Judge rules Cohen target of retaliation for Trump book, orders release from prison

[Berkshire]

1 minute ago, tlandtday said:

14 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

Only a sleazeball client would hire a sleazeball lawyer.  So yes, Trump is a sleazeball.

So you are agree that Cohen is a sleazebag. 

Of course he was.  He had to be...to work for Trump.  But it appears that he has largely come clean.

[OneMoreFarang]

3 hours ago, DoctorG said:

I still think Cohen is a sleeze

That's why Donald hired him.

I am sure that will be an interesting book.

[mr336]

Water finds its own level. Enjoy the book.????

[DaftToPutRealName]

4 hours ago, bendejo said:

If the things didn't happen then there's nothing to rat (snitch) about.

For a guy who tells so many lies DT should be much better at it by now.

 

 

When the media can spend a week going on about how having 2 scoops of ice cream and the big salt and pepper shakers is proof of little pee-pee syndrome then you should know that any excuse is an excuse good enough for these dolts to spin up 500 articles.

[Tippaporn]

43 minutes ago, Tie Dye Samurai said:

I would be interested to know what Tippaporn thinks the proper outcome of the decision should have been...did this judge render the correct decision?

I don't know and I don't care.  The only point I'm making is to show how people blindly make judgments, in this case about this particular judge, while in truth they know jack squat about any of the particulars.  No vetting, no double checking any facts on their own (as much as it's possible, of course).  Simply accepting of anything with the sole criteria being that it goes to their way of thinking.  In other words, so many people truly are just a bunch of sheep.

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I don't know and I don't care.  The only point I'm making is to show how people blindly make judgments, in this case about this particular judge, while in truth they know jack squat about any of the particulars.  No vetting, no double checking any facts on their own (as much as it's possible, of course).  Simply accepting of anything with the sole criteria being that it goes to their way of thinking.  In other words, so many people truly are just a bunch of sheep.

Stunning projection.

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

47 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I don’t see you ranting about Stone’s release.

 

Odd that.

Deflection. Thread isn't about Stone.

[Phoenix Rising]

21 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Deflection. Thread isn't about Stone.

And you wrote that with a straight face???

[Phoenix Rising]

1 hour ago, tlandtday said:

So you are agree that Cohen is a sleazebag. 

We all agree that Cohen is a sleazebag. So what? Are you saying that being a sleazebag in itself is a crime? If that were the case trump would have been locked up ages ago.

[Proboscis]

4 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

LOL.  It's called an "independent judiciary" when the verdict favours your political persuasions and a "corrupt judiciary" when the verdict is in opposition to your politics.  Let's be honest.

Actually I don't think that the Federal Judiciary in the USA are corrupt. There may be some issues with locally elected judges in the USA - apparently they still have those.

 

And being honest, I would never vote for Trump and I do believe that Cohen broke the law. But the issue here concerned whether the probation/penal services could impose conditions on how a man, outside of jail, could earn money and what he could say or write. The latter point, freedom of speech, is what the judge ruled on. It was not an issue of whether Trump was right/wrong or good/bad or even whether Cohen was guilty or not guilty - it was whether anyone could have such conditions placed on them needlessly. And I think that within the narrow confines of the hearing the judge was right. The judge was also right to decry the probation service for saying that Cohen had the wrong attitude when what was happening was that his lawyer was just negotiating.

 

As regards Cohen more generally, I think he should be in jail, along with the chap who ordered him to carry out the actions.

[Sheryl]

An off-topic troll post and reply to it have been removed

[JusticeGB]

A lawyer writing a book about his client would be in breach of lawyer client privilege!

[Gulfsailor]

8 minutes ago, JusticeGB said:

A lawyer writing a book about his client would be in breach of lawyer client privilege!

Not if the client asks the lawyer how to commit or cover up a crime or fraud. 

 

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/the-crime-fraud-exception-the-attorney-client-privilege.html

[wwest5829]

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The judge has, not unsurprisingly, agreed that Cohen’s re-imprisonment was an attempt to stop him publishing his book that is critical of Donald Trump, I’m sure hard evidence of the post release ‘agreement’ Cohen was being conferred I to signing was pivotal in the judge’s ruling.

 

The problem Trump and his lackey Bill Barr now have is Cohen is going to seek damages.

 

They may try to settle out of court to avoid getting into ‘Disclosure’, but down the line there is something else coming Trump and Barr’s way.

 

The judges ruling underscores a criminal abuse of power.

 

Stay tunes, this will be back with a vengeance.

 

Claim of, “sovereign immunity”? 555 In part because The Donald sees himself as “sovereign” ...

[Tippaporn]

48 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Stunning projection.

Truth is, Chomper, you have no way of knowing.  But not knowing doesn't prevent you from posting your false conclusions.  You don't care.  Your comment doesn't need to be truthful . . . as long as it sounds good.  LOL

[spidermike007]

Excellent news. Why should Stone be walking free, and Cohen locked up? Wanna know what a real "witch hunt" looks like? 

 

A righteous judge answers a most corrupt justice department. Goodbye Barr! You too are heading towards a life of humiliation, scorn and irrelevance come November, along with your incompetent boss. 

[Chomper Higgot]

30 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Truth is, Chomper, you have no way of knowing.  But not knowing doesn't prevent you from posting your false conclusions.  You don't care.  Your comment doesn't need to be truthful . . . as long as it sounds good.  LOL

Fits your post at #35 like a glove.

[Chomper Higgot]

52 minutes ago, JusticeGB said:

A lawyer writing a book about his client would be in breach of lawyer client privilege!

I don’t think there I s any ever evidence that Cohen was acting as a lawyer.

 

Cohen’s own lawyers certainly assert he was not.

 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/03/michael-cohens-lawyer-suggests-that-michael-cohen-is-not-trumps-lawyer.html

[Tippaporn]

9 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Fits your post at #35 like a glove.

Chomper, you wouldn't admit to error to save your soul.  Remember, I once caught you red handed lying and when confronted 3 times you simply side stepped.  Same as it ever was.

[Phoenix Rising]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Chomper, you wouldn't admit to error to save your soul.  Remember, I once caught you red handed lying and when confronted 3 times you simply side stepped.  Same as it ever was.

You, OTOH.....

[Mac98]

7 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

LOL.  It's called an "independent judiciary" when the verdict favours your political persuasions and a "corrupt judiciary" when the verdict is in opposition to your politics.  Let's be honest.

An independent judiciary is when  the courts issue rulings based on the law, not rulings based on the wishes or demands of politicians, one in particular. 

[Tie Dye Samurai]

3 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

I don't know and I don't care.  The only point I'm making is to show how people blindly make judgments, in this case about this particular judge, while in truth they know jack squat about any of the particulars.  No vetting, no double checking any facts on their own (as much as it's possible, of course).  Simply accepting of anything with the sole criteria being that it goes to their way of thinking.  In other words, so many people truly are just a bunch of sheep.

so basically condescending without factual knowledge of what research people have done for their opinions and refusing to contribute to the conversation of freedom of speech and incarceration because of apathy. Thank you for that clarification. 

Edited July 24, 2020 by Tie Dye Samurai

[Bluespunk]

7 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

LOL.  It's called an "independent judiciary" when the verdict favours your political persuasions and a "corrupt judiciary" when the verdict is in opposition to your politics.  Let's be honest.

Please quote where I have ever called the American judiciary corrupt. 

[Bluespunk]

4 hours ago, tlandtday said:

Independent my <deleted>.  It shows they are playing a game together.  Cohen is a sleazeball lawyer who committed serious crimes and regardless of Trump deserves to be locked up.

Yet the law says he cannot be locked up in retaliation because he wants to write a book.
 

Don’t like Cohen but very happy to see that trump has been shown that he is not above the law. 

Edited July 24, 2020 by Bluespunk

[Srikcir]

6 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The judge has, not unsurprisingly, agreed that Cohen’s re-imprisonment was an attempt to stop him publishing his book that is critical of Donald Trump, I’m sure hard evidence of the post release ‘agreement’ Cohen was being conferred I to signing was pivotal in the judge’s ruling.

 

The problem Trump and his lackey Bill Barr now have is Cohen is going to seek damages.

 

They may try to settle out of court to avoid getting into ‘Disclosure’, but down the line there is something else coming Trump and Barr’s way.

 

The judges ruling underscores a criminal abuse of power.

 

Stay tunes, this will be back with a vengeance.

 

You can't seek unproven or potential future damages. 

With restoring Cohen's home confinement in such a short time, his ability to benefit through his right of free speech is restored without economic harm.

Even if DOJ tries to weaponize the judicial system through appeals, I doubt the courts will grant any temporary injunction preventing Cohen's freedom of speech to do 'op eds' and publish during the appeals process. 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Chomper, you wouldn't admit to error to save your soul.  Remember, I once caught you red handed lying and when confronted 3 times you simply side stepped.  Same as it ever was.

Overt flaming and personal attack.

[Dap]

8 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

LOL.  It's called an "independent judiciary" when the verdict favours your political persuasions and a "corrupt judiciary" when the verdict is in opposition to your politics.  Let's be honest.

And while "honesty" is on the table, the exact opposite is what you will attest to.

[candide]

1 hour ago, Bluespunk said:

Please quote where I have ever called the American judiciary corrupt. 

I guess it was another 'imaginary' quote. I don't remember anyone among the non-trumpers calling the  American judiciary "corrupt" in this forum.

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, Bluespunk said:

Please quote where I have ever called the American judiciary corrupt. 

It was my error for not being precise in my language.  I was speaking in general terms.  So "you" wasn't referring specifically to you, Bluespunk.  The precise terminology would be "one" when referencing people without specificity.  "You" is often improperly used in that regard.  So my apologies as it did sound as though I was attributing a quote to you.

 

Now that we've cleared that up go ahead and challenge my point if you wish to do so.

[Tippaporn]

42 minutes ago, Dap said:

And while "honesty" is on the table, the exact opposite is what you will attest to.

I have no idea what you're referring to.  You'd need to clarify.