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

(+) Yeah! (+)

StealThisSheen posted...

At the same time, I do think there's merit to him saying "'Google said so' isn't a good argument," because he has a bit of a point that it doesn't really mean too much without an actual source attached.

it didn't have merit in the context of the argument. someone (peaf?) came up with a bunch of sources and simply said "this is what i found by googling" and then corrik threw his "YOU THINK YOU'RE SO SMART BECAUSE YOU CAN GOOGLE SOMETHING" hissy fit.
---

Perhaps part of it is that you guys read too much venom in Corrik's words.
---

Also, something to think about - how much money would Twitter have had to pay Trump for all the advertising he's given them, holy shit.
---

HanOfTheNekos posted...

Perhaps part of it is that you guys read too much venom in Corrik's words.

nope
---

I was kind of on board with Han's stance at first even if I didn't necessarily agree, but, uhhh.....he kinda ruined it.
---

HanOfTheNekos posted...

Perhaps part of it is that you guys read too much venom in Corrik's words.

I don't think that's an accurate assessment.

Corrik posted...

Again. I speak in common sense while you all just dance around it and act oblivious. Ofc Cohen would be pardoned if he were convicted of something.

I wouldn't call it "venom", but Corrik CONSTANTLY just says passive-aggressive shit like this quote instead of explaining anything.

Corrik posted...

So many of you sit here and beat your chests like King Kong and say dumb s*** 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!"

Nobody (that I saw) called him a moron or bragged that they were smart. We all said "everything on Google says the opposite, can you show a contrary source or not"?
---

The refusal to ever back up their claims when presented with counter sources is why Corrik is sliding nore and more into the Vlado and Ulti pool.
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

Corrik posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

He probably did the cost-benefit analysis in his head and realized it wasn't worth his time or effort.

So at the very least he's a wise man, I'd say.

So what you think, Suprak? Is that Pittsburgh memo silly or justified?

I mean, it's probably a good idea. I know that all over reddit on basically every sub that is vaguely politics with the except of like r/the_donald, whenever someone posts something about Mueller maybe getting fired, there are four people that post a link to the page organizing protests. They already have the protests all planned out and ready to go. I think these would mostly be peaceful, but it only takes a few idiots for them not to be and it is something the police are probably best prepared for.

If Mueller is fired, there will absolutely be protests. I checked the link and there are like 15 different ones planned within driving distance to me. I would imagine Pittsburgh is similar!

LMFAO seriously? They are planning spontaneous protests for something probably not even going to happen? Like literally planning them out? That's wild.
---

Corrik posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

Corrik posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

He probably did the cost-benefit analysis in his head and realized it wasn't worth his time or effort.

So at the very least he's a wise man, I'd say.

So what you think, Suprak? Is that Pittsburgh memo silly or justified?

I mean, it's probably a good idea. I know that all over reddit on basically every sub that is vaguely politics with the except of like r/the_donald, whenever someone posts something about Mueller maybe getting fired, there are four people that post a link to the page organizing protests. They already have the protests all planned out and ready to go. I think these would mostly be peaceful, but it only takes a few idiots for them not to be and it is something the police are probably best prepared for.

If Mueller is fired, there will absolutely be protests. I checked the link and there are like 15 different ones planned within driving distance to me. I would imagine Pittsburgh is similar!

LMFAO seriously? They are planning spontaneous protests for something probably not even going to happen? Like literally planning them out? That's wild.

What's wrong with planning for things that could happen?
---

GildedFool posted...

Also, something to think about - how much money would Twitter have had to pay Trump for all the advertising he's given them, holy shit.

Its sort of amazing that even with all the traffic he generates they are still in danger of folding.
---

LapisLazuli posted...

I was kind of on board with Han's stance at first even if I didn't necessarily agree, but, uhhh.....he kinda ruined it.

How? By refusing to engage with someone calling me an ass?

I have better things to do than repeat myself to somebody on the internet.
---

Corrik posted...

They are planning spontaneous protests for something probably not even going to happen?

Well, I mean, people thought that about firing Comey.
---

HanOfTheNekos posted...

How? By refusing to engage with someone calling me an ass?

you already refused to engage with me before i called you an ass.

I have better things to do than repeat myself to somebody on the internet.

doesn't seem like it.
---

Also can we stop analyzing fucking Corrik

He doesnt deserve all this attention. Hes just a fucking troll, this is like 2004 level stuff here.
---

xp1337 posted...

Corrik posted...

They are planning spontaneous protests for something probably not even going to happen?

Well, I mean, people thought that about firing Comey.

Don't you need permits for this kind of thing?
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

HanOfTheNekos posted...

How? By refusing to engage with someone calling me an ass?

you already refused to engage with me before i called you an ass.

I have better things to do than repeat myself to somebody on the internet.

doesn't seem like it.

I said that, even having had negative interactions with him in the past, I still tend to default to starting off seeing people from a blank page. That's why a bunch of people getting all in a tiff with Corrik looks like people just overreacting - from the gate, people seem to be aggressive.

Does that help?
---

Corrik posted...

xp1337 posted...

Corrik posted...

They are planning spontaneous protests for something probably not even going to happen?

Well, I mean, people thought that about firing Comey.

Don't you need permits for this kind of thing?

Typically only if you're going to actually host it in a park or public place like that where you'd be obstructing use of said place

And there are exemptions for protests in response to breaking news
---

HanOfTheNekos posted...

That's why a bunch of people getting all in a tiff with Corrik looks like people just overreacting - from the gate, people seem to be aggressive.

Does that help?

no, because you're still just saying people being aggressive to corrik (which we are, at least in this topic) is an "overreaction." you're not explaining why the aggressive manner in which we are engaging corrik is anything other than a completely adequate reaction.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Corrik posted...

xp1337 posted...

Corrik posted...

They are planning spontaneous protests for something probably not even going to happen?

Well, I mean, people thought that about firing Comey.

Don't you need permits for this kind of thing?

Typically only if you're going to actually host it in a park or public place like that where you'd be obstructing use of said place

And there are exemptions for protests in response to breaking news

I see. That's interesting.
---

"Google says this"
"Lol, you think you're an instant expert because of Google"
"Okay then, provide a counter-source"
"No"
"Okay then, the point stands"
"No it doesn't, because Google"
"Go off"
"Wow, people sure are bullying the guy who refuses to provide counter-sources"
---

Corrik posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

Corrik posted...

xp1337 posted...

Corrik posted...

They are planning spontaneous protests for something probably not even going to happen?

Well, I mean, people thought that about firing Comey.

Don't you need permits for this kind of thing?

Typically only if you're going to actually host it in a park or public place like that where you'd be obstructing use of said place

And there are exemptions for protests in response to breaking news

I see. That's interesting.

Yeah. Basically, as dumb as it sounds, they're planning spontaneous protests.

They're planning protests, but as long as the protests don't actually happen until the event in question happens, there are exemptions for them.
---

HanOfTheNekos posted...

Mr Lasastryke posted...

HanOfTheNekos posted...

How? By refusing to engage with someone calling me an ass?

you already refused to engage with me before i called you an ass.

I have better things to do than repeat myself to somebody on the internet.

doesn't seem like it.

I said that, even having had negative interactions with him in the past, I still tend to default to starting off seeing people from a blank page. That's why a bunch of people getting all in a tiff with Corrik looks like people just overreacting - from the gate, people seem to be aggressive.

Does that help?

I mean, it helps, in that I now get that you've got a wierd outlook. That's not how people or society work.
---

i mean, i even agree with han in the sense that i actually keep giving users on this board more chances than is probably healthy to do. for instance, MWE was a guy who was 100% a bottom of the barrel troll, and i even acknowledged it when HE made a good point once in a political debate.

it's just that corrik was acting like a moron with the whole google thing, as bowser pointed out. i may have agreed with han's point if corrik was saying super vanilla things about politics and we were all going "GEEZ CORRIK SHUT THE FUCK UP," but this is just a nonsensical topic to make the "we're treating corrik unfairly" accusation in.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

i mean, i even agree with han in the sense that i actually keep giving users on this board more chances than is probably healthy to do. for instance, MWE was a guy who was 100% a bottom of the barrel troll, and i even acknowledged it when HE made a good point once in a political debate.

it's just that corrik was acting like a moron with the whole google thing, as bowser pointed out. i may have agreed with han's point if corrik was saying super vanilla things about politics and we were all going "GEEZ CORRIK SHUT THE FUCK UP," but this is just a nonsensical topic to make the "we're treating corrik unfairly" accusation in.

No. I pointed out accurately how you all think because if you Google something that you are experts on it. The thing you looked at didn't even apply in regards to what I was saying yet tried to tell me I was absolutely wrong due to it. I had one person tell me how steel tariffs work in regards to my work because they googled an article. Then say something along the lines of that I needed to learn how they actually work or something in regards to it.

It is craziness.

But, apparently it is easier to keep up the nonsense narrative you got going.

All good.
---

Corrik posted...

No. I pointed out accurately how you all think because if you Google something that you are experts on it.

no, this isn't accurate because nobody in this topic actually thinks this.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Corrik posted...

No. I pointed out accurately how you all think because if you Google something that you are experts on it.

no, this isn't accurate because nobody in this topic actually thinks this.

If you say so.
---

Corrik posted...

No. I pointed out accurately how you all think because if you Google something that you are experts on it. The thing you looked at didn't even apply in regards to what I was saying yet tried to tell me I was absolutely wrong due to it. I had one person tell me how steel tariffs work in regards to my work because they googled an article. Then say something along the lines of that I needed to learn how they actually work or something in regards to it.

Actually what happened was

Person A said if he gets pardoned he cant plead the fifth.

You said thats not true.

Everyone asked you for your source.

You refused.

Everyone provided sources for their position.

You then specified a specific position you had in which it may be applicable, but thats all irrelevant because the original person you first responded to wasnt talking about that position.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Corrik posted...

No. I pointed out accurately how you all think because if you Google something that you are experts on it. The thing you looked at didn't even apply in regards to what I was saying yet tried to tell me I was absolutely wrong due to it. I had one person tell me how steel tariffs work in regards to my work because they googled an article. Then say something along the lines of that I needed to learn how they actually work or something in regards to it.

Actually what happened was

Person A said if he gets pardoned he cant plead the fifth.

You said thats not true.

Everyone asked you for your source.

You refused.

Everyone provided sources for their position.

You then specified a specific position you had in which it may be applicable, but thats all irrelevant because the original person you first responded to wasnt talking about that position.

Actually what happened was that again the same person named ChaosTony surprisingly who tried to tell me he knows how steel tariffs work because he googled an article told me that I was absolutely wrong again because of a googled article that does not apply to the scenario.

Surprising.

But like I said. Anywho. Not very surprising.
---

Corrik posted...

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Corrik posted...

No. I pointed out accurately how you all think because if you Google something that you are experts on it.

no, this isn't accurate because nobody in this topic actually thinks this.

If you say so.

Dude if you just provided one link supporting/explaining your position we could have avoided like 6 pages of this discussion.
---

Corrik posted...

Actually what happened was that again the same person named ChaosTony surprisingly who tried to tell me he knows how steel tariffs work because he googled an article told me that I was absolutely wrong again because of a googled article that does not apply to the scenario.

Surprising.

But like I said. Anywho. Not very surprising.

Youre confusing me for someone else and/or gaslighting me.

Surprising/not very surprising
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Corrik posted...

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Corrik posted...

No. I pointed out accurately how you all think because if you Google something that you are experts on it.

no, this isn't accurate because nobody in this topic actually thinks this.

If you say so.

Dude if you just provided one link supporting/explaining your position we could have avoided like 6 pages of this discussion.

There is not going to be a link. It is a simple extrapolation of the actual 5th amendment. Why would there be a link to explain the use of the 5th amendment? It is in the amendment.

And, if you think Cohen, whose family supposedly was the lawyer for a bunch of the mob back in the day where they used the 5th amendment regularly, does not know how to properly bend the 5th amendment as needed then I would call you probably a little short sighted.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Corrik posted...

Actually what happened was that again the same person named ChaosTony surprisingly who tried to tell me he knows how steel tariffs work because he googled an article told me that I was absolutely wrong again because of a googled article that does not apply to the scenario.

Surprising.

But like I said. Anywho. Not very surprising.

Youre confusing me for someone else and/or gaslighting me.

Surprising/not very surprising

I will apologize if the steel tariff is NOT you, but I feel pretty confident you were the one.
---

Corrik posted...

There is not going to be a link.

Can we PLEASE stop acknowledging this guy?
---

Corrik posted...

There is not going to be a link. It is a simple extrapolation of the actual 5th amendment. Why would there be a link to explain the use of the 5th amendment? It is in the amendment.

Well, mainly because the fifth amendment applies differently to different situations. So while you would be right in the case of Cohen being a defendant, the others were right in the case of Cohen being a witness.

That said, you're also right that Cohen could refuse to testify and then just have Trump pardon him again, but that would be a very, very bad situation for Trump.
---

Sorry it appears his family wasn't the lawyer for them. Just ran a club they used as a headquarters supposedly.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Corrik posted...

There is not going to be a link. It is a simple extrapolation of the actual 5th amendment. Why would there be a link to explain the use of the 5th amendment? It is in the amendment.

Well, mainly because the fifth amendment applies differently to different situations. So while you would be right in the case of Cohen being a defendant, the others were right in the case of Cohen being a witness.

That said, you're also right that Cohen could refuse to testify and then just have Trump pardon him again, but that would be a very, very bad situation for Trump.

That is why I stated we were on different pages. They were talking about a pre-emptive pardon from everything I gathered.

A pardon in regards to a witness doesn't matter. They can "compel" him to testify regardless of the pardon.
---

Post 103

MalcolmMasher posted...

If Cohen were pardoned, wouldn't he lose the right to remain silent, since he could no longer incriminate himself?

Post 107

NFUN posted...

yes

Post 109

Corrik posted...

The answer is actually no. Not that it matters.

Post 115

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Can I get a link? Because I'm seeing conflicting stuff on this all over the place. The consensus being that as long as you wouldn't be incriminating yourself in a state-level investigation of the same crimes you would be compelled to testify. Also that immunity could be granted in some cases which would further compel someone to testify even more strongly than a federal pardon.

But I've yet to find a clear cut and definitive piece on the issue.

That is the first 4 posts of the "wouldn't he lose the right to remain silent" portion of the exchange. I bolded the important part in my post because I wanted to show that even early on BEFORE you made your google comments I was asking in good faith if you had a source to support your position.

To continue:

Post 117

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Corrik is simply wrong here.

Post 120

Corrik posted...

I am not wrong here. You are just saying what you want the answer to be.

Additional note: Around this time there was a side bar of Inviso suggesting that Corrik simply meant that trump would pardon cohen of any additional charges he accrued through his refusal to testify. But corrik said that was not the case. Post 118 and 121. But in 121 corrik does say:

Corrik posted...

Just because someone pardoned you for a crime doesn't mean you could not be incriminating yourself in another way. That said, I have no reason to believe that is relevant at this time anyways so it doesn't matter like I said.

---

And 122

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Corrik, literally all 10 links on the first page of Google for "pardon lose the right to 5th amendment" say you're wrong, and reading the first 3 they cite multiple court cases.

The ball is in your court to prove you're not talking directly from your anus.

Which takes us to 123

Corrik posted...

I love how people once again think if they Google something for 10 seconds that they are experts.

So to recap over the course of 20ish posts..

1) It was suggested that cohen might not be able to utlize the 5th amendment with regard to crimes he had been pardoned from

2) you disagreed

3) I asked if you had a source since I wasn't seeing anything that backed that up.

4) Tony disagreed with you

5) You said he was just seeing what he wnated to see

5.5) You were also in a side conversation with inviso at this time about the possibility that you mean additional pardons would be levelled, which may have caused confusion.

6) Tony says google says you are wrong. He also mentions that court cases are referenced in articles that say you are wrong. Imo this lends them weight, though it would have been better if specific links were provided.

7) You make your comment about us thinking we are experts.

Looking back, it is not a good look for corrik. No one claimed to be experts. I specificially said that I was trying to find a clear answer, not that I knew all the answers and I asked for him to assist me if he had a supporting link.

But in conclusion it seems clear that Cohen *would* be forced to testify as a witness regarding crimes he was pardoned in. Again, providing that testimony would not further implicate him in other crimes.

But as long as the initial prosecution was thorough enough and charged cohen with all the crimes he committed he would not realistically be able to use that excuse.

It also seems silly to think that the experts who will be involved in Cohen's prosecution would not be significantly more aware of these facts than we are and they would take care to make sure they didn't give him a loophole to refuse to testify down the line.
---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

But in conclusion it seems clear that Cohen *would* be forced to testify as a witness regarding crimes he was pardoned in. Again, providing that testimony would not further implicate him in other crimes.

This is exactly what I said. But, the thing regarding it is that he doesn't have to relay what crime it would implicate him so that he does not have to answer it regardless with the 5th amendment.

If they want to get an answer, they would have to offer basically blanket immunity on his testimony. Then he couldn't use the 5th or he would have had to of been given a pardon for any crimes he has committed.

A pardon for a charge or charges does not remove his ability to use the 5th amendment.

Forceful_Dragon posted...

It also seems silly to think that the experts who will be involved in Cohen's prosecution would not be significantly more aware of these facts than we are and they would take care to make sure they didn't give him a loophole to refuse to testify down the line.

It is literally impossible to remove every loophole. Because you cannot cover every crime he could possibly implicate himself in. Does that make sense?

That is why only a full pardon or blanket immunity can remove the 5th amendment. Even if he is just fabricating a crime he would supposedly implicate himself in. You can't know that because you do not know why he plead the 5th.
---

I respect your diligence, FD.
---

FD going straight on mafia game.
---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/aceattorney/images/f/f9/SoJ_Objection%21.png/revision/latest?cb=20160909141244

---

##Vote: FD

Wall of quotes = Scum.

Mr Lasastryke posted...

no, because you're still just saying people being aggressive to corrik (which we are, at least in this topic) is an "overreaction." you're not explaining why the aggressive manner in which we are engaging corrik is anything other than a completely adequate reaction.

I don't need to? My argument wasn't "you guys are being unreasonable", it was "You guys appear to be unreasonable, and this is why I think I feel this way".

Literally, from the first phrase I said in this conversation, I said that it was my perspective which was different because I am a teacher. I never said "you guys are assholes for ganging up on Corrik", I said "I feel that this is unfair but my feelings are maybe due to me being a teacher". I then explained why being a teacher mattered towards my perspective.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

I wouldn't call it "venom", but Corrik CONSTANTLY just says passive-aggressive shit like this quote instead of explaining anything.

A lot of those things don't necessarily need explanation. Corrik says something that is pretty easy to understand. People provide counters that are not necessarily contradictions. People focus on those counters, while Corrik focuses on his point. People argue about different things. He gets surly because the crux of his argument is ignored.

LapisLazuli posted...

I mean, it helps, in that I now get that you've got a wierd outlook. That's not how people or society work.

Duh? A huge part of my job is behavior management. When people act in a way that does not suit proper integration into society, my role is to correct and advise. Otherwise, when they get into society, the way they act will lead to them losing out based on their behavior. It is more effective to correct this behavior and treat them as they should if that behavior never existed.

You don't hold grudges against your students. That's education 101.
---

Just strange that you're continuing to argue your point while simultaneously admitting you're wrong...
---

Wrong about what?
---

You're saying that your perspective is that we're being unreasonable while admitting that we're in reality being totally reasonable.
---

HanOfTheNekos posted...

You don't hold grudges against your students. That's education 101.

Corrik's an adult, not a student, and in fact by equating him to a student you are insulting him in a roundabout way. You are essentially saying that he is an ignorant child that needs to be educated. I mean, you're not wrong but I don't think you're taking as much of the high ground as you think you are.
---

LapisLazuli posted...

You're saying that your perspective is that we're being unreasonable while admitting that we're in reality being totally reasonable.

Corrik's rhetoric doesn't earn him favors, but you also default to going at him guns blazing. Those are not contradictory.

KamikazePotato posted...

HanOfTheNekos posted...

You don't hold grudges against your students. That's education 101.

Corrik's an adult, not a student, and in fact by equating him to a student you are insulting him in a roundabout way. You are essentially saying that he is an ignorant child that needs to be educated. I mean, you're not wrong but I don't think you're taking as much of the high ground as you think you are.

????

None of what you said here is sensible in the slightest.
---

HanOfTheNekos posted...

Corrik's rhetoric doesn't earn him favors, but you also default to going at him guns blazing. Those are not contradictory.

It's what he has earned. Giving someone a blank slate with every conversation is absurd. People with his history need to earn the right to be taken seriously. Don't give him a benefit he would never give another.
---

Oh my god Han FUCK OFF
---