Not true, if the prosecutors present proof that the client and lawyer may have committed an illegality the client doesn't get to first review the evidence and remove that which he doesn't want used, you've been watching too many Perry Mason reruns
"Trump wants to review material seized from personal lawyer"
- Thread starter archives
- Start date
Not true, if the prosecutors present proof that the client and lawyer may have committed an illegality the client doesn't get to first review the evidence and remove that which he doesn't want used, you've been watching too many Perry Mason reruns
My defense of Bush was based on facts. Your lunatic rants are based on lunacy.
Start a new thread and I will mop the floor with your nasty hair on the facts dumbfuck.
There you go again with all the moronic "ifs" and "buts". The FACT remains, the client has a right to the privacy of their communications with their attorney.
I want you to attempt to engage your brain for a minute. The leftist headline was TRUMP ATTORNEY offices raided. Now you idiots are claiming, he wasn't Trumps attorney. Dunce.
He should be able to sift out information about his yoga classes and grand kids like hillary did before deleting all those emails.
And again your wrong, they had been investigating Cohen for months and obtained the search warrant from a judge and Trump's own Justice Dept because they felt there might exist a potential illegality with Cohen and his clients, which today Cohen has to offer proof he has been actively working with more than one client
Your "FACTS" are erroneous, and your having to resort the the personal crapola to "prove" your point only reinforces thier incorrectness
Darth Omar
Russian asset
It’s a shame Trump didn’t get a chance to use Bleach Bit on Cohen’s files before they raided his office lol.
Hillary wasn't under a court action at the time, then again, she was never under any type of legal consideration, well, unless of course you count right wing demogogues and talk shoes litigating inneundos 24/7 for six years straight
You don't break down doors like the Gestapo based on POTENTIAL illegality. What are the charges?
Irony coming from a dullard who wouldn't know a fact if it walked up and slapped him upside his thick empty head.
Cancel 2018.2
Oh, hi
It is his you full blown moron.
Cancel 2018.2
Oh, hi
No kidding.
This move is actually quite common in discovery that might be privileged.
Liberals are hysterical liars.
Cancel 2019.1
Verified User
Grasping at straws.
Cancel 2019.1
Verified User
No; this is what happens in a Fascist state. Of course, you morons on the left are all for Fascism these days aren't you shit-for-brains?
Another Trump supporter high on Trump piss yellow Kool Aid
Cancel 2019.1
Verified User
Trump thinks he is above the law.
Cancel 2019.1
Verified User
The famous deflection from Trump,"but Hillary".
Cancel 2019.1
Verified User
Ignore the deflection to Hillary,that's just what they want.
Cancel 2019.1
Verified User
You don't break down doors like the Gestapo based on POTENTIAL illegality. What are the charges?
Irony coming from a dullard who wouldn't know a fact if it walked up and slapped him upside his thick empty head.
It's called a signed by a judge,warrant.
Leonthecat
Racism Watchdog
The privilege does not extend beyond the scope of legal advice.
Any hint of illegal activity negates any privilege of protected conversation.
Guess what. The judge said no privilege.