FBI raids Trump lawyer Michael Cohen's office

[carpedm9587]

I like how you pick out isolated words and phrases that you think support your point while ignoring the numerous FACTS that support mine.

You seem to the think the "carpesplain" term is a cute badge of honor, so I'm just going to call it what it is: intellectual dishonesty. So any time you proudly announce, "I'm going to carpesplain," I read it as "I'm going to be intellectually dishonest."

You can read it as anything you wish!

As for the rest, you linked the articles, and you've been the one making the posts. I'm just holding you to them.

[carpedm9587]

By the way, MM is not the only one who has adopted a position of blanket condemnation of the DOJ and FBI. Our Tweeter in Chief has done so as well. He too denigrates and dishonors these men an women.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...24858743328777

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...43088330108928

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...77999718895616

(there are more)

[NorrinRadd]

Again, Alan Dershowitz has been a Trump apologist since day one. Getting a warrant to search an attorneys office is a high bar to get over, and you must have very convincing evidence of a crime. It also needs be scrutinized and approved by a Federal Judge. That's why Trump is losing his mind over it and criticizing the FBI. Dershowitz knows nothing illegal was done here, but he doesn't say that does he. He's a Trump apologist.

It's more that he takes a broad view of civil liberties and attorney-client privilege, and believes in narrow application of laws -- not just w.r.t. Trump, but also Hilary.

Here is Jonathan Turley's view. It is, as usual, more restrained and nuanced than Dersh's, but still not exactly approving of the tactics used.

[Mountain Man]

MM is not the only one who has adopted a position of blanket condemnation of the DOJ and FBI.

You're a bald-faced liar. At no point have I issued a "blanket condemnation of the DOJ and FBI." On the contrary, I explicitly explained earlier in this thread that my remarks "should not be taken to mean that every single person within those organizations is corrupt", and again I explained to you that while we have documented proof that the corruption inside those organizations is, or at least was, pervasive and at a high-level that this should not be construed to mean that "100% of the people in those organizations are corrupt".

So it looks like "carpesplaining" does not mean just intellectual dishonesty but outright lies as well. But you go right ahead and feign pride in the term.

[JimL]

You're a bald-faced liar. At no point have I issued a "blanket condemnation of the DOJ and FBI." On the contrary, I explicitly explained earlier in this thread that my remarks "should not be taken to mean that every single person within those organizations is corrupt", and again I explained to you that while we have documented proof that the corruption inside those organizations is, or at least was, pervasive and at a high-level that this should not be construed to mean that "100% of the people in those organizations are corrupt".

So it looks like "carpesplaining" does not mean just intellectual dishonesty but outright lies as well. But you go right ahead and feign pride in the term.

Oooh, so you didn't actually mean 100% of the people were corrupt. Don't be a didtz MM. When you say that the corruption is pervasive, and that those at the top are corrupt, then you are pretty much condemning the entire organization as corrupt. What do you think, that we are as dumb as you look?

[Mountain Man]

When you say that the corruption is pervasive, and that those at the top are corrupt, then you are pretty much condemning the entire organization as corrupt.

False.

[carpedm9587]

You're a bald-faced liar.

Wow. No pulling punches there...

At no point have I issued a "blanket condemnation of the DOJ and FBI."

You regularly link articles that do, MM, and use them to substantiate your views.

On the contrary, I explicitly explained earlier in this thread that my remarks "should not be taken to mean that every single person within those organizations is corrupt", and again I explained to you that while we have documented proof that the corruption inside those organizations is, or at least was, pervasive and at a high-level that this should not be construed to mean that "100% of the people in those organizations are corrupt".

Yep...you have indeed noted that 100% is not something you can claim. But since you link to articles that claim "all levels" and "pervasive" and insist they are proof of your claims...

So it looks like "carpesplaining" does not mean just intellectual dishonesty but outright lies as well. But you go right ahead and feign pride in the term.

Actually, I kind of DO like the term. I never had a style of argumentation named after me. We need an icon. Maybe a fish talking...? Sparko...a carpesplaining emoji...? I might be willing to make a contribution to the site...

[Mountain Man]

Actually, I kind of DO like the term. I never had a style of argumentation named after me. Maybe a fish talking...? Sparko...a carpesplaining emoji...?

Pinocchio_Lying.jpg
"carpesplaining"

[Starlight]

So the big news today is that lawyer 'fixer' Michael Cohen has had to publicly name all (3 of) his clients. They are:
1. Trump
2. Elliott Broidy (RNC finance deputy-chair, ex-chair)
3. Sean Hannity

No wonder Hannity was doing rants on his show about the unfairness of the raid on Cohen. He never saw fit to mention in any of his rants that he was one of Cohen's only clients though.

What also seems to be surprising about the information seized is that apparently very very little of it is client-attorney privileged, i.e. Cohen was not actually acting as a lawyer for these men in the normal sense, he was acting as an aide and problem solver for them.

[One Bad Pig]

So the big news today is that lawyer 'fixer' Michael Cohen has had to publicly name all (3 of) his clients. They are:
1. Trump
2. Elliott Broidy (RNC finance deputy-chair, ex-chair)
3. Sean Hannity

No wonder Hannity was doing rants on his show about the unfairness of the raid on Cohen. He never saw fit to mention in any of his rants that he was one of Cohen's only clients though.

What also seems to be surprising about the information seized is that apparently very very little of it is client-attorney privileged, i.e. Cohen was not actually acting as a lawyer for these men in the normal sense, he was acting as an aide and problem solver for them.

Are those all of his clients, or only the ones he didn't want to publicly disclose?

Backup would be nice.

[rogue06]

So the big news today is that lawyer 'fixer' Michael Cohen has had to publicly name all (3 of) his clients. They are:
1. Trump
2. Elliott Broidy (RNC finance deputy-chair, ex-chair)
3. Sean Hannity

No wonder Hannity was doing rants on his show about the unfairness of the raid on Cohen. He never saw fit to mention in any of his rants that he was one of Cohen's only clients though.

What also seems to be surprising about the information seized is that apparently very very little of it is client-attorney privileged, i.e. Cohen was not actually acting as a lawyer for these men in the normal sense, he was acting as an aide and problem solver for them.

Apparently Hannity asked Cohen for his advise in some legal matters, as folks are wont to do when they know a lawyer (and Cohen had a top notch reputation). Supposedly they were the sort of things where there are fees or charges. While he should have disclosed his relationship with Cohen to cover all bases, I really wouldn't blame him for thinking that it rose to the level of conflict-of-interest worthy of disclosure.

[Mountain Man]

Supposedly they were the sort of things where there are fees or charges.

Which would means he was serving as their professional legal counsel, and the rules of attorney-client privilege would be in full effect. And it seems, accordingly, the FBI has a "taint team" who will review all the seized material and turn over only what pertains to the case in question which centers on payments made to porn star Stormy Daniels.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/judge-...scited-the-law

Oh, and the judge who has denied Cohen's and Trump's requests to suppress certain information under attorney-client privilege? She's a close personal friend of George Soros.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...able-database/

[Starlight]

She's a close personal friend of George Soros.

Is there any liberal in the US you think isn't?

How come Soros isn't bankrupt after he paid all those people to march against Trump? Oh and when do I get my check from him for being a liberal?

[Mountain Man]

Is there any liberal in the US you think isn't?

There are a lot of liberals who aren't close personal friends of Soros, but in Judge Wood's case, she personally officiated Soros' wedding.

[NorrinRadd]

Are those all of his clients, or only the ones he didn't want to publicly disclose?

Backup would be nice.

Supposedly he has long been jokingly referred to as "Tom," alluding to Tom Hagan, who had a "special" practice, in that he only had a single client -- Vito Corleone.