Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 169: Check Your (Attorney-Client) Privilege

(+) Yeah! (+)

HaRRicH posted...

4/17/2018
ABC - Former first lady Barbara Bush dies at age 92

"A former first lady of the United States of America and relentless proponent of family literacy, Barbara Pierce Bush passed away Tuesday, April 17, 2018, at the age of 92," reads a statement from the office of former President George H.W. Bush.

Mrs. Bush served as the country's first lady from 1989 to 1993. She passed away shortly after deciding to forgo further medical treatments for her failing health.

Mr. Bush is "broken-hearted to lose his beloved Barbara, his wife of 73 years," according to Jean Becker, chief of staff at the former president's office. "He held her hand all day today and was at her side when she left this good earth."

While it's a "challenging time ... it will not surprise all of you who know and love him that he also is being stoic and strong, and is being lifted up by his large and supportive family," Becker said.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/lady-barbara-bush-dies-age-92/story?id=54490037

Rest in peace -- I never knew her well. I hope Donald can be more respectful here than he was with her children.

Have we got examples of Donald addressing deaths and funerals?

He alrdy made a statement an hour ago or so
---

He'll certainly be more respectful than he was around Billy Bush.

...

Hopefully.
---

4/17/2018
TWITTER - andrew kaczynski (CNN)

Hannity will face no penalty for his relentless defense of Michael Cohen without disclosing he was a client. Not surprising but more evidence that Fox is different from everywhere else.

https://t.co/qTOclc5bMQ

*IN RESPONSE TO BRIAN STETLER*

Fox News statement: "While Fox News was unaware of Sean Hannity's informal relationship with Michael Cohen and was surprised by the announcement in court yesterday, we have reviewed the matter and spoken to Sean and he continues to have our full support."

https://twitter.com/KFILE/status/986321057048121344?s=19

This doesn't touch on Hannity's relationships with Sekulow or diGenova he never disclosed...just Cohen. Does this sentiment go across the board?
---

Corrik can hate on "Google experts" all he wants, but he's no constitutional lawyer either. All we have here is peak white guy who thinks he's an expert and refuses to consider any other point of view.
---

Peace___Frog posted...

Corrik can hate on "Google experts" all he wants, but he's no constitutional lawyer either.

going "GOOD JOB GOOGLING LOL" is rather laughable when you don't provide any sources whatsoever yourself.
---

HaRRicH posted...

4/17/2018
ABC - Former first lady Barbara Bush dies at age 92

"A former first lady of the United States of America and relentless proponent of family literacy, Barbara Pierce Bush passed away Tuesday, April 17, 2018, at the age of 92," reads a statement from the office of former President George H.W. Bush.

Mrs. Bush served as the country's first lady from 1989 to 1993. She passed away shortly after deciding to forgo further medical treatments for her failing health.

Mr. Bush is "broken-hearted to lose his beloved Barbara, his wife of 73 years," according to Jean Becker, chief of staff at the former president's office. "He held her hand all day today and was at her side when she left this good earth."

While it's a "challenging time ... it will not surprise all of you who know and love him that he also is being stoic and strong, and is being lifted up by his large and supportive family," Becker said.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/lady-barbara-bush-dies-age-92/story?id=54490037

Rest in peace -- I never knew her well. I hope Donald can be more respectful here than he was with her children.

Have we got examples of Donald addressing deaths and funerals?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-told-widow-soldier-must-ve-known-what-he-signed-n811756
---

Peace___Frog posted...

Corrik can hate on "Google experts" all he wants, but he's no constitutional lawyer either. All we have here is peak white guy who thinks he's an expert and refuses to consider any other point of view.

Corrik being white has zero to do with his possibly misplaced confidence and if anything, as a racial minority, I'm kinda aggravated you'd bring it up and make light of our actual struggles so you can just shrug off Corrik's arguments as white privilege. Racial issues aren't tools to be used so you can be condescending to people online.
---

Omniscientless posted...

Peace___Frog posted...

Corrik can hate on "Google experts" all he wants, but he's no constitutional lawyer either. All we have here is peak white guy who thinks he's an expert and refuses to consider any other point of view.

Corrik being white has zero to do with his possibly misplaced confidence and if anything, as a racial minority, I'm kinda aggravated you'd bring it up and make light of our actual struggles so you can just shrug off Corrik's arguments as white privilege. Racial issues aren't tools to be used so you can be condescending to people online.

I appreciate this post.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

going "GOOD JOB GOOGLING LOL" is rather laughable when you don't provide any sources whatsoever yourself.

It's basically the conservative mindset these days though. Ignore all sources unless they support your position.
---

8Dancedreamer posted...

Mr Lasastryke posted...

going "GOOD JOB GOOGLING LOL" is rather laughable when you don't provide any sources whatsoever yourself.

It's basically the conservative mindset these days though. Ignore all sources unless they support your position.

It is the fallacy of today where intelligence and knowledge is supposedly replaced by ability to Google for a few seconds.

It is why a lot of times context is the problem observed here. Everything has to neatly fit into a cookie cutter Google response. Most times the information is not vetted, applied properly, or fully understood. It is just a "well, Google said it".

We are coming to an age where people just Google everything and when the smart person is just the one who can load up Google faster. This is why fake news itself is so prevalent nowadays. Between Twitter, Facebook, and Google, it is an overload of information that isn't being not taken at face value. Wikipedia has at least sorta gotten better in this facet. Sorta.
---

Corrik posted...

It is the fallacy of today where intelligence and knowledge is supposedly replaced by ability to Google for a few seconds.

So what you're saying is it's better to not be an expert and get the answer wrong and expect people to go with it, than to also not be an expert and google it for the right answer?

I mean if anything 5 minutes of googling something will teach you more than assuming you know the answer to something based on 'common sense'
---

Corrik posted...

It is the fallacy of today where intelligence and knowledge is supposedly replaced by ability to Google for a few seconds.

again, if you have better sources than the ones that come up in google, provide them.

going "you got your sources from google in a few seconds so they're wrong by default" is nonsensical. if i type in "water" in google, the first result is the dutch wikipedia page for "water," which provides correct information about water. if i want to know stuff about water it's a valid source. that i found this source in one microsecond does not make it any less valid.
---

Dancedreamer posted...

Corrik posted...

It is the fallacy of today where intelligence and knowledge is supposedly replaced by ability to Google for a few seconds.

So what you're saying is it's better to not be an expert and get the answer wrong and expect people to go with it, than to also not be an expert and google it for the right answer?

I mean if anything 5 minutes of googling something will teach you more than assuming you know the answer to something based on 'common sense'

You have all proven time and time again that you cannot get the right answers. You cannot even properly interpret comments anymore due to getting your information from tweets, where you analyze them as you are told to by the person without context. Instead of analyzing it properly within context.

You try to apply to situations where the criteria does not fit exactly and refuse to use any sort of common sense or critical thinking in addition to your sources.

Yes, Google can be a good tool to help understand and help to come to a conclusion on things. Thinking it is an end all in every situation is silly.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Corrik posted...

It is the fallacy of today where intelligence and knowledge is supposedly replaced by ability to Google for a few seconds.

again, if you have better sources than the ones that come up in google, provide them.

going "you got your sources from google in a few seconds so they're wrong by default" is nonsensical. if i type in "water" in google, the first result is the dutch wikipedia page for "water," which provides correct information about water. if i want to know stuff about water it's a valid source. that i found this source in one microsecond does not make it any less valid.

But why don't you inherently know what water is without any source that could possibly tell you you're in fact completely wrong about what water is, but since you know it yourself you have supreme confidence?
---

Corrik posted...

Thinking it is an end all in every situation is silly.

good thing nobody said this, then.
---

So many of you sit here and beat your chests like King Kong and say dumb shit like "Haha You are absolutely wrong and a "moron" because I googled something and it related somewhat but did not agree with you completely. I are so smart. Hurrr!"

You are not smart just because you can load up a search engine. What you google does not have to be the full picture. It can be. Especially in factual situations. Anywhere subjectivity can come into play at any point, Google needs to be a tool and not an end all.

For example, in this, saying well Google did say there was a scenario before in past precedent where a pardon could make the 5th amendment rights not valid is fine. Saying someone absolutely can not ever use 5th amendment rights if pardoned and then acting like someone is a moron if they say that is not true is just hogwash. You took tried to misapply information as an end all instead of using it as a tool to dig deeper into it.

Everyone in the world Googles shit. That's fine. It is there and should be used. You shouldn't rely on it as a crutch and act like it is an end all also.
---

Corrik, unless you're arguing that google always gives incorrect information by default, and thus is never useful in anyway whatsoever, you aren't really providing any solid reasoning for why those in particular resources are wrong even if your generalization is correct.
---

Holy shit are you really so salty that you can't back up your claim that you're trying to just erase all sources rather than get your own?

Your attitude right now is "I'd rather there be no answer than me be wrong".
---

LapisLazuli posted...

Holy shit are you really so salty that you can't back up your claim that you're trying to just erase all sources rather than get your own?

Your attitude right now is "I'd rather there be no answer than me be wrong".

What are you even talking about?
---

You've gone 5 posts bitching about people using Google when you have done absolutely nothing to back up your own claim.

If these sources are so bunk then where are yours? You say Google sucks then fine, prove them wrong.

Its more like your pissed at how easily you can be shut down. It makes you mad that it'd so easy to make you look bad.
---

If all you got out of my post was a joke about the unearned confidence of white men, then you yourself aren't much of a reader.

Again, without the sarcasm - corrik can complain all he wants, but he is no constitutional lawyer. He likely hasn't even taken a single class on con law. So for him to parade around and act as though he has some intellectual superiority is fucking idiotic.

And for how often corrik excuses trump's behavior with "OMG CAN'T YOU TELL HE WAS JOKING YOU STUPID LIBS" he sure is bad at realizing anything else ever is a joke.
---

LapisLazuli posted...

You've gone 5 posts bitching about people using Google when you have done absolutely nothing to back up your own claim.

If these sources are so bunk then where are yours? You say Google sucks then fine, prove them wrong.

Its more like your pissed at how easily you can be shut down. It makes you mad that it'd so easy to make you look bad.

I wish I could ever remember who is who between Lasa and Lapis. I know one of these is a troll who just talks nonsense, so I never know which one of these two I am supposed to take seriously. If you are the non-troll one I apologize to you for lumping you in with the other.

"Can Any Witness Plead the Fifth?

At a criminal trial, it is not only the defendant who enjoys the Fifth Amendment right not to testify. Witnesses who are called to the witness stand can refuse to answer certain questions if answering would implicate them in any type of criminal activity (not limited to the case being tried). Witnesses (as well as defendants) in organized crime trials often plead the Fifth, for instance.

But unlike defendants, witnesses who assert this right may do so selectively and do not waive their rights the moment they begin answering questions. Also, unlike defendants, witnesses may be forced by law to testify (typically by subpoena)."

Okay. Now let's draw upon this.

If you are given a pardon for say a select crime and are later called upon to testify as a witness and are asked about this specific crime you were pardoned on, you can STILL claim the 5th in order to not incriminate yourself on OTHER crimes that may relate to that questioning. And since you are pleading the 5th and do not have to state for what crime you are pleading it for, there is nothing that can really be done in regards to it.

Now, a court could charge you with contempt afterwards for invoking it. However, it should be a questionably easy case to have dismissed since they would state why did you refuse to testify. You will say because I pled the 5th and did not wish to incriminate myself. They would say you were pardoned for that conviction. Which would be responded with I didn't say what possible allegation I was referring to. At that point reasonable doubt has been proven. Which allegation are you referring to? I pled the 5th in regards to it. I cannot answer that.

I mean, once you apply the letter of the law it is easy to see.

Now, the wrinkle here is that the court case would take awhile and they would drain all your resources like Flynn, which in the end would pressure you to flip. This is why I said Cohen is probably smarter just to defend himself because he has a pocket pardon trump card.

That said, presidential pardon is kind of absurd. They should revamp it. It is a clear overstepping of the law and needs to be limited.
---

LapisLazuli posted...

You've gone 5 posts bitching about people using Google when you have done absolutely nothing to back up your own claim.

If these sources are so bunk then where are yours? You say Google sucks then fine, prove them wrong.

Its more like your pissed at how easily you can be shut down. It makes you mad that it'd so easy to make you look bad.

Incidentally, my source is actually "my brother in law school learning about this subject right the fuck now".
---

Corrik posted...

You are not smart just because you can load up a search engine. What you google does not have to be the full picture. It can be. Especially in factual situations. Anywhere subjectivity can come into play at any point, Google needs to be a tool and not an end all.

right, so for the gazillionth time, provide different sources if you feel like the sources that have been provided via google suck.

jesus christ, why do you keep dancing around the issue like this? this is what this argument has been for the last however many posts:

corrik: john was born in 1956.
peaf: hm, i just googled it and it says he was born in 1952 so what you're saying doesn't seem right.
corrik: well google isn't always right it shouldn't be used as an end all blah blah

this is literally going nowhere.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

this is literally going nowhere.

much like every conversation with corrik

but you know
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

corrik:
peaf:
corrik:

Hey man I've only posted like 3 times in the last 12 hours don't give me this
---

Peace___Frog posted...

Hey man I've only posted like 3 times in the last 12 hours don't give me this

i thought you were the one who posted those sources you got from google which got corrik to throw his "WELL GOOGLE ISN'T THE END ALL" hissy fit for his last 300 posts. didn't bother to look it up, though.
---

Should have googled it.
---

Burdick v. United States should tell you all you need to know about pardons and the 5th amendment.

George Burdick took the 5th amendment, and refused to testify and reveal his source. The President (Wilson) offered him a pardon to try to get him to testify. He refused the pardon, and it was ruled in the Burdick case that he didn't have to testify because he did not accept the pardon.
---

Corrik posted...

Now, a court could charge you with contempt afterwards for invoking it. However, it should be a questionably easy case to have dismissed since they would state why did you refuse to testify. You will say because I pled the 5th and did not wish to incriminate myself. They would say you were pardoned for that conviction. Which would be responded with I didn't say what possible allegation I was referring to. At that point reasonable doubt has been proven. Which allegation are you referring to? I pled the 5th in regards to it. I cannot answer that.

It wouldn't be easy to dismiss it because, again, unlike defendants, witnesses can be forced by law to testify. If you are given a subpoena and still refuse to testify, you won't be able to use that "Well, it'd incriminate me in another crime" excuse.
---

HashtagSEP posted...

Corrik posted...

Now, a court could charge you with contempt afterwards for invoking it. However, it should be a questionably easy case to have dismissed since they would state why did you refuse to testify. You will say because I pled the 5th and did not wish to incriminate myself. They would say you were pardoned for that conviction. Which would be responded with I didn't say what possible allegation I was referring to. At that point reasonable doubt has been proven. Which allegation are you referring to? I pled the 5th in regards to it. I cannot answer that.

It wouldn't be easy to dismiss it because, again, unlike defendants, witnesses can be forced by law to testify. If you are given a subpoena and still refuse to testify, you won't be able to use that "Well, it'd incriminate me in another crime" excuse.

Possibly. There is the question of the Attorney-Client privileges also. While I believe some attorneys have been forced to testify against their clients, it is exceedingly rare I think.

There is a lot of moving parts, but at the end of the day, the pardon is really unbeatable. That is why the pardon power needs to be limited.
---

4/18/2018
NPR - Tennessee Strips $250,000 From Memphis As Payback For Removing Confederate Statues

"This amendment and the explanation, it is hateful, it is unkind, it is un- Christian-like and it is unfair, OK?" she said. "Memphis is a city in this state, and I am sick of people in this House acting like it is not."

State lawmakers have been debating all session how to get back at Memphis for removing the statues last December. Many were angered that Memphis officials circumvented a state law designed to protect Confederate memorials, by selling the parks the statues were in to a nonprofit.

That organization then took down the monuments, which remain in safekeeping while the courts sort out what to do with them.

Rep. Gerald McCormick, R-Chattanooga, and other Republicans defended the decision to withhold funding from the bicentennial celebrations, saying there had to be consequences for flouting the will of the state legislature.

"I think the city of Memphis, like any other city in the nation, needs to if not obey the law, at least obey the spirit of the law," he said. "The law was very clear, and they got smart lawyers to figure out how to wiggle around the law."

Republican Rep. Sabi Kumar of Springfield said revoking the funding was not about Christianity. "This is politics. What was done in Memphis, in removing the monuments, was basically a sneaky thing to do."

Democrat Bo Mitchell warned of "bad consequences" not just in Memphis or Tennessee but nationwide. "Because what you're doing here today is the bad actions of someone who brought arms against their nation and fought against our country, committed treason, then was a proven war criminal, and was slave trader," he said, referring to Forrest, "you're going to choose to honor that person here on this floor today and hold it against a city."

https://www.npr.org/2018/04/18/603525897/tennessee-strips-250-000-from-memphis-as-payback-for-removing-confederate-statue

Man, people are jerks. Dude's the KKK-founder and it's his statue in a majority-black city...yet these guys are gonna call Memphis sneaky and take their money from them over the issue. Get that outta here -- ugly move.
---

Holy hell.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/04/18/outrage-as-california-prof-calls-barbara-bush-amazing-racist-and-says-shes-happy-witch-is-dead.html

"She also boasted that because she is a tenured professor, she couldnt be fired over her views. I work as a tenured professor. I make 100K a year doing that. I will never be fired. I will always have people wanting to hear what I have to say, she wrote on Twitter."

http://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/article209197719.html

Pretty petty to downvote her books over it.

https://twitter.com/neontaster/status/986584365361745920?s=19

Geez
---

I'm not sure why anyone should care what she thinks?
---

Maybe it's because I'm a teacher, but I feel the responses to Corrik are unfairly harsh.
---

Samurai7 posted...

I'm not sure why anyone should care what she thinks?

Apparently she cares what she thinks.

But, let's bring this full circle. You (liberals) said that people who spout messages of hate being in Alt-Right rallies should be exposed and their employers notified so that they could fire them. Right? I even agreed with you limitedly on that. Now bring it full circle.

I even believe I have seen comments saying a girl who sent a racist Snapchat should be expelled from school or people who say not politically correct things should lose their job.

The point is that people can choose to care or not care about whatever whoever says if they wish to. Just like some chose to care what some random college student said on Snapchat, others can choose to care what a professor of an American Public University says.
---

HanOfTheNekos posted...

Maybe it's because I'm a teacher, but I feel the responses to Corrik are unfairly harsh.

What are you a teacher of? You went to a school in Ohio for college, right?
---

Music is my field, but I've taught in a number of classes that aren't performance based.

I went to Ohio University.
---

HanOfTheNekos posted...

Music is my field, but I've taught in a number of classes that aren't performance based.

I went to Ohio University.

I had a music class in college that was online. It was the most pointless class I have ever taken lol.
---

Most online courses are ;)
---

Personally, I dont think its petty to downvote her book. If youre going to be a vocal asshole, especially from a position of authority, you should be prepared to face the consequences. Liberal or Conservative, this countrys culture is going to shit in large part because too many people strive to take the easy road of being an asshole while not receiving any meaningful reprimand.
---

HanOfTheNekos posted...

Most online courses are ;)

True though I suspect they are probably getting more challenging as time goes on. It was pretty much a new technology when I was in college. The best set up one I did have was a health and nutrition class I took.
---

Espeon posted...

Personally, I dont think its petty to downvote her book. If youre going to be a vocal asshole, especially from a position of authority, you should be prepared to face the consequences. Liberal or Conservative, this countrys culture is going to shit in large part because too many people strive to take the easy road of being an asshole while not receiving any meaningful reprimand.

Your book should be reviewed on its merit. Not on your outside dealings imo
Like that referee that UK fans went and downvoted his construction business to hell because they felt he missed calls for them. Like give me a break.

I can understand pointing out bias of the author in addition to your review based on that.

Going and giving 1 star to something you likely never even read? Petty as hell. About as petty as people who 1 star review movies/games or 5 star review movies/games they have never even played.

I also feel not have to deal with the reprimands is because now in life you can just put all the people you wish to filter out on ignore in life and surround yourself with like feelings. Like, that lady probably felt based on her people she surrounds herself with that what she said was acceptable and normal.

Too many people nowadays live in virtual boxes that they can also hide behind.
---

Corrik posted...

Espeon posted...

Personally, I dont think its petty to downvote her book. If youre going to be a vocal asshole, especially from a position of authority, you should be prepared to face the consequences. Liberal or Conservative, this countrys culture is going to shit in large part because too many people strive to take the easy road of being an asshole while not receiving any meaningful reprimand.

Your book should be reviewed on its merit. Not on your outside dealings imo
Like that referee that UK fans went and downvoted his construction business to hell because they felt he missed calls for them. Like give me a break.

I can understand pointing out bias of the author in addition to your review based on that.

Going and giving 1 star to something you likely never even read? Petty as hell. About as petty as people who 1 star review movies/games or 5 star review movies/games they have never even played.

Yeah, I agree with this.
---

Jarrar even encouraged those of Twitter to reach out to Fresno State and to Castro, offering up their Twitter handles.

The university confirmed Jarrar has been on leave all semester.

Clearly seems like she is specifically taking the opportunity to try to stir up shit for them based on these two points.
---

kevwaffles posted...

Jarrar even encouraged those of Twitter to reach out to Fresno State and to Castro, offering up their Twitter handles.

The university confirmed Jarrar has been on leave all semester.

Clearly seems like she is specifically taking the opportunity to try to stir up shit for them based on these two points.

Yeah, I don't know what her actual goal was precisely.
---

Those last two paragraphs are exactly why I dont feel sorry for her. Thats THE problem we face thanks to social media nowadays.
---

HanOfTheNekos posted...

Maybe it's because I'm a teacher, but I feel the responses to Corrik are unfairly harsh.

not sure what being a teacher has to do with it, but i'm not sure why it's "unfairly harsh" to point out that his diatribes about google are bullshit.
---

oh boy, that's going to be an administrative mess for that college
---

https://twitter.com/willmenaker/status/986643192580902914?s=21

Always fun to laugh at how ignorant Ben Shapiro is
---