It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Because you can. It's justified and legal. You seem to be not able to read and or comprehend.
originally posted by: Look2theSacredHeart
Why would someone innocent need to be fed information about an investigation in the first place?
originally posted by: neutronflux
originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical
originally posted by: Fools
Got to love the spin on this one. Basically no law was broken but let's just go ahead and pretend one was. What in the hell is wrong with journalists these days? Are they all that mentally simple?
I think the issue is that Manafort was feeding Mueller junk info. Mueller accepted it at face even though he knew it was lies. And then Trump answers the questions in writing going with the same story that Mueller already knows is lies. Won't end up very well for Trump if this is the case.
Why does Trump need to lie? Why would you align your “story” with someone already known as a liar, and under surveillance?
Yeah, NO. Been debunked already, sorry.
originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: Look2theSacredHeart
Hey, just saw this thread! It seems one piece of Marcy Wheelers story has been corroborated. As I just told the yapping hyenas in the other thread, time will tell if the other, illegal part is true. I think we’ll need Trumps answers to Muellers questions for that.
It’s been known for a while that Trump and Manaforts lawyers have had a communication agreement between themselves to share information. The illegal part comes in if Trump was using that agreement to mislead the Mueller investigation.
I had a late night last night and just woke up, but seeing Trumps rage tweets this morning makes me think the illegal part might very well be true.
Time will tell.
originally posted by: Arnie123
Yeah, NO. Been debunked already, sorry.
originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: Look2theSacredHeart
Hey, just saw this thread! It seems one piece of Marcy Wheelers story has been corroborated. As I just told the yapping hyenas in the other thread, time will tell if the other, illegal part is true. I think we’ll need Trumps answers to Muellers questions for that.
It’s been known for a while that Trump and Manaforts lawyers have had a communication agreement between themselves to share information. The illegal part comes in if Trump was using that agreement to mislead the Mueller investigation.
I had a late night last night and just woke up, but seeing Trumps rage tweets this morning makes me think the illegal part might very well be true.
Time will tell.
originally posted by: Arnie123
BJ is prone to emotional outburst, as all leftist are, they never read beyond the title and first paragraph, a failing proving to be there downfall and reinforces my view that they never think critically, just too literally.
originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: BlackJackal
You really should read the source material you are commenting on prior to commenting, otherwise you may end up looking like you don't know what you are commenting about.
While Mr. Downing’s discussions with the president’s team violated no laws
Ooops too late.
originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: underwerks
Nothing in this Mueller investigation or surrounding it, is as it seems on the surface.
originally posted by: Fools
Got to love the spin on this one. Basically no law was broken but let's just go ahead and pretend one was. What in the hell is wrong with journalists these days? Are they all that mentally simple?
The joint defense privilege, or common-interest rule, is an extension of the attorney–client privilege.[1] Under “common interest” or “joint defense” doctrine, parties with shared interest in actual or potential litigation against common adversary may share privileged information without waiving their right to assert attorney–client privilege.[2] Because the joint defense "privilege sometimes may apply outside the context of actual litigation, what the parties call a ‘joint defense’ privilege is more aptly termed the ‘common interest’ rule.”
The president’s personal lawyers have teamed up with attorneys for other individuals embroiled in special counsel Bob Mueller’s probe, multiple sources tell The Daily Beast. For a while, the president’s lawyers even had regular conference calls with other attorneys to discuss the Mueller investigation, according to one source familiar with the calls.
The arrangement is known as a joint defense agreement, and it allows the lawyers to share information—without violating attorney-client privilege. It’s a common strategy when multiple defendants are dealing with the same prosecutor on the same matter.
The Trump White House isn’t the first one to use joint defense agreements as a legal tool. Wisenberg, who was deputy independent counsel to Ken Starr on the Whitewater and Lewinsky investigations, said the Clinton White House employed them as well.
“They’re very common,” he said. “Clinton had them with virtually everybody when we were investigating him and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with them whatsoever.”
originally posted by: BlackJackal
a reply to: Look2theSacredHeart
This is called obstruction of justice. Trump's lawyers are now in hot water themselves if this is true. They should have reported this attempted sharing of investigation material with the DOJ immediately.
I have no idea if this is true and can be proven, but if so, even if Trump is innocent he just screwed himself royally.
originally posted by: Look2theSacredHeart
Why would someone innocent need to be fed information about an investigation in the first place?
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Look2theSacredHeart
Your source says everything that was done is legal. So what is your problem?
originally posted by: Look2theSacredHeart
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Look2theSacredHeart
Your source says everything that was done is legal. So what is your problem?
No problem. I never debated the legality. I wondered about 2 things:
Is it wise for Trump's lawyer to say they were getting ammo against Mueller?
If Trump pardons someone who fed his lawyers info about the investigation, and lied to Mueller despite a plea deal, would that be witness tampering?
originally posted by: Arnie123
BJ is prone to emotional outburst, as all leftist are, they never read beyond the title and first paragraph, a failing proving to be there downfall and reinforces my view that they never think critically, just too literally.
originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: BlackJackal
You really should read the source material you are commenting on prior to commenting, otherwise you may end up looking like you don't know what you are commenting about.
While Mr. Downing’s discussions with the president’s team violated no laws
Ooops too late.
Some legal experts believe that the feeding of information by Manafort's lawyers to the Trump legal team could amount to obstruction of justice or witness tampering, if Manafort disclosed confidential information or the president's side discussed the possibility of a pardon. But that would depend on exactly what was said.
"If you are trying to corruptly influence his testimony by dangling a pardon, that could be witness tampering," Daniel Goldman, a former federal prosecutor who is now an NBC News and MSNBC legal analyst, said on "Andrea Mitchell Reports."