FBI Raids Office of Trump Lawyer Michael Cohen

[Koko78]

Well, while the sniping is fun and all, back to the topic at hand (from the NY Law Journal):

 

Quote

...

 

On Monday, the FBI raided offices of Michael Cohen, Esq. to get the lawyer’s records, all his client records, business records, memos to the file, etc. Whether you like Donald Trump, don’t like Donald Trump, or are indifferent to Trump, what happened yesterday is appalling. As working lawyers, most of us have within our files our own memos dealing with information on the private lives of husbands, wives, messy family disputes, with all kinds of claims and cross claims, in criminal; cases of defendants (guilty and innocent), corporate people (naughty and nice), etc. Everyone has a right to counsel and to exercise their attorney-client privilege, and everyone has a right to be honestly and ethically defended without being concerned for the violation of their attorney-client privilege...

 

The copout seems to be that other federal investigators go through the files primarily creating a “wall” and then give only those relevant materials to their colleagues, who undoubtedly they will then have lunch with (certainly, Donald Trump will create a better wall than this). Let us not suspend common sense.

 

Nobody elected any of these prosecutors...

 

I speak not only as a private lawyer whose files I would lay across and die before anyone could get them and know what clients told me, in the naïve belief that they are privileged. Having voted for him or not, we have a democratically elected president. Should a handful of prosecutors be allowed to override the will of the people? Do we want a bunch of prosecutors running our country? That did not seem to work in the Salem Witch trials, the McCarthyism inquisitions nor for Mr. Robespierre.

 

And all of these draconian actions of investigators are for what? Chasing after adults who had a consensual relationship and his lawyer who is also his friend for writing a check. The only assault on our democracy seems to be from a by now desperate special counsel chasing vague shadows who should be gone. It is a disgrace, and, by the way, I am a registered independent and am a former federal prosecutor.

https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2018/04/10/seizure-of-cohen-records-akin-to-salem-witch-trials-mccarthyism/?kw=Seizure of Cohen Records Akin to Salem Witch Trials%2C McCarthyism&et=editorial&bu=New York Law Journal&cn=20180410&src=EMC-Email&pt=Daily News

[Deranged Rhino]

3 hours ago, LA Grant said:

 

(1) For collusion, you don't want to believe the Steele dossier,

(2)we also know there are things we don't yet 

(3)I'm sure you'll take this as "proof" that there "is no evidence" because your mind is closed and you're going to conclude that, no matter what.

 

You literally didn't answer the question, asshat - let alone "twice".  

 

I asked for evidence of collusion. You presented zero evidence in your response. Not a single thing.

 

The only thing you said that could even be argued as an attempt to answer was (1) "the Steele dossier" - which by its own "author's" admission, is unverifiable and at best partially accurate. That's not evidence of collusion, it's the source of controversy in the FISA abuse scandal precisely because it doesn't meet the bar for admissible evidence. So, that's just nonsense.

 

My favorite bit though is (2)  "we also know there are things we don't know yet"... that's not evidence of anything other than you're even dimmer than I thought. You call me a conspiracy theorist and you fall back on conspiracy 101 logic immediately when forced to acknowledge you're believing in something entirely without proof. Moves like that is why you're LA Asshat, LA asshat. 

 

(3) though is the ultimate expression in asshatery. My mind being open or closed has no bearing on the accuracy of this statement, the fact your own response DIDN'T PROVIDE EVIDENCE is ... actual evidence ... that you are wrong.

 

And dishonest. 

 

And an asshat with the IQ hovering around sea sponge range. 

 

 

[Coach Tuesday]

23 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

His point is you don't know if it did or didn't. Hence the reason for concern rather than blind approval. The track record of abuse in this matter is clear and unambiguous making blind trust more than naive at this point; it's willful ignorance. 

 

Partisanship is blinding. This is an issue that goes beyond partisanship despite being cloaked in exactly that. 

 

What track record of Southern District of New York warrant over-issuance or overreaching are you referring to?  I’ll take one example.  

[LA Grant]

6 minutes ago, snafu said:

There are many times when this saying applies:  "just because you can, doesn't mean you should".  In my opinion, this was one of those times.  "All of Cohen's relevant materials" does not equal "all of Cohen's materials".  See the difference?

 

They didn't take his bathrobe or his slippers. They took documents that would have evidence that he has been breaking the law.

 

The law is being enforced in a just & equitable way. That is a good thing. 

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, Coach Tuesday said:

 

What track record of Southern District of New York warrant over-issuance or overreaching are you referring to?  I’ll take one example.  

 

I've got no beef with them - but you knew that. I've got beef with other people involved in this decision. You can read any of my numerous posts on the subject to get more clarity if you wish. My thesis doesn't deal in monolithic structures, but compartmentalized groups across many different agencies, departments, companies et al.  

[3rdnlng]

5 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

You literally didn't answer the question, asshat - let alone "twice".  

 

I asked for evidence of collusion. You presented zero evidence in your response. Not a single thing.

 

The only thing you said that could even be argued as an attempt to answer was (1) "the Steele dossier" - which by its own "author's" admission, is unverifiable and at best partially accurate. That's not evidence of collusion, it's the source of controversy in the FISA abuse scandal precisely because it doesn't meet the bar for admissible evidence. So, that's just nonsense.

 

My favorite bit though is (2)  "we also know there are things we don't know yet"... that's not evidence of anything other than you're even dimmer than I thought. You call me a conspiracy theorist and you fall back on conspiracy 101 logic immediately when forced to acknowledge you're believing in something entirely without proof. Moves like that is why you're LA Asshat, LA asshat. 

 

(3) though is the ultimate expression in asshatery. My mind being open or closed has no bearing on the accuracy of this statement, the fact your own response DIDN'T PROVIDE EVIDENCE is ... actual evidence ... that you are wrong.

 

And dishonest. 

 

And an asshat with the IQ hovering around sea sponge range. 

 

 

Didn't you know that just saying "collusion" is proof of collusion?

[Deranged Rhino]

2 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

The law is being enforced in a just & equitable way. That is a good thing. 

 

You can't know that for sure. And, in fact, this primary source document begs to differ.

 

When left unchecked, there has been a track record of overreach and constitutional violations of the worst kind by many different departments and agencies against US citizens. 

https://www.scribd.com/document/349542716/Top-Secret-FISA-Court-Order-President-Obama-Spying-on-Political-Enemies

[snafu]

4 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

They didn't take his bathrobe or his slippers. They took documents that would have evidence that he has been breaking the law.

 

The law is being enforced in a just & equitable way. That is a good thing. 

 

Don't be disingenuous.  It makes people want to avoid engaging you in discussions.

 

It is my opinion that the law (while apparently being followed) is not being enforced in a just or an equitable way -- at least not by reports of what they took from Cohen's offices and residences.  To me, they're walking on the line, and possibly over it.  I went over why I believe an overbroad search and seizure is wrong a few posts up.  And a few pages back, I mentioned why this is a bad precedent.  No need to rehash those opinions here.

 

 

 

[DC Tom]

12 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

The law is being enforced in a just & equitable way. That is a good thing. 

 

Prove it.

 

Without using the fallacy of Circular Reasoning.

[Warren Zevon]

In an interview with Don Lemon on CNN Cohen Mentioned he is extremely worried about the safety of his family. He never once mentioned Trump. Is Cohen flipping already?

[Coach Tuesday]

23 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

I've got no beef with them - but you knew that. I've got beef with other people involved in this decision. You can read any of my numerous posts on the subject to get more clarity if you wish. My thesis doesn't deal in monolithic structures, but compartmentalized groups across many different agencies, departments, companies et al.  

 

Sounds like a conspiracy to me.

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, Coach Tuesday said:

 

Sounds like a conspiracy to me.

 

It is. And there's mountains of evidence to support it's reality.

[HappyDays]

1 hour ago, snafu said:

If what's bolded is true, then they can't run in and take all of Cohen's files unless every file contains suspected evidence of crimes. That's overbroad and it isn't Constitutionally protected activity.

 

This is 100% false. They can take all the files they want. Not every record will be admissible evidence which is the point of the "dirty team" who looks through it all and determines what is admissible. Not all communications between an attorney and his client are protected. And if they discover evidence of a crime totally separate from what the raid was for they can use that evidence as long as it wasn't found in privileged communications.

 

17 minutes ago, garybusey said:

In an interview with Don Lemon on CNN Cohen Mentioned he is extremely worried about the safety of his family. He never once mentioned Trump. Is Cohen flipping already?

 

 

Edited April 10, 2018 by HappyDays

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, HappyDays said:

 

This is 100% false. They can take all the files they want. Not every record will be admissible evidence which is the point of the "dirty team" who looks through it all and determines what is admissible. Not all communications between an attorney and his client are protected. And if they discover evidence of a crime totally separate from what the raid was for they can use that evidence as long as it wasn't found in privileged communications.

 

Evidence doesn't need to be admissible to be leverage. 

 

(Not saying that's what's happening or happened - just making the point more clear). 

[DC Tom]

2 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

This is 100% false. They can take all the files they want. Not every record will be admissible evidence which is the point of the "dirty team" who looks through it all and determines what is admissible. Not all communications between an attorney and his client are protected. And if they discover evidence of a crime totally separate from what the raid was for they can use that evidence as long as it wasn't found in privileged communications.

 

You're both wrong.  What they can take depends on the scope of the warrant.

 

What they can end up using is a different matter, of course...

[boyst]

1 hour ago, Coach Tuesday said:

 

You're right about the drop-ins, I shouldn't do that - but this place is such a cesspool, a Fox & Friends circle-jerk.  You say "different opinions are welcome" but most of you don't want discussion or divergent views.  You folks mistake the echo of your own voices with some kind of broad, national consensus.  People like me avoid this place because it's toxic and, frankly, boring.  Whenever someone pursues a counter-argument with any real vigor, he or she gets called an idiot by  DC Tom, and the rest of you snicker like hyenas because "someone got emotional" - isn't that just hilarious?  Someone getting emotional?  

 

Here is a challenge: see if you (the broad "You") can respond to a discussion about potential crimes committed by Trump and his cronies, without resorting to the words "But Obama," "But Hillary," or "But CNN..."  see how many posts you can run up without that happening - I bet you don't get farther than 2 or 3 in a thread.

 

As for me being a smart guy, that's debatable.  You and I aren't so far off in terms of our actual views about human nature, and I suspect we'd enjoy having a beer (and a shot) together.  Unfortunately PPP - "the taint of TBD" - doesn't bring out the best in people.

I should come back and read the rest of this. But it's hardly a circle jerk of Fox News.

 

If you choose to focus on that then that's all you'll see. Just like those who come here and only read Grant, Gary, Tiberius, others. They'll see it as a Bastion of retardism instead of alt right neo Nazis

I'll try to get back to the rest of this. But you know that I respect you even though we differ on a lot of opinions

 

[Taro T]

2 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Cohen's raid is about Sater. Who is Sater and why does he matter?

(those are the relevant questions people really interested in what's happening should be digging into)

 

If you are correct on this one, that is about the biggest bait & switch ever.  (Far bigger than going after Manafort being about the Podestas.  IMHO)

[LA Grant]

4 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

I should come back and read the rest of this. But it's hardly a circle jerk of Fox News.

 

If you choose to focus on that then that's all you'll see. Just like those who come here and only read Grant, Gary, Tiberius, others. They'll see it as a Bastion of retardism instead of alt right neo Nazis

 

I'll try to get back to the rest of this. But you know that I respect you even though we differ on a lot of opinions

 

Boyst is not worthy of respect. He knows why.

[boyst]

11 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Boyst is not worthy of respect. He knows why.

No I don't. Tell me you coward. 

[3rdnlng]

3 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

No I don't. Tell me you coward. 

He's the guy that said TYTT was a closet pedophile. He'll stoop to any level.