And to top off the week from hell

[wacojoe]

Not to argue law with one far more knowledgeable than me---but--you might want to check in on NY law. It is my understanding that under NY law both parties do not have to consent to recording a conversation.

I must have spoken out of turn and humbly admit my mistake. I now read that Trump, through his attorneys, waives any privilege and stands by the conversation. I have not read or heard the contents, but apparently Trump contends it validates his position - whatever that is - but Lanny Davis expectedly disputes that. I guess when you are a reprobate, it is normal to hire a double-dealing scumbag as your attorney. Hard to feel other than “you get what you deserve.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I note you have voiced no comment on Mueller seeking immunization of the Podesta gang.

[Dave Grubb]

I must have spoken out of turn and humbly admit my mistake. I now read that Trump, through his attorneys, waives any privilege and stands by the conversation. I have not read or heard the contents, but apparently Trump contends it validates his position - whatever that is - but Lanny Davis expectedly disputes that. I guess when you are a reprobate, it is normal to hire a double-dealing scumbag as your attorney. Hard to feel other than “you get what you deserve.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I note you have voiced no comment on Mueller seeking immunization of the Podesta gang.

Further to the "one party consent" law in NY, I saw a graphic today showing that most (I think 37) states have that law-----including Texas.

BTW----PA is not one of them

[wacojoe]

I figured because New York is so liberally inclined it would not have the one-party rule. That’s what you get for figuring instead of researching.

Trump obviously is of the opinion that whatever was recorded in that one conversation was unharmful to him, which is why he publicly waived any arrorney/client objection, but I would have advised against that approach not knowing what future recorded conversations will come up. If more do come up that are harmful, it makes it hard to then explain why Trump seeks to then invoke his right to object to disclosure.

[Dave Grubb]

Interesting opinion---I would not regard the "one party rule" to be associated with conservative politics---in fact, I would regard the opposite to be true. But then again I have marveled at the the apparent growing willingness on the part of "conservatives" to give up their personal liberties to the state.

[2ndthyme]

I figured because New York is so liberally inclined it would not have the one-party rule. That’s what you get for figuring instead of researching.

Trump obviously is of the opinion that whatever was recorded in that one conversation was unharmful to him, which is why he publicly waived any arrorney/client objection, but I would have advised against that approach not knowing what future recorded conversations will come up. If more do come up that are harmful, it makes it hard to then explain why Trump seeks to then invoke his right to object to disclosure.

lol I think you're assigning way too much thought by trump. He knows his supporters aren't paying close attention to facts or his daily musings. He contradicts himself daily because it doesn't matter to them. These are ppl saying we need a space force because NASA can't be trusted to tell us whats out there and Trump will provide them with answers..

[wacojoe]

^^^
Disagree. Trump gives the issue of payments to Trump’s old punches or their lawsuits no never mind because he knows we supporters do not either. NASA has nothing to do with potential weaponization of space, which is why that increasing possibility evokes talk of a “Space Force.” I expect our “progressive” friends to have almost no understanding of military matters though. In their no borders world why be concerned about an orbiting particle beam projector anyway? Why can’t we all be friends?

[TxMusky]

I do believe that in one report that Trump told his lawyer if he was going to pay the skank, make sure it was with a check so they had a paper trail. Doesn't sound like a guy trying to hide anything, let alone breaking finance laws. And before anybody decides to jump on the finance law train, better check into some of the other candidates and what they had to do as far as that particular bunch of laws cost them.

[FredK]

Just a teaser to keep one from forgetting the bad week he had.