General Discussion

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)

18. It's not true

Thu Dec 19, 2019, 03:24 PM

Dec 2019

Someone posts something on Twitter.

Someone else believes it and posts it on DU.

Everyone falls for it...

From the arraignment, not bail, hearing back in October:

https://apnews.com/4326d1ba6a8f4b70abf560cbe30eaa04

Assistant U.S. Attorney Rebekah Donaleski told a judge Wednesday that a dozen search warrants had produced a “voluminous” amount of evidence, including emails and other electronic communications. A lawyer for Parnas, Ed MacMahon, responded by suggesting that some of the communications could be protected by attorney-client and even executive privilege since his client was doing work for Giuliani while Giuliani was representing the president.

MacMahon didn’t claim to know whether the president planned to evoke the privilege, only that the possibility should be a concern as the government reviews the evidence. Donaleski told the judge that government was “attuned to those concerns.”

It's just bullshit.

No one has claimed privilege of any kind in the evidence in the Parnas case.

Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

34 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

This message was self-deleted by its author [View all] Laura PourMeADrink Dec 2019 OP

Can't declare executive priviledge here, I suspect. Crazy. Especially at a bail hearing. NT SWBTATTReg Dec 2019 #1

Hope this leads to another article of impeachment. OAITW r.2.0 Dec 2019 #2

Wait, WHAT?? EP for Parnas..seriously..the orange one already said he doesn't asiliveandbreathe Dec 2019 #3

Okay. So the dude that the MF says he doesn't know MontanaMama Dec 2019 #4

Does 'executive privilege' work on speeding tickets? iscooterliberally Dec 2019 #5

Isn't this from two months ago? ramblin_dave Dec 2019 #6

Yeah, it was a tangential discussion during the arraignment jberryhill Dec 2019 #17

Sure looks like it, dave - thanks for catching - he just had his second bail hearing on uhhh Leghorn21 Dec 2019 #19

Are there transcripts? Wonder why Maddow didn't report this? triron Dec 2019 #7

Maddow didn't report "this" because it isn't true jberryhill Dec 2019 #24

Only trump can assert executive privilege Gothmog Dec 2019 #8

Trump doesn't assert executive privilege, he asserts divine right of kings. Thomas Hurt Dec 2019 #9

The OP relies on the "Everything posted on Twitter is true" fallacy jberryhill Dec 2019 #13

YES. So glad you made this point. The Wielding Truth Dec 2019 #20

He can't assert the privilege. HOWEVER DonaldsRump Dec 2019 #10

Oh, FFS. That's now how it works. Aquaria Dec 2019 #11

Well, yeah, if you are going to believe everything posted to Twitter, sure jberryhill Dec 2019 #12

I hope the judge laughed so hard she spit coffee out her nose Hekate Dec 2019 #14

It's not true jberryhill Dec 2019 #18

Gotcha Hekate Dec 2019 #21

Thank you nt backtoblue Dec 2019 #27

Well....isn't that special! kentuck Dec 2019 #15

His claim will fail badly duforsure Dec 2019 #16

Trump-Giuliani-Parnas-Putin dewsgirl Dec 2019 #22

Trump-Giuliani-Parnas-Firtash-(Gazprom/Yanukovych)-Putin jberryhill Dec 2019 #23

Yes Firtash. dewsgirl Dec 2019 #26

OMFG...LMAO! TruckFump Dec 2019 #25

I expect courts and judges to hear more than a little of this bucolic_frolic Dec 2019 #28

If what many suspect of Parnas - that he is a bagman for Russia - is Enoki33 Dec 2019 #29

Well, hell, the next time I get pulled over for a traffic stop, I'm claiming executive privilege. tclambert Dec 2019 #30

This Parnas stooge may turn out to be the "smocking gun" B Stieg Dec 2019 #31

trump said he doesn't know the guy, so where's the executive privilege. George II Dec 2019 #32

Hey Lev - just because you're an executive in your own company, that does NOT mean you can claim ET Awful Dec 2019 #33

every criminal in the country will be claiming executive privilege when they go to court nt yaesu Dec 2019 #34