This cooked-up pretext to invade the president’s attorney-client privilege is a stain of shame on the rule of law and tramples on a 500-year-old rule that protects our common law tradition.
The New York Times promised that today Michael Cohen, the president’s former attorney, “will describe in what was called ‘granular detail’ the plan to pay Ms. Daniels, which he will say was initiated by Mr. Trump, the person familiar with the testimony plans said.”
This, the Times rapturously promised, would provide, “evidence of potential criminal conduct since Mr. Trump became president.” As shown below, this cooked-up pretext to invade the president’s attorney-client privilege is a stain of shame on the rule of law and tramples on a 500-year-old rule that protects our common law tradition.
More @ The Federalist
If we had rule of law that would be Hillary on the stand, and the media would be calling for her head.
ReplyDeleteI bring up media because it was an unofficial part of our justice system at one time, a check, and balance of factual reporting.
If we had rule of law that would be Hillary on the stand, and the media would be calling for her head.
DeleteInconvenient facts....:(
DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT THE LAW BUT, DOESNT THIS SET A NEW, VERY HIGH PRECEDENT FOR ATTORNEY / CLIENT PRIVILEGE ? WILL THAT NOW, NOT BE ALLOWED AS AN EXCUSE FOR REFUSING TO ANSWER A QUESTION ?
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely, unfortunately.
Delete