purplerat wrote:

Animavore wrote:
This person seems to think Mueller somehow side-stepped law, or did something illegal. If so, wouldn't any info they obtained be thrown out?

Don't the FBI have to justify warrants to a judge somehow? Or is my knowledge of US law, admittedly based on more than it should on TV shows, severely lacking?

My understanding is that this wasn't actually Mueller. Rather Mueller simply recommended the NY office look into Cohen. On top of that, the federal prosecutor who would have signed off on and effectively been in charge of this operation is a Trump appointee.

Ah! So that answers both the question of whether this breaches attorney/client, and what has this got to do with Russia.

If Cohen claims he paid Daniels of his own volition (a claim supported by Trump) there is no privileged information as there is no client/attorney relationship being claimed by Cohen or Trump. What am I missing here?

I don’t quite see how being an attorney in any way shields one from the long arm of the law.

I don’t fail to notice the bald faced fucking hypocrisy on show from the orange loofa faced shit gibbon’s supporters. Drain the swamp, my ass.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Trump himself was on Twitter today whining about attorney/client privilege. But, like you say, what is that priviliged information that has been compromised?

Mueller has evidence of impropriety that indicates a search of Cohen's papers will yield further evidence. He takes this to Rosenstein who thinks the New York office should be responsible for any necessary further proceedings. The New York Office is headed by a Trump appointee...

That's how I'm reading this latest chapter of Trump Towers but I could be blinded by the constant stream of tearful laughter.

felltoearth wrote:If Cohen claims he paid Daniels of his own volition (a claim supported by Trump) there is no privileged information as there is no client/attorney relationship being claimed by Cohen or Trump. What am I missing here?

What LakLak's sister is claiming (although as I said, despite Laklak calling it a legal analysis, I can't see any reference to the law, when such raids are allowed, what would be a violation or what was stipulated in the warrant) is that this is a "fishing" expedition and that the "firewall" between the team that conducted the search and the Mueller probe is unreliable.

What that would mean is that they raid Cohen's office and sieze documents relating to one matter, with the intention of also siezing documents related to entirely different matters, so for example they may claim to be looking for information relating to Cohen having committed a crime in paying Stormy Daniels, but with the actual intent of siezing privileged communications between Trump and his lawyer relating to a different matter - say business dealings he had with Russians or Ukranians years ago, in the hopes they will find evidence incriminating Trump (but not Cohen) in those.

It's unclear how she could be so sure, when she doesn't cite the actual probable cause and there's no evidence that documents were siezed that do not relate to improper dealings that Cohen himself was involved with, or if they were that those were then improperly handed to Mueller to undermine Trump. If that does happen it's a problem, but it's a problem that would provide a legal defence for Trump in court and could result in any charge brought against Trump being thrown out.

Meanwhile, this image is doing the rounds ...

Macdoc wrote:http://digg.com/2018/michael-cohen-office-raid-meaning

Alan Dershowitz disagrees, and he can hardly be called a Trumpanzee.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/alan-dershowitz-today-is-a-very-dangerous-day-for-lawyer-client-relations

This is troubling, I don't like "might be" or "another option" in a legal context. Currently the FBI is policing itself, given their history one might be forgiven for being a tad skeptical.

That process might involve a judge reviewing the materials to separate out what is privileged (or what might fall within an exception to the privilege), or else set up a "dirty team" that does the review but is insulated from the "clean team" running the investigation. Another option is a "special master," an experienced and qualified third-party attorney to do the review. Sometimes the reviewing team will only be identifying and protecting privileged material. Sometimes the reviewing team will be preparing to seek, or to implement, a court ruling that the documents are not privileged.

Dirty politics is dirty politics, whether you agree with the aim of the investigation or not.

It will play out as it will play out, but don't be surprised when a Republican administration uses the precedent in the future. LIke I said, be very, very careful.

purplerat wrote:

Animavore wrote:
This person seems to think Mueller somehow side-stepped law, or did something illegal. If so, wouldn't any info they obtained be thrown out?

Don't the FBI have to justify warrants to a judge somehow? Or is my knowledge of US law, admittedly based on more than it should on TV shows, severely lacking?

My understanding is that this wasn't actually Mueller. Rather Mueller simply recommended the NY office look into Cohen. On top of that, the federal prosecutor who would have signed off on and effectively been in charge of this operation is a Trump appointee.

That is what I understand as well. It seems something pretty serious is involved.

My worried with an "under pressure" dumpf he will try something big internationally to deflect the situation at home.

A strong possibility. That is trouble with a loon in charge.

laklak wrote:

Macdoc wrote:http://digg.com/2018/michael-cohen-office-raid-meaning

Alan Dershowitz disagrees, and he can hardly be called a Trumpanzee.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/alan-dershowitz-today-is-a-very-dangerous-day-for-lawyer-client-relations

This is troubling, I don't like "might be" or "another option" in a legal context. Currently the FBI is policing itself, given their history one might be forgiven for being a tad skeptical.

I definitely agree that this is a delicate area and it might be troubling, but that's a much weaker statement than your sister's.

The flip side of this is that having lawyers directly connected to the president potentially committing crimes, not to mention potential intervention in the election of a president by a foreign power and other allegedly nefarious means is also troubling.

You can't avoid the potential for abuse here, because it lies on both sides of the equation. Of course the FBI might not be as scrupulous as they should be, but that certainly goes for lawyers as well. I suspect some might say it goes double.

I noticed this Preet Bharara tweet earlier today.

Former U.S. attorney Preet Bharara responded to President Trump after he tweeted that the attorney-client privilege is "dead."

"Long live the crime-fraud exception," Bharara — whom President Trump fired last year after he refused to resign from his post — tweeted Tuesday.

The crime-fraud exception means that a client's communications with an attorney isn't privileged if it "involves communications in furtherance of a contemplated or ongoing crime or fraud," according to the American Bar Association.

...

Preet Bharara to Trump: 'Long live the crime-fraud exception'

laklak wrote:

Macdoc wrote:http://digg.com/2018/michael-cohen-office-raid-meaning

Alan Dershowitz disagrees, and he can hardly be called a Trumpanzee.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/alan-dershowitz-today-is-a-very-dangerous-day-for-lawyer-client-relations

This is troubling, I don't like "might be" or "another option" in a legal context. Currently the FBI is policing itself, given their history one might be forgiven for being a tad skeptical.

That process might involve a judge reviewing the materials to separate out what is privileged (or what might fall within an exception to the privilege), or else set up a "dirty team" that does the review but is insulated from the "clean team" running the investigation. Another option is a "special master," an experienced and qualified third-party attorney to do the review. Sometimes the reviewing team will only be identifying and protecting privileged material. Sometimes the reviewing team will be preparing to seek, or to implement, a court ruling that the documents are not privileged.

Dirty politics is dirty politics, whether you agree with the aim of the investigation or not.

It will play out as it will play out, but don't be surprised when a Republican administration uses the precedent in the future. LIke I said, be very, very careful.

It's hard to claim it's dirty politics when it's Trump's own lies that got him into this. If he didn't lie about knowing about the payment or just had the common sense to keep his mouth shut then the attorney-client privilege argument might hold up.

But of course Trump is incapable of keeping his mouth shut and every time he opens it he lies. So at this point you're left complaining about law enforcement using a suspects lies/stupidity against them. As far as I'm concerned that's fair game regardless of party or political affiliation.

Here's another Trump tidbit that's currently submerged beneath the Cohen news.

WaPo wrote:Lawyers representing President Trump’s company last month wrote directly to the president of Panama, asking him to intervene in a legal fight over the Trump International Hotel in the capital — and warning that the case could have “repercussions” for Panama’s reputation.

The law firm, Panama-based Britton and Iglesias, wrote in Spanish to President Juan Carlos Varela on March 22 to “urgently request your influence in relation to a commercial dispute regarding the Trump hotel.”

At the time, the majority owner of the Trump hotel — Cypriot-born investor Orestes Fintiklis — had kicked out the Trump Organization as the hotel’s manager, after a ruling from a low-level Panamanian judge. The president’s company was seeking to retake control.

...

Warning of ‘repercussions,’ Trump company lawyers seek Panama president’s help

Macdoc wrote:LakLak ....some serious law enforcement disagree with you - have a read.

OHEN'S BEEN OWNED
What The FBI Raid On Michael Cohen's Office Means
L.V. Anderson Apr 9 2018, 6:50 PM

The office of President Donald Trump's personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, was raided by FBI agents today. The raids was related to an investigation into possible bank fraud and campaign finance violations by Cohen when he made an $130,000 payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels in October 2016.

more
http://digg.com/2018/michael-cohen-office-raid-meaning

Of course law enforcement disagrees with her. They're the police; they'd love to have a police state.

purplerat wrote:

Animavore wrote:
This person seems to think Mueller somehow side-stepped law, or did something illegal. If so, wouldn't any info they obtained be thrown out?

Don't the FBI have to justify warrants to a judge somehow? Or is my knowledge of US law, admittedly based on more than it should on TV shows, severely lacking?

My understanding is that this wasn't actually Mueller. Rather Mueller simply recommended the NY office look into Cohen. On top of that, the federal prosecutor who would have signed off on and effectively been in charge of this operation is a Trump appointee.

Whom Trump should fire immediately, for ignoring civil liberties.

felltoearth wrote:If Cohen claims he paid Daniels of his own volition (a claim supported by Trump) there is no privileged information as there is no client/attorney relationship being claimed by Cohen or Trump. What am I missing here?

Cohen was Trump's personal lawyer. Most of the stuff in his office is protected by attorney client privilege, even if the one payment is not.

This kind of situation usually results in the court throwing out the evidence. Most likely the FBI folks involved did it only because they don't care; their motive seems to be to smear people politically, not to get convictions.

Warren Dew wrote:This kind of situation usually results in the court throwing out the evidence.

good way to destroy evidence then?

Warren Dew wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Animavore wrote:
This person seems to think Mueller somehow side-stepped law, or did something illegal. If so, wouldn't any info they obtained be thrown out?

Don't the FBI have to justify warrants to a judge somehow? Or is my knowledge of US law, admittedly based on more than it should on TV shows, severely lacking?

My understanding is that this wasn't actually Mueller. Rather Mueller simply recommended the NY office look into Cohen. On top of that, the federal prosecutor who would have signed off on and effectively been in charge of this operation is a Trump appointee.

Whom Trump should fire immediately, for ignoring civil liberties.

Which civil liberties? Both Trump and the lawyer publicly acknowledged Cohen wasn't working as his lawyer regarding the matter at hand. Attorney-client privilege doesn't mean a lawyer can do whatever they want on behalf of a client without concern for following the law.