I have an issue with a gag order on other people, particularly volunteers over which Stone has no authority nor persuasion.

How it is every damn case is given to Amy Berman Jackson?

Rapier108 said:

---

How it is every damn case is given to Amy Berman Jackson?

---

The government argued that Stone was a related case to one she was already working. Typical motion practice the encourages efficiency of the courts. That is not how it usually works out however, just another type of forum shopping.

For instance, in the new asylum cases against Trump's recent announcement, the plaintiff lawyers are claiming they should be assigned to the same judges that have already ruled against Trump.

Me too!

In fact, I can possibly understand the wife being included, but where does the law stand on uncles, nieces, aunts, friends, high school friends, college friends, and so on..........? How would she have that power? I'm sure there's some case law on this topic, but damn, it's a Dem dream for judges to have the power to have hundreds of people on any topic be silent by law.

Hopefully it is more narrow than it is being described. If it is not someone Stone communicates his personal opinions, views, or arguments to, that would then relay them understandibgbor knowing his intended message and maybe motives, then how in the hell csn she presume to silence other people just opining their own independent views, even if they just happen to align with what Stones have been or may be. I think the limit is clearly reached when the person speaking publicly has no contact with or relationship to stone. Surely such a person is free to opine.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/07/18/heres-guide-latest-wild-developments-michael-flynn/

I like Aggiehawg's explanation better.

Quote:

---

Powell countered that nothing in the Statement of Offense says "willfully/knowingly re FARA." In what McKasson called "very heated," Van Grack barked, "without willfully/knowingly it doesn't make this an offense," referring to the FARA false statements. This is the "first time your client or counsel has made any statement like what you are saying." "I want to be clear," Van Grack sneered, "You are saying that he did not provide any false/misleading statements to Covington?"

Powell countered, "You are asking my client to lie. Everything I have seen is consistentif you have seen something, show us." Van Grack retorted, "No one is asking your client to lie. Be careful about what you say."

One of the Virginia prosecutors interjected then, saying "Let's go back to having a factual discussion. What he believes to be true," adding "it is difficult for us to believe" that Flynn did not know the statements were false when he signed the FARA statements. But tagging off of Van Grack's question, he asked Powell to "clarify that your position is that he [Flynn] never gave false information to any lawyers at Covington whether orally or through documents." Powell replied, "We have seen nothing to indicate that."

---

The two bolded portions are critical. An unintentionally false FARA filing is an administrative issue requiring an amended filing and potentially a small fine. Without the knowledge and intent, it is not a crime and Brandon Van Grack who has been on the Flynn case since the start, knows that.

The second bolded portion is about the CYA efforts of Covington, Burling to defend themselves. There was quite a furious back and forth in early 2017 between Covington and David Lauffman at DOJ/NatSec regarding their original advice to FIG that a FARA filing was not required on the facts their client had provided to them.

(That is fairly common for lawyers to point their fingers back on their clients because, let's face it clients often do lie to their lawyers.)

But the second part of their legal engagement to guide FIG through the intricacies of federal disclosure requirements and running a business like Flynn Intelligence Group, means they should ask more pointed questions or direct their client to do so. Do a deeper dive and further counsel FIG on what they could and could not do within the course of their services, such as the wisdom of writing an op-ed in the absence of a FARA filing.

(Go back and review the lengths Skadden, Arps took with Greg Craig when he was engaged to do the investigation in Ukraine at the behest of Manafort. They were all over Craig, one of their partners, to stay on top of what he was and wasn't doing. Wasn't their fault he was lying to them. The firm still had to cough up the 4 million in fees they had collected, however.)

https://www.courthousenews.com/michael-cohen-files-implicate-trump-hope-hicks-and-david-pecker/

Don't know the source,.

Quote:

---

When the first batch of Michael Cohen search-warrant materials became public, the files disclosed evidence that President Trump's former fixer secretly worked for a foreign government.

The new materials released on Thursday proved no less significant, detailing the actions Cohen took after the release of the "Access Hollywood" video threatened to derail Trump's campaign. Within days of the release, according to the warrants, Cohen exchanged a "series of calls, text messages and emails" with Trump; his then-press secretary Hope Hicks; the National Enquirer's David Pecker; and Stormy Daniels' lawyer Keith Davidson.

Detailing Cohen's illegal hush-money payments to two women, the unsealed pages dispensed with the veiling of "Individual-1."

"As set forth below, there is probable cause to believe that Cohen made an excessive in-kind contribution to the presidential election campaign of then-candidate Donald Trump in the form of a $130,000 payment to Stephanie Clifford, an individual who was rumored to have had an extramarital affair with Trump, in exchange for her agreement not to disclose the alleged affair," the document states.

U.S. District Judge William H. Pauley III ordered the release of the information a day earlier, rejecting the government's request to protect the privacy interests of third parties.

"The campaign finance violations discussed in the materials are a matter of national importance," Pauley wrote. "Now that the government's investigation into those violations has concluded, it is time that every American has an opportunity to scrutinize the materials."

In March, the government released a trove of hundreds of meticulously documented pages of search warrant materials used to justify the judicially authorized raids of Cohen's home, office and hotel suite in April 2018.

---

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/cohen-warrants.pdf

aggiehawg said:

---

(That is fairly common for lawyers to point their fingers back on their clients because, let's face it clients often do lie to their lawyers.)

---

A lawyer I clerked for said "assume your client is lying until proven otherwise".

VegasAg86 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

(That is fairly common for lawyers to point their fingers back on their clients because, let's face it clients often do lie to their lawyers.)

---

A lawyer I clerked for said "assume your client is lying until proven otherwise".

---

Me: "Run background checks and criminal histories."

Legal Assistant: "On the Plaintiff?"

Me: "Yes, and on our client."

Sarge 91 said:

---

VegasAg86 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

(That is fairly common for lawyers to point their fingers back on their clients because, let's face it clients often do lie to their lawyers.)

---

A lawyer I clerked for said "assume your client is lying until proven otherwise".

---

Me: "Run background checks and criminal histories."

Legal Assistant: "On the Plaintiff?"

Me: "Yes, and on our client."

---

lol

He was a plaintiffs' lawyer.

Judge didn't fall for the same issue on asylum in the DC case.

aggiehawg said:

---

Judge didn't fall for the same issue on asylum in the DC case.

---

Another Obama judge. Can we expect more of the same you think?

NM got assigned to another judge, not Cooper. Trump appointed.

Don't know. We'll have to see.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/18/bijan-rafiekian-case-1421607

Quote:

---

.....
While defense lawyers for Rafiekian asked Trenga to dismiss the entire case, they were most focused on the conspiracy charge and capitalizing on a pre-trial ruling the judge made that evidence appeared to be lacking that Rafiekian agreed with others to violate U.S. law.

Trenga expressed the same skepticism during a hearing on the issue, but following a 45-minute recess, he returned to the courtroom to say he was taking the issue under advisement and would allow the trial to proceed.

"There are very substantial issues with respect to the sufficiency of the evidence," Trenga said. He called the government's proof "all very circumstantial," adding: "Most of it's speculative."

However, the judge noted that court rules at this stage call for him to assess the evidence in the light most favorable to the government. Then, he announced he was planning to "reserve" on the issue......

---

Latest Development In Flynn Case Proves Special Counsel Was A Cover For Taking Down Trump

Quote:

---

The special counsel's investigation was a sham controlled by the intelligence community. Evidence has long suggested as much, but testimony earlier this week from Michael Flynn's ex-lawyerthat Flynn's former legal team had not seen recently revealed information purporting to implicate Flynn in a conspiracy with a Turkish agentconfirms it.

---

Sorry wrong thread! To the Epstein thread.

First of all, my brain doesn't think like Cleveland's, and apparently all attorneys. That's frickin' amazing she caught this information, or it is to me. Is there an investigatinve class they teach in law school that teaches extreme critical thinking? Or is it a pre-condition of living in DC in order to cover your ass?

I'm kinda embarrased at the things I've missed over the years.

Secondly, regarding Epstein, I don't know if the competing attorney collaboration is good or bad. If their joint efforts are to benefit Epstein, well that appears to be some form of malpractice from the government. If these efforts are to obtain Epstein's knowledge, information, practices, names, etc., then I understand.

And yes, drcrinum, that's a fascinating read (plus, it keeps me from mowing the lawn this morning).

Quote:

---

First of all, my brain doesn't think like Cleveland's, and apparently all attorneys. That's frickin' amazing she caught this information, or it is to me. Is there an investigatinve class they teach in law school that teaches extreme critical thinking? Or is it a pre-condition of living in DC in order to cover your ass?

---

Part of the Socratic method. Not all law schools follow it but yes, we are taught to think differently from before.

I remember at orientation before my first year we were told that if we were married, likely half of us would get divorced by our third year. Seemed kind of silly to me at the time but it was true. Largely a function of how we were retrained to actually argue a point, any point.

I have been married to The Hubs for over 20 years. Drives him crazy when we are having an argument and I go into what he calls "lawyer mode." Mostly drives him crazy because he knows he's about to lose the argument, however.

LOL. Our son had a "lawyer mode" from an early age, and could argue either side of an argument effectively.

Sure enough, he's an attorney now.

I bet he does that on purpose just so you can make up...

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

First of all, my brain doesn't think like Cleveland's, and apparently all attorneys. That's frickin' amazing she caught this information, or it is to me. Is there an investigatinve class they teach in law school that teaches extreme critical thinking? Or is it a pre-condition of living in DC in order to cover your ass?

---

Part of the Socratic method. Not all law schools follow it but yes, we are taught to think differently from before.

I remember at orientation before my first year we were told that if we were married, likely half of us would get divorced by our third year. Seemed kind of silly to me at the time but it was true. Largely a function of how we were retrained to actually argue a point, any point.

I have been married to The Hubs for over 20 years. Drives him crazy when we are having an argument and I go into what he calls "lawyer mode." Mostly drives him crazy because he knows he's about to lose the argument, however.

---

This is true. My wife hates it. I think part of the way we are taught is to see issues from all angles, including from the perspective of an opponent. That allows you to anticipate their positions and cut them off at the knees (not my wife, of course).

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

First of all, my brain doesn't think like Cleveland's, and apparently all attorneys. That's frickin' amazing she caught this information, or it is to me. Is there an investigatinve class they teach in law school that teaches extreme critical thinking? Or is it a pre-condition of living in DC in order to cover your ass?

---

Part of the Socratic method. Not all law schools follow it but yes, we are taught to think differently from before.

I remember at orientation before my first year we were told that if we were married, likely half of us would get divorced by our third year. Seemed kind of silly to me at the time but it was true. Largely a function of how we were retrained to actually argue a point, any point.

I have been married to The Hubs for over 20 years. Drives him crazy when we are having an argument and I go into what he calls "lawyer mode." Mostly drives him crazy because he knows he's about to lose the argument, however.

---

Which is funny, because we don't win that many to start with.

drcrinum said:

---

That's a good read.

BRENNAN!

---

Margot just didn't want to go "there." By "there" I mean calling out Team Mueller and the EDVa attorneys of malfeasance. Maybe the EDVa attorneys were never apprised but you can be damned certain nothing was withheld from Mueller and Weissmann. Brennan, Clapper and Comey considered Mueller and Weissmann as on the same team with them.

I mean, think about it. Team Mueller twisted themselves into pretzels to avoid using the Classified Information Procedures Act. (Which is biting them in the butt on the Concord case, BTW.) Why would they do that when they could use that Act and the procedures therein to simultaneously protect the classified information and obtain a conviction?

Because those proceedings are closed to the press and the public and the records sealed. THEY ARE SECRET.

They made a conscious decision to craft these cases in such a way to skirt the necessity of proceeding under CIPA because they wanted these to be public.

Final observation. Margot just gave Mueller a get-out-of-jail free card regarding his testimony. All of the discrepancies (except the editing of the Dowd/Kelner voice mail) can be pinned on the IC not telling the SCO what they knew.

The "lawyer mode" worked on my wife for a while but then she got tired of it. Now when she gets mad, she pouts for a couple of days. Either way, I consider it a win.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

First of all, my brain doesn't think like Cleveland's, and apparently all attorneys. That's frickin' amazing she caught this information, or it is to me. Is there an investigatinve class they teach in law school that teaches extreme critical thinking? Or is it a pre-condition of living in DC in order to cover your ass?

---

Part of the Socratic method. Not all law schools follow it but yes, we are taught to think differently from before.

I remember at orientation before my first year we were told that if we were married, likely half of us would get divorced by our third year. Seemed kind of silly to me at the time but it was true. Largely a function of how we were retrained to actually argue a point, any point.

I have been married to The Hubs for over 20 years. Drives him crazy when we are having an argument and I go into what he calls "lawyer mode." Mostly drives him crazy because he knows he's about to lose the argument, however.

---

If Single - New Rule: Avoid marrying a lawyer.
If Married (to a lawyer) - Hire a lawyer...for mental peace of mind.

LeisureSuitLarry said:

---

The "lawyer mode" worked on my wife for a while but then she got tired of it. Now when she gets mad, she pouts for a couple of days. Either way, I consider it a win.

---

I hate to interrupt the circle jerk, but do you guys really "win" these arguments? Or is it that there is no judge in the room to tell you to sit down and shut-up, so you simply beat the loves of your lives down with persistence until they decide their cost-benefit ratio of having to listen to more of your bullsheet is upside down?

A reminder of the good ol' days.

I haven't paid any attention to the coming Mueller, and then Weissman, testimony, because Mueller will do what he said he would. He'll just reply that "it's in the report". If that doesn't work, can't he just plead the fifth?

And if THAT doesn't work, any question a Republican asks, will have the answer be extended for 4 minutes and 45 seconds to avoid another question (5 minutes being the maximum time for each legislator. IMO, I expect nothing out of these hearings, except knashing of teeth, and internal grinding of news organizations.

And Hawg, I can see him taking that course, but if he does, won't that point Barr/Durham in a different direction? Based on their history, I really like both of those guys, but I'm only 60% sold on them. Meaning I'm waiting on actions to justify my initial faith.

Or, as usual, I could be wrong.

Quote:

---

If Single - New Rule: Avoid marrying a lawyer.

If Married (to a lawyer) - Hire a lawyer...for mental peace of mind.

---

Or just restrict lawyers to only marrying each other.

Word on the street is that mueller is rehearsing with the dems so he can give them a few sound bites to run with.

Rockdoc said:

---

Word on the street is that mueller is rehearsing with the dems so he can give them a few sound bites to run with.

---

Of course he is. We already saw from his press conference he will continue to take shots at Trump to give them cover for impeachment.

Rockdoc said:

---

Word on the street is that mueller is rehearsing with the dems so he can give them a few sound bites to run with.

---

How can that be? Isn't he a Republican? Cause I've heard that over and over again.