least money laundering.The attorney-client privilege does not apply when a client consults a lawyer for the purpose of furthering an illegal or fraudulent act. United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 563 (1989); In re Antitrust Grand Jury, 805 F.2d 155, 162 (6th Cir. 1986); In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Duces Tecum, 773 F.2d 204, 206 (8th Cir. 1985); United States v. Horvath, 731 F.2d 557, 562 (8th Cir. 1984); cf. Clark v. United States, 289 U.S. 1, 13-14 (1933). The so-called “crime-fraud exception” removes the protection of the attorney-client privilege for communications concerning contemplated or continuing crimes or frauds. This exception encompasses criminal and fraudulent conduct based on action as well as inaction.
-
- Posts: 13399
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm
Re: $130,000
133743Hokie wrote:Apparently it was funded by a HELO that Cohen took out.cwtcr hokie wrote:actually wrong on both counts, if it did come from trump he can spend his money however he wants to, your ASSUMPTION is it comes from campaign funds. IF it came from Cohen as is reported then it is a big nothing.HooFighter wrote:You know a judge would have had to sign off on a search warrant. Just imagine the amount of probable cause evidence they would have to present in this particular case.cwtcr hokie wrote:so what, again, how is any of what they took usable? attorney-client privilege, never mind that even if Trump was banging some washed up pron star 12 YEARS AGO nobody gives a crap. As for the $130k, Trump can spend his cash anyway he wants to, don't you agree?
And attorney-client privilege, well....
And I thought the $130K came from his good buddy Michael Cohen? If so, that's an illegal campaign donation. If not, it's at least money laundering.The attorney-client privilege does not apply when a client consults a lawyer for the purpose of furthering an illegal or fraudulent act. United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 563 (1989); In re Antitrust Grand Jury, 805 F.2d 155, 162 (6th Cir. 1986); In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Duces Tecum, 773 F.2d 204, 206 (8th Cir. 1985); United States v. Horvath, 731 F.2d 557, 562 (8th Cir. 1984); cf. Clark v. United States, 289 U.S. 1, 13-14 (1933). The so-called “crime-fraud exception” removes the protection of the attorney-client privilege for communications concerning contemplated or continuing crimes or frauds. This exception encompasses criminal and fraudulent conduct based on action as well as inaction.
that is what I heard also, crazy times
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: $130,000
Lawyers taking out home equity loans on behalf of their client, without their clients knowledge, sounds like a big ol Nothingburger to me.cwtcr hokie wrote:133743Hokie wrote:Apparently it was funded by a HELO that Cohen took out.cwtcr hokie wrote:actually wrong on both counts, if it did come from trump he can spend his money however he wants to, your ASSUMPTION is it comes from campaign funds. IF it came from Cohen as is reported then it is a big nothing.HooFighter wrote:You know a judge would have had to sign off on a search warrant. Just imagine the amount of probable cause evidence they would have to present in this particular case.cwtcr hokie wrote:so what, again, how is any of what they took usable? attorney-client privilege, never mind that even if Trump was banging some washed up pron star 12 YEARS AGO nobody gives a crap. As for the $130k, Trump can spend his cash anyway he wants to, don't you agree?
And attorney-client privilege, well....
And I thought the $130K came from his good buddy Michael Cohen? If so, that's an illegal campaign donation. If not, it's at least money laundering.The attorney-client privilege does not apply when a client consults a lawyer for the purpose of furthering an illegal or fraudulent act. United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 563 (1989); In re Antitrust Grand Jury, 805 F.2d 155, 162 (6th Cir. 1986); In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Duces Tecum, 773 F.2d 204, 206 (8th Cir. 1985); United States v. Horvath, 731 F.2d 557, 562 (8th Cir. 1984); cf. Clark v. United States, 289 U.S. 1, 13-14 (1933). The so-called “crime-fraud exception” removes the protection of the attorney-client privilege for communications concerning contemplated or continuing crimes or frauds. This exception encompasses criminal and fraudulent conduct based on action as well as inaction.
that is what I heard also, crazy times
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
-
- Posts: 13399
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm
Re: $130,000
the guy can take out any loan he wants to on his own real estate, as anyone else can also. I know you rent a 1,200 sf apt but those of us that own real estate can do whatever we want with it.ip_law-hokie wrote:Lawyers taking out home equity loans on behalf of their client, without their clients knowledge, sounds like a big ol Nothingburger to me.cwtcr hokie wrote:133743Hokie wrote:Apparently it was funded by a HELO that Cohen took out.cwtcr hokie wrote:actually wrong on both counts, if it did come from trump he can spend his money however he wants to, your ASSUMPTION is it comes from campaign funds. IF it came from Cohen as is reported then it is a big nothing.HooFighter wrote:You know a judge would have had to sign off on a search warrant. Just imagine the amount of probable cause evidence they would have to present in this particular case.cwtcr hokie wrote:so what, again, how is any of what they took usable? attorney-client privilege, never mind that even if Trump was banging some washed up pron star 12 YEARS AGO nobody gives a crap. As for the $130k, Trump can spend his cash anyway he wants to, don't you agree?
And attorney-client privilege, well....
And I thought the $130K came from his good buddy Michael Cohen? If so, that's an illegal campaign donation. If not, it's at least money laundering.The attorney-client privilege does not apply when a client consults a lawyer for the purpose of furthering an illegal or fraudulent act. United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 563 (1989); In re Antitrust Grand Jury, 805 F.2d 155, 162 (6th Cir. 1986); In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Duces Tecum, 773 F.2d 204, 206 (8th Cir. 1985); United States v. Horvath, 731 F.2d 557, 562 (8th Cir. 1984); cf. Clark v. United States, 289 U.S. 1, 13-14 (1933). The so-called “crime-fraud exception” removes the protection of the attorney-client privilege for communications concerning contemplated or continuing crimes or frauds. This exception encompasses criminal and fraudulent conduct based on action as well as inaction.
that is what I heard also, crazy times
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Bernie!!!
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: $130,000
Yep. I see it all the time in my practice.cwtcr hokie wrote:the guy can take out any loan he wants to on his own real estate, as anyone else can also. I know you rent a 1,200 sf apt but those of us that own real estate can do whatever we want with it.ip_law-hokie wrote:Lawyers taking out home equity loans on behalf of their client, without their clients knowledge, sounds like a big ol Nothingburger to me.cwtcr hokie wrote:133743Hokie wrote:Apparently it was funded by a HELO that Cohen took out.cwtcr hokie wrote:actually wrong on both counts, if it did come from trump he can spend his money however he wants to, your ASSUMPTION is it comes from campaign funds. IF it came from Cohen as is reported then it is a big nothing.HooFighter wrote: You know a judge would have had to sign off on a search warrant. Just imagine the amount of probable cause evidence they would have to present in this particular case.
And attorney-client privilege, well....
And I thought the $130K came from his good buddy Michael Cohen? If so, that's an illegal campaign donation. If not, it's at least money laundering.
that is what I heard also, crazy times
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Bernie!!!
I have a 10K line is credit and I fire off checks all the time.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
Re: $130,000
Morning, UWS. Today, let’s not talk about how Rudy corroborated Stormy Daniels’ account and how his client probably violated campaign finance law. Now, let’s go have ourselves a day.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Fully vaccinated, still not dead
- UpstateSCHokie
- Posts: 11998
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:31 pm
Re: $130,000
nolanvt wrote:Morning, UWS. Today, let’s not talk about how Rudy corroborated Stormy Daniels’ account and how his client probably violated campaign finance law. Now, let’s go have ourselves a day.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Relaying the buzz from left wing blogs again I see. If you actually watched the interview, then you'd know he did no such thing. But if you prefer to get 2nd hand info from far left loons, then carry on.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” ― Voltaire (1694 – 1778)
-
- Posts: 11220
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:29 am
Re: $130,000
How does writing a personal check violate campaign finance laws? Just curious.nolanvt wrote:Morning, UWS. Today, let’s not talk about how Rudy corroborated Stormy Daniels’ account and how his client probably violated campaign finance law. Now, let’s go have ourselves a day.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: $130,000
Does the pathological lying ever bother the Trump supporter?133743Hokie wrote:How does writing a personal check violate campaign finance laws? Just curious.nolanvt wrote:Morning, UWS. Today, let’s not talk about how Rudy corroborated Stormy Daniels’ account and how his client probably violated campaign finance law. Now, let’s go have ourselves a day.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
- awesome guy
- Posts: 54187
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
- Party: After 10
- Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Re: $130,000
Annnnnnd you're out of Nolan's depth.133743Hokie wrote:How does writing a personal check violate campaign finance laws? Just curious.nolanvt wrote:Morning, UWS. Today, let’s not talk about how Rudy corroborated Stormy Daniels’ account and how his client probably violated campaign finance law. Now, let’s go have ourselves a day.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
- UpstateSCHokie
- Posts: 11998
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:31 pm
Re: $130,000
Did the "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" lie ever bother you?ip_law-hokie wrote:Does the pathological lying ever bother the Trump supporter?133743Hokie wrote:How does writing a personal check violate campaign finance laws? Just curious.nolanvt wrote:Morning, UWS. Today, let’s not talk about how Rudy corroborated Stormy Daniels’ account and how his client probably violated campaign finance law. Now, let’s go have ourselves a day.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” ― Voltaire (1694 – 1778)
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: $130,000
I have my same doctor.UpstateSCHokie wrote:Did the "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" lie ever bother you?ip_law-hokie wrote:Does the pathological lying ever bother the Trump supporter?133743Hokie wrote:How does writing a personal check violate campaign finance laws? Just curious.nolanvt wrote:Morning, UWS. Today, let’s not talk about how Rudy corroborated Stormy Daniels’ account and how his client probably violated campaign finance law. Now, let’s go have ourselves a day.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
-
- Posts: 1479
- Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:50 pm
Re: $130,000
All this tells me is that you're covered by private insurance through work, and not by Obamacare.
ip_law-hokie wrote:I have my same doctor.UpstateSCHokie wrote:Did the "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" lie ever bother you?ip_law-hokie wrote:Does the pathological lying ever bother the Trump supporter?133743Hokie wrote:How does writing a personal check violate campaign finance laws? Just curious.nolanvt wrote:Morning, UWS. Today, let’s not talk about how Rudy corroborated Stormy Daniels’ account and how his client probably violated campaign finance law. Now, let’s go have ourselves a day.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: $130,000
OK. Carry on TDB.Mcl3 Hokie wrote:All this tells me is that you're covered by private insurance through work, and not by Obamacare.
ip_law-hokie wrote:I have my same doctor.UpstateSCHokie wrote:Did the "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" lie ever bother you?ip_law-hokie wrote:Does the pathological lying ever bother the Trump supporter?133743Hokie wrote:How does writing a personal check violate campaign finance laws? Just curious.nolanvt wrote:Morning, UWS. Today, let’s not talk about how Rudy corroborated Stormy Daniels’ account and how his client probably violated campaign finance law. Now, let’s go have ourselves a day.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
- awesome guy
- Posts: 54187
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
- Party: After 10
- Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified
Re: $130,000
You're dodging the question.ip_law-hokie wrote:I have my same doctor.UpstateSCHokie wrote:Did the "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" lie ever bother you?ip_law-hokie wrote:Does the pathological lying ever bother the Trump supporter?133743Hokie wrote:How does writing a personal check violate campaign finance laws? Just curious.nolanvt wrote:Morning, UWS. Today, let’s not talk about how Rudy corroborated Stormy Daniels’ account and how his client probably violated campaign finance law. Now, let’s go have ourselves a day.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
- UpstateSCHokie
- Posts: 11998
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:31 pm
Re: $130,000
So then by your own logic, none of us should care about a lie unless it impacts us personally. Got it.ip_law-hokie wrote:I have my same doctor.UpstateSCHokie wrote:Did the "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" lie ever bother you?ip_law-hokie wrote:Does the pathological lying ever bother the Trump supporter?133743Hokie wrote:How does writing a personal check violate campaign finance laws? Just curious.nolanvt wrote:Morning, UWS. Today, let’s not talk about how Rudy corroborated Stormy Daniels’ account and how his client probably violated campaign finance law. Now, let’s go have ourselves a day.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” ― Voltaire (1694 – 1778)
-
- Posts: 11220
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:29 am
Re: $130,000
Yes, his lying bothers me as much as other politicians and prior presidents does/did? But again, what has he done that is illegal? Because he's crass does that mean he's held to a higher standard? What are the rules?ip_law-hokie wrote:Does the pathological lying ever bother the Trump supporter?133743Hokie wrote:How does writing a personal check violate campaign finance laws? Just curious.nolanvt wrote:Morning, UWS. Today, let’s not talk about how Rudy corroborated Stormy Daniels’ account and how his client probably violated campaign finance law. Now, let’s go have ourselves a day.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- RiverguyVT
- Posts: 30321
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:30 pm
Re: $130,000
Sure!ip_law-hokie wrote:Does the pathological lying ever bother the Trump supporter?133743Hokie wrote:How does writing a personal check violate campaign finance laws? Just curious.nolanvt wrote:Morning, UWS. Today, let’s not talk about how Rudy corroborated Stormy Daniels’ account and how his client probably violated campaign finance law. Now, let’s go have ourselves a day.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I see myself as less of a Trump supporter (hey, let’s be honest here...the guy is weird, at best; crazy at worst) than a supporter of the body politic that will move the ball in an ideologically conservative direction. I like advance of ideas, not people. Nation of laws, not men, and all that Jazz. Thus, I’m pulling for trump to be successful in most of his efforts; I’m not pulling for trump to be lionized.
This, I think, is where left and right diverge. Left likes their rulers, no matter what. The right is quicker to jettison someone on ideology. This dovetails into the thinking vs feeling dichotomy between left right.
People will let me down almost every time. Ideas, rarely.
So I put (the dead dog) on her doorstep!
Salute the Marines
Soon we'll have planes that fly 22000 mph
"#PedoPete" = Hunter's name for his dad.
Salute the Marines
Soon we'll have planes that fly 22000 mph
"#PedoPete" = Hunter's name for his dad.
- ip_law-hokie
- Posts: 19133
- Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
- Alma Mater: Manchester
- Location: New York, NY
Re: $130,000
I’m dodging the question used to dodge the question by answering it?awesome guy wrote:You're dodging the question.ip_law-hokie wrote:I have my same doctor.UpstateSCHokie wrote:Did the "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" lie ever bother you?ip_law-hokie wrote:Does the pathological lying ever bother the Trump supporter?133743Hokie wrote:How does writing a personal check violate campaign finance laws? Just curious.nolanvt wrote:Morning, UWS. Today, let’s not talk about how Rudy corroborated Stormy Daniels’ account and how his client probably violated campaign finance law. Now, let’s go have ourselves a day.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And I think most can see a difference in being wrong about what will happen in the future, and telling bold-faced, undeniable lies about past events. After a while, I would think that I was being played as a fool.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.