WaPo writer who wants Trump indicted forgets to mention his own involvement with Haitian pedophile ring court case (pizzagate)

submitted ago by letsdothis1

Philip Allen Lacovara is a former U.S. deputy solicitor general in the Justice Department, served as counsel to Watergate special prosecutors Archibald Cox and Leon Jaworski. He has been calling for the indictment of Donald Trump http://archive.is/Uz8AI

Interesting that there's no mention of the fact that he may have a personal interest in doing so. Mr. Lacovara is legal counsel for the Knights of Malta as mentioned in the following thread where the sex abuse and trafficking case of Douglas Perlitz a pedophile working in Haiti is mentioned : The Knights of Malta, the Vatican, another Haitian orphanage and another child sex abuse scandal .

Apparently the sex trafficking charges were dropped Judge takes sex trafficking off lawsuit against Fairfield U. by a Judge Robert N. Chatigny.

Well the judge has a reputation for being sympathetic towards sexual sadists Obama nominee’s sympathy for sexual sadists

The judge said he had been convinced that “sexual sadism” was a mental disorder that made Ross as much victim as criminal. Said the judge about Ross: “He’s at Cornell, he had this classmate, this petite Asian girl who is sweet, and he likes her, and he winds up killing her because he has this affliction, this terrible disease … this awful, uncontrollable impulse to sexually brutalize this person he liked and then kill her. … Michael Ross may be the least culpable, the least, of the people on death row.”

What's interesting too in this story is the prominence of the Knights of Malta, Fairfield University and the Obama administration. In case you are not aware, Joe Biden is a 33rd degree mason and a Knight of Malta http://www.independenceday.pro/the-jesuits-the-original-terrorists-during-the-crusades-and-mib-today/

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

Are_we_sure ago

This is an utter rubbish post and continues the deep strain of anti-Americanism on Voat.

First of all, the article you link to is DOES NOT CALL for Trump's impeachment.

It answers a single question of consitutional law: May a sitting president be indicted for a federal crime?

Perhaps he is calling for Trump to be indicted elsewhere, but here in this article he is saying IF Mueller finds Trump committed a crime, Trump can be indicted while he is still serving his term.

This applies to Trump or any other president, and he goes on to point out that the Supreme Court did not delay Paul Jones's civil lawsuit against Bill Clinton. That when to trial while he was president. And he points to *United State v. Richard Nixon *a case he personally argued before the Court. The Supreme Court unanimously rejected any special immunity for a sitting President:

The court unanimously upheld the fundamental constitutional principle that no person is above the law, and even the president is subject to the ordinary obligations and prohibitions of federal law applicable to everyone else. The caption of the case says it all: United States v. Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States.

Secondly you claim as a fact that he makes this argument for person reasons >the fact that he may have a personal interest in doing so.and this is miles and miles and miles from being a fact for the following reasons

A. Trump has absolutely no connection to the court case you mention. None whatsoever. Nothing about that case changes if Clinton won the election. Nothing changes if Trump is impeached and removed from power. Nothing about that case changes if Trump is cleared of all charges and serves two terms.

It all makes zero difference.

B. Lacorva is not a lawyer in that case. He is not the general counsel of the Knights of Malta over all. He is not the general counsel of the Knights of Malta in America. He is not the general counsel of Malteser International also known as Knights of Malta Relief which would be the entity involved in Haiti.

He in general counsel for one thing. Their mission at the UN

Mr. Philip Allen Lacovara has been a member of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta since 1988 and currently serves as Counsellor (Legal Adviser) to the Order’s Permanent Observer Mission to the United Nations in New York. https://www.un.int/orderofmalta/staff/philip-allen-lacovara

Why do I say this is deeply Un-American? Because the President is the law. He is not a king. The judicial branch is a separate a co-equal branch of our government. The idea that with this or any other president there will be no law is not American. It's most associated with this guy.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5f/Louis_XIV_of_France.jpg/330px-Louis_XIV_of_France.jpg

Y'all can wish for Trump to be an absolute monarch, but don't call yourself a Patriot.

Also his isn't even a criminal case, it's a civil case.

letsdothis1 ago

Interesting how triggered you are by the post.

Lacovara is discussing the possibility of Trump being indicted...because Russia... We have to ask why.

Interesting that there's no mention of the fact that he may have a personal interest in doing so.

You are right that the sentence is poorly structured but that's splitting hairs over semantics. Most people (apart from you) will understand the conflict of interest represented by his Knights of Malta connections...

..and here's more about that:

http://www.mgr.org/BusinessAsUsual.html

Perlitz, a Fairfield University graduate who had been a commencement speaker for the school in 2002, set up a child care project in Haiti: Project Pierre Toussaint (PPT). He had active support – including over $2 million in donations to his Haiti Fund – from the Knights of Malta (KOM), affluent alumni and benefactors of Fairfield University, the Oblates of Mary Immaculate (a Canadian order), and other prominent Catholics from the Diocese of Bridgeport. One of the board members for this Haiti Fund was Philip Allen Lacovara, the attorney who represented the Bridgeport diocese in the failed attempt to block release of documents relating to clergy sexual abuse cases, and his wife, Madeline. She is a member of the Dames of Malta, and Lacovara is legal counsel for the Knights of Malta.

And you should read some of the comments on his articles. They make more sense than he does :

https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2017/05/11/trump-firing-comey-possibly-worse-watergate-says-former-nixon

*What is startling about such articles is the overwhelming amount of speculation as opposed to facts and evidence. One wonders what the FBI has been doing since last July when this investigation started, and what in fact they have found. One wonders what exactly in the legal sense is the definition of "collusion", with regard to the actions of a foreign power.

As an experienced prosecutor, Mr. Lacovara might have thrown some light on this. Instead, he engages in the same kind of unlawyerly speculation as the violently ant-Trump press. Editors, do you think you could find someone without a partisan axe to grind to provide some intelligent comment?*

and

I don't think it pulls anyone's fangs out. One always has to look at the motivation behind actions. The Democrats do not believe that Mr. Comey was fired because of the Clinton investigation. They are free to criticize the firing all they want.

Context is everything.

I agree.

I

Are_we_sure ago

Interesting how triggered you are by the post.

Nonsense. You have no insight into my emotional state.

I do find stupidity, illogic and anti-Americanism distasteful.

Lacovara is discussing the possibility of Trump being indicted...because Russia... We have to ask why.

Like this stupidity.

He does not mention Russia. He doesn't mention any part of the case against Trump. He talks about if a president is indicted. You have to ask why? Nonsense.

You don't address his argument at all just launch into a smear campaign against him. Prey tell why? Did his constitutional argument trigger you?

You are completely wrong about him having a conflict of interest because again Trump has nothing to do with the case you cite.

So what exactly is the conflict?

letsdothis1 ago

Prey tell why?

You mean pray. If you are trying to goad and insult people at least get your spelling right.

From the article:

Donald Trump Jr's refusal to answer questions about his meeting with a Russian lawyer suggests a coverup, according to Post opinion writer Quinta Jurecic.

So yes, coz Russia.

I'm pointing out the conflict of interest. If you don't understand the post I suggest you move on.

Are_we_sure ago

You mean pray>

You are correct. +1. Though I don't think I was trying to insult.

The blockquote from the article you posted is not from the article at all. Do you not see it's from a different writer? It has nothing to do with Lacovara.

according to Post opinion writer Quinta Jurecic. (The Washington Post)

In fact, it's the introduction to this Washington Post Video which is embedded in the original page

https://youtu.be/YryTtkZzLys

You have misunderstood what you have posted. So not cuz Russia.

letsdothis1 ago

That Russia quote is also in the archived link I posted. It's there. Look again. And the Post put it in for context to Lacovara's comments. So yes, cuz Russia.

I can't help you anymore.

Are_we__sure ago

So yes, cuz Russia.

Are you five years old? Have you never read newspapers before? They have more than one section.

The most charitable interpretation I can come up with is you simply have misunderstood what you posted. The less charitable interpretation is you know you're making a dishonest argument and you don't care. YES the quote is in the link but it's not part of Lacovara's op-ed......It's a promotion for another piece on washingtonpost.com. It's a video show the Washington Post does: the weekly Opinions show, "It's Only Thursday,"

It involves three other people, not Lacovara. You claimed he used Russia in his argument and that is false. You are wrong. Lacovara has nothing to do with how they lay out his article or what links they put on that page.

Donald Trump Jr's refusal to answer questions about his meeting with a Russian lawyer suggests a coverup, according to Post opinion writer Quinta Jurecic. Watch more in this clip from the weekly Opinions show, "It's Only Thursday," with deputy editorial page editors Ruth Marcus and Jackson Diehl. (The Washington Post)

https://snag.gy/g6Tw2E.jpg

letsdothis1 ago

Honey, that russian lawyer link is not there by accident or coincidence or happenstance.

You have no idea how the media works do you? I do.

And if I'm 5 years old you must be 3. See how insults work? How long you want to carry this on for?

I can't help if you can't understand what the phrase 'conflict of interest' means, or if you want to ignore the part that the Knights of Malta played in the pedophile ring case in Haiti. Ot their connections to the Clintons, or that you refuse to consider that the WaPo might place articles about Trump from people who may have interests they want to protect. I'm not from the 'Trump can do no wrong' brigade but I'm certainly going to point out any persons who may have connections to pedophile rings.

So, next time you reply, why don't you also tell us how much you're being paid to troll this forum?

Are_we__sure ago

Honey, that russian lawyer link is not embedded in that article by accident or coincidence or happenstance.

You have no idea how the media works do you? I do.

Condescension while ignorant. Beautiful.

letsdothis1 ago

Condescension while ignorant.

Exactly what I think about you.

Though I wouldn't describe your state as 'beautiful'.