Koko78

You mean like the millions of people who were "literally throw off their health insurance" when Obamacare came into effect? Hope & Change! Yes We Can!

Yeah, I'm just not feeling the tragedy here. This POS made his living destroying other people's property.

Well played, sir.

Is it not traditional that "zingers" actually be entertaining (or at least logical)?

I can't wait to see them unveil the USS Barack H. Obama. It will only take the Navy 8 years and a few trillion dollars to find a rudder for it (after blaming the crew of the USS George W. Bush for her being rudderless...)

Someone is definitely trying to set up political theater with these kids, before they're sent back to wherever the hell they came from. It isn't a coincidence that this is happening in a midterm election year with a very unpopular president where the Democrats are poised to lose control of the Senate. With that said, I think they should bus all these illegal kids to Pelosi's Congressional district. Let her put her money where her mouth is. On a slightly related note: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obama-highway-plan-not-crazy-191320787.html

They are incontrovertible evidence of a proven fact if they say what he wants them to say. Otherwise, they're just meaningless window dressing for the stupid racist obstructionist misogynistic bible-thumping gun toting redneck GOP.

If Obama, the "constitutional scholar", keeps this nonsense up, he may very well set the record for most times a president has been smacked down by a unanimous Supreme Court.

Apparently you should leave that in your car.

Well, if you're going to suck, you might as well be the suckiest suck to ever suck.

Well, just as long as it does not start occurring during conference calls...

Of course he has to schedule a visit. The regime cannot have a visit that isn't staged for political theater. Kim Jong Obama needs proper photo ops.

http://news.yahoo.com/u-poll-more-voters-see-obama-worst-president-122609810.html

Adolph Ginsberg?

What, exactly, does one thing have to do with the other. Somehow now prosecutorial misconduct in attempting to destroy the lives of those kids is acceptable because the death penalty exists?

I believe it ended with a Democrat being disbarred for abusing his position as DA.

Damn that Bush.

Since you seem to want to act like a dumbass and are now intentionally misquoting me to explain my "lahgik", let's review this again: Anything said by the client to the attorney alone is privileged. Anything said by the client (you know, such as being asked questions be a polygraph examiner or in open court or whenever anyone else is in the room) in the presence of the attorney is not privileged. Can you follow this so far? I hope so, because this really isn't as hard as you're trying to make this. Those non-privileged statements are - I would normally assume you could guess this part, but your complete lack of reading comprehension in this thread precludes that possibility - not privileged. That means, because you don't seem to understand this, that the attorney can talk about what was said by her client in the presence of the third party later. Because they're not privileged statements. As for the person interviewing Clinton a decade later, I have absolutely no idea why you think I ever at any point said anything about the person interviewing Clinton mattered, other than a basic lack of reading comprehension. Now I know why Tom just defaults to "you're an idiot". It makes life far easier than responding to this brand of stupidity.

Yeah, cause that's what I said... word for word. C'mon Tom, you're smarter than that.

Holy Christ, you're dense. Pay attention here: THERE IS NO CONFIDENTIALITY IF THE DEFENDANT ANSWERS A QUESTION POSED TO HIM BY A THIRD PARTY. There is no such thing as confidentiality if there is someone other than a client and his attorney in the room. Is that really so !@#$ing hard to understand?

Yeah... I play one in real life. What I said was correct. You are also correct in that she did not divulge anything privileged.

The 10 year loan forgiveness thing for those working in public service has been around since like 2007. Your friend's son and your nephew are both well-educated idiots.

There what is? What he said is not correct. There is no such thing as attorney-client confidentiality based upon answers to questions asked by a third party.

The obligation to protect client confidences exists forever, however it is not clear whether or not she gave any information in that interview that was privileged. She has the right to speak about cases and give her personal opinions years later. Nothing prevents her from trumpeting her successes as an attorney - so long as she does not reveal any privileged secrets that her client did not authorize her to reveal. That specifically means anything confidential that she learned solely from her client (or that may be subject to some other form of privilege: psychological exam results, mental health records, etc.) She's a dirtbag and has been for decades. This is not new. However the "outrage" over her doing her job and crowing about being successful is misplaced.

Considering one has nothing to do with the other, is there some form of point coming? BTW, there is a reason polygraph tests are inadmissible in court,,,