Michael Cohen getting raided by the Feds is pretty wild.

Granted, Cohen appears to have been really close to violating campaign finance laws since the $130k donation could be construed as a campaign donation, but the whole thing reeks of overreach. If anything, Mueller might end up invalidating any collusion or other random dragnet charges if the special prosecutor is found after the fact to have violated attorney-client privilege in order to build a case. We could also see a challenge to the practice of parallel construction (illegally procure evidence of a crime, then find other lawfully acquired evidence to support the actual case). Law schools are going to have to add a few more shelves to their law libraries after this presidency ends with all of the crazy stuff happening on literally a daily basis.

(04-09-2018 09:18 PM)flash3200 Wrote:  Michael Cohen getting raided by the Feds is pretty wild.

Granted, Cohen appears to have been really close to violating campaign finance laws since the $130k donation could be construed as a campaign donation, but the whole thing reeks of overreach. If anything, Mueller might end up invalidating any collusion or other random dragnet charges if the special prosecutor is found after the fact to have violated attorney-client privilege in order to build a case. We could also see a challenge to the practice of parallel construction (illegally procure evidence of a crime, then find other lawfully acquired evidence to support the actual case). Law schools are going to have to add a few more shelves to their law libraries after this presidency ends with all of the crazy stuff happening on literally a daily basis.

In actuality there is only *one* outcome that will not f--k the nation over at this time. In a perverted sense, I hope to go they find stuff that unequivocally shows Trump is crooked.

For any other outcome, this has ripped open a political wound that I dont see being repaired in my lifetime.

If Trump is shown to be completely free of charges, the payback quotient will be out of this world.

If there are BS things that come across, you will have roughly the same level of payback quotient, but with an added spectre of trashing the reputation of the FBI as an institution and the DOJ as represented by Mueller, which will have acquired the reputation as a political witch hunt organization.

Putin is laughing his ass over this.

And yes, the settlement with Stormy Daniels over a consensual tryst being classified as a political contribution is a serious overreach. If that is a charge that comes out of it, I will utterly fail to understand why people at Facebook were not charged for their opening the system and data to the Obama campaign. Not just confused, but I would have to state that situation that would be a serious issue of an seriously unequal application of the law.

(04-09-2018 10:02 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  In actuality there is only *one* outcome that will not f--k the nation over at this time. In a perverted sense, I hope to go they find stuff that unequivocally shows Trump is crooked.

Agree with that one.

Obviously Trump is no boy scout, but the bulk of accusations have been pure fantasy up to this point. If anything existed to show any collusion between Trump and a foreign government in an attempt to influence the election, it would have been raised already for no other reason than national security considerations.

The fact that we have Mueller going around tossing offices upside down like a drill sergeant tells me they really don't have much and they are just on a goose chase at this point. It doesn't help that Trump's personal circle prior to his campaign is a target rich environment of shady real estate deals, mob lawyer tactics, eastern European influences, and professional money launderers.

Also, the lack of equity between the Hillary email investigation and Clinton Foundation activity (where evidence that was subject to an FBI investigation was intentionally destroyed thereby obstructing justice; also, where the Clintons received cash payments from foreign governments both personally and to their foundation for services that are at best questionable) and the Mueller probe (Trump or his associates may have accepted cash from foreign governments and Trump may be subject to obstruction by issuing vague statements to James Comey regarding Flynn) really blows my mind. I don't really care that nothing happened to Clinton from the email fiasco and them selling access to foreigners, but to turn around and say it is the end of democracy when someone else does something similar (and likely Trump has done 10% of what the Clintons did in this regard) screams of intellectual dishonesty. Either send them both to prison or go ahead and end this scam of an investigation.

Witch hunt.

I wonder what they expect to find in that lawyer's office that will show the Trump campaign or Trump colluded with the Russians to steal the election.

(04-09-2018 10:47 PM)flash3200 Wrote:  

(04-09-2018 10:02 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  In actuality there is only *one* outcome that will not f--k the nation over at this time. In a perverted sense, I hope to go they find stuff that unequivocally shows Trump is crooked.

Agree with that one.

Obviously Trump is no boy scout, but the bulk of accusations have been pure fantasy up to this point. If anything existed to show any collusion between Trump and a foreign government in an attempt to influence the election, it would have been raised already for no other reason than national security considerations.

The fact that we have Mueller going around tossing offices upside down like a drill sergeant tells me they really don't have much and they are just on a goose chase at this point. It doesn't help that Trump's personal circle prior to his campaign is a target rich environment of shady real estate deals, mob lawyer tactics, eastern European influences, and professional money launderers.

Also, the lack of equity between the Hillary email investigation and Clinton Foundation activity (where evidence that was subject to an FBI investigation was intentionally destroyed thereby obstructing justice; also, where the Clintons received cash payments from foreign governments both personally and to their foundation for services that are at best questionable) and the Mueller probe (Trump or his associates may have accepted cash from foreign governments and Trump may be subject to obstruction by issuing vague statements to James Comey regarding Flynn) really blows my mind. I don't really care that nothing happened to Clinton from the email fiasco and them selling access to foreigners, but to turn around and say it is the end of democracy when someone else does something similar (and likely Trump has done 10% of what the Clintons did in this regard) screams of intellectual dishonesty. Either send them both to prison or go ahead and end this scam of an investigation.

The problem is that on one side of the issues people keep saying 'there is smoke, lets turn the carpets over and raid the lawyer offices to find the fire.'

When it comes to the Clinton scenarios you describe above --- fing crickets.

Have to love that dichotomy....

There is a concept of parallel construction in law enforcement: you acquire evidence of crimes through illegal means (such as going through attorney-client communications that are unrelated to the scope of the initial warrant or by other violations of the 4th amendment), then once you know a crime was committed you can search for other sources of evidence that can be legally acquired and used in a court of law. No doubt the FBI knows how to run a parallel construction campaign, and they loved having the excuse to scoop up all of Cohen's records solely to look for other crimes.

I doubt there is anything serious there, but having the FBI acquire access to attorney-client communications is pretty wild. There is a small nuance in all of this in that Cohen said that he acted independently and Trump never knew of the payoff. Meanwhile, the New York Bar requires that attorneys inform their clients of all actions taken on their behalf. So a couple of questions come up: Did Cohen violate ethics by acting on Trump's behalf without Trump's knowledge? If Trump did not know of the agreement, is there any attorney-client privilege? Is there evidence in what the FBI gathered to contradict Cohen's sworn testimony?

This all seems like another perjury trap: catch these guys in white lies or in a gray legal area -> threaten them with exaggerated charges -> secure a plea deal for some minor offense to support the investigation continuing for perpetuity. I think Mueller just wants to get a bunch of scalps so he can keep his lawyer buddies employed for as long as possible, and they don't necessarily have to be Trump himself. Literally, they are swamp creatures trying to find their next meal. Manafort is the only guy willing to fight so far, with the others not having the resources to fight the federal government. I think this is the part of the Hillary investigation where they decided no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges, but with Mueller being independent he is actually incentivized to drag this thing out as long as possible. Shocking/not shocking that Mueller keeps bringing up people other than Trump to investigate, subpoena, get warrants, etc. because as soon as he can clear Trump his gig is up.

(04-10-2018 12:00 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Witch hunt.

I wonder what they expect to find in that lawyer's office that will show the Trump campaign or Trump colluded with the Russians to steal the election.

They are going to send him to the docket with Stormy Daniels payment, and gin up a crapload of money laundering counts that are associated with it. I guess if money laundering is good enough for the bulk of the Backpage indictment, its good enough anywhere.

Again, of they are going to bootstrap the Stormy payments into charges, why the hell didnt people at Facebook face charges for illegal campaign contributions? (assuming the charges are Stormy related...)

This is the Mueller way...just hang around long enough and try to entrap various members of the Trump organization for relatively minor things. For what Flynn and Papadopoulos did (essentially tell white lies about Russians when they didn't even know they were under oath and without legal representation), almost no one would get prosecuted with a felony.

Trump was stupid for paying her off anyway. 130K is chump change (Clinton paid Paula Jones almost a million). His supporters didn't care about Access Hollywood, they didn't care about a ton of other negative crap that had been tossed about in the news for years prior to 2016 so even if she had him on tape peeing on her during their hotel tryst, I doubt it would have changed much on election day. I've always believed that the outtakes from Apprentice and Celebrity Apprentice were way more damaging but Mark Burnett is one of Trump's few friends who has continued to stay loyal to him (so far).

I do believe there is more to the case than simple money laundering for the Daniels payout. Cohen seems awfully sleazy and stupid enough to have done some truly questionable stuff and not properly hide the evidence. But I'm not sure how any Trump supporter can continue to claim he surrounds himself with the 'best of the best'. Why would Trump's personal lawyer have to attend one of the nation's worst law schools to begin with?

(04-10-2018 07:07 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Trump was stupid for paying her off anyway. 130K is chump change (Clinton paid Paula Jones almost a million). His supporters didn't care about Access Hollywood, they didn't care about a ton of other negative crap that had been tossed about in the news for years prior to 2016 so even if she had him on tape peeing on her during their hotel tryst, I doubt it would have changed much on election day. I've always believed that the outtakes from Apprentice and Celebrity Apprentice were way more damaging but Mark Burnett is one of Trump's few friends who has continued to stay loyal to him (so far).

I do believe there is more to the case than simple money laundering for the Daniels payout. Cohen seems awfully sleazy and stupid enough to have done some truly questionable stuff and not properly hide the evidence. But I'm not sure how any Trump supporter can continue to claim he surrounds himself with the 'best of the best'. Why would Trump's personal lawyer have to attend one of the nation's worst law schools to begin with?

Some of the absolute best litigators I have ever known came from South Texas College of Law, which is not a bastion nor beacon of continuous intellectual light in the legal world.

Conversely, I have practiced *with* (in small groups) some of the *worst* attorneys I can imagine who came from Stanford, which *is* a supposed bastion and beacon of intellectual light in the legal world.

I would be careful (especially with attorneys) of using the 'which diploma you got' gauge of ability.

(04-10-2018 07:07 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Cohen seems awfully sleazy and stupid enough to have done some truly questionable stuff and not properly hide the evidence.

You may have (perhaps unintentionally) hit upon the essential difference between the Clintons and the Trumpsters: not sleaziness, but thoroughness.

(04-10-2018 02:12 AM)flash3200 Wrote:  This is the Mueller way...just hang around long enough and try to entrap various members of the Trump organization for relatively minor things. For what Flynn and Papadopoulos did (essentially tell white lies about Russians when they didn't even know they were under oath and without legal representation), almost no one would get prosecuted with a felony.

I know very little about Mueller - does he actually have a reputation (from prior to the Trump investigation) for conducting investigations like that?

(04-10-2018 12:57 AM)flash3200 Wrote:  There is a concept of parallel construction in law enforcement: you acquire evidence of crimes through illegal means (such as going through attorney-client communications that are unrelated to the scope of the initial warrant or by other violations of the 4th amendment), then once you know a crime was committed you can search for other sources of evidence that can be legally acquired and used in a court of law. No doubt the FBI knows how to run a parallel construction campaign, and they loved having the excuse to scoop up all of Cohen's records solely to look for other crimes.

I doubt there is anything serious there, but having the FBI acquire access to attorney-client communications is pretty wild. There is a small nuance in all of this in that Cohen said that he acted independently and Trump never knew of the payoff. Meanwhile, the New York Bar requires that attorneys inform their clients of all actions taken on their behalf. So a couple of questions come up: Did Cohen violate ethics by acting on Trump's behalf without Trump's knowledge? If Trump did not know of the agreement, is there any attorney-client privilege? Is there evidence in what the FBI gathered to contradict Cohen's sworn testimony?

This all seems like another perjury trap: catch these guys in white lies or in a gray legal area -> threaten them with exaggerated charges -> secure a plea deal for some minor offense to support the investigation continuing for perpetuity. I think Mueller just wants to get a bunch of scalps so he can keep his lawyer buddies employed for as long as possible, and they don't necessarily have to be Trump himself. Literally, they are swamp creatures trying to find their next meal. Manafort is the only guy willing to fight so far, with the others not having the resources to fight the federal government. I think this is the part of the Hillary investigation where they decided no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges, but with Mueller being independent he is actually incentivized to drag this thing out as long as possible. Shocking/not shocking that Mueller keeps bringing up people other than Trump to investigate, subpoena, get warrants, etc. because as soon as he can clear Trump his gig is up.

From what I’ve read so far, the unusual nature of the warrant resulted in both extra hurdles for prosecutors to jump through on the front end (most of the lifting was not actually done by Mueller, by the way) and extra hurdles on the back end. I’ve read that, prior to the investigators getting their hands on any information, the documents will be screened to make sure that attorney-client privilege is maintained.

So I assume your initial statement is just reflecting a concern that it won’t be maintained, right? Not an assertion that it has already been broken.

Also, it should be noted that a warrant was granted, which means a judge likely found enough compelling evidence that Cohen was going to destroy evidence of a crime he committed, that a subpoena was insufficient.

(04-10-2018 12:57 AM)flash3200 Wrote:  ?

This all seems like another perjury trap: catch these guys in white lies or in a gray legal area -> threaten them with exaggerated charges -> secure a plea deal for some minor offense to support the investigation continuing for perpetuity. I think Mueller just wants to get a bunch of scalps so he can keep his lawyer buddies employed for as long as possible, and they don't necessarily have to be Trump himself.

Witch hunt. The whole thing reminds me of the Gestapo, except the target is not hauled away and imprisoned until the end.

"Ve Vill find out what you have been doing, if it takes us forever!!!"

Lad, as per your first statement there is an incredible level of faith that the DOJ 'does it' the way they say. I am glad you have the ultimate faith in that the government and authorities deem their manuals as inviolate.

Illegally obtained evidence is never supposed to be used in any fashion. Period. But it is -- all the time.

But the DOJ does have a somewhat storied history of the parallel construction methodology. Even more so when you consider the additional raft of situations where the DOJ tips the local authorities to make a bust on their procurement.

If the second sentence in this post was adhered to, you would not have the raft of post-conviction litigations occurring as we see presently.

So, no, given the actual history of the practice, as opposed to what is written as to another shielding practice, the answer for me is in doubt. Just like when McCabe was fired for lying, the stringency of the FBI/DOJ in adhering to the policies in a legal and transparent manner is highly important.

McCabe lied. He damaged the credibility of the FBI to a great extent.

Similarly, the DOJ statement about 'what happens' re: parallel construction is seemingly occurring contrary to DOJ stated guidelines on a rather seemingly consistent basis. In that manner, my personal 'feel goodness' factor about that as it relates to Cohen (and his client Trump) I have doubts and reservations about.

On a related note, I found it interesting that Alan Dershowitz (the noted conservative voice) voiced the correct statement that the raiding of the legal files and offices of Cohen is only typically reserved for Mob lawyers --- those so caught up in the illegal organization that no other alternative is open.

In this manner, as voiced before, I do hope in this instance that Cohen is found to be akin to Tom Hagen/consigliere level broker in 'The Godfather'. If what comes out of it is some claptrap Stormy Daniels issue or 'money laundering' **** that seems so prevalent to charge, then, as Dershowitz alluded to, I think the political damage to this country will be incalculable.

As an attorney I am utterly appalled at the raid. The *only* instance I can see this being justified is for some very high level issues. I am saddened, yet not surprised, that the ACLU is somewhat silent on this.

(04-10-2018 10:44 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Lad, as per your first statement there is an incredible level of faith that the DOJ 'does it' the way they say. I am glad you have the ultimate faith in that the government and authorities deem their manuals as inviolate.

Illegally obtained evidence is never supposed to be used in any fashion. Period. But it is -- all the time.

But the DOJ does have a somewhat storied history of the parallel construction methodology. Even more so when you consider the additional raft of situations where the DOJ tips the local authorities to make a bust on their procurement.

If the second sentence in this post was adhered to, you would not have the raft of post-conviction litigations occurring as we see presently.

So, no, given the actual history of the practice, as opposed to what is written as to another shielding practice, the answer for me is in doubt. Just like when McCabe was fired for lying, the stringency of the FBI/DOJ in adhering to the policies in a legal and transparent manner is highly important.

McCabe lied. He damaged the credibility of the FBI to a great extent.

Similarly, the DOJ statement about 'what happens' re: parallel construction is seemingly occurring contrary to DOJ stated guidelines on a rather seemingly consistent basis. In that manner, my personal 'feel goodness' factor about that as it relates to Cohen (and his client Trump) I have doubts and reservations about.

On a related note, I found it interesting that Alan Dershowitz (the noted conservative voice) voiced the correct statement that the raiding of the legal files and offices of Cohen is only typically reserved for Mob lawyers --- those so caught up in the illegal organization that no other alternative is open.

In this manner, as voiced before, I do hope in this instance that Cohen is found to be akin to Tom Hagen/consigliere level broker in 'The Godfather'. If what comes out of it is some claptrap Stormy Daniels issue or 'money laundering' **** that seems so prevalent to charge, then, as Dershowitz alluded to, I think the political damage to this country will be incalculable.

As an attorney I am utterly appalled at the raid. The *only* instance I can see this being justified is for some very high level issues. I am saddened, yet not surprised, that the ACLU is somewhat silent on this.

How can one be utterly appalled by an action when you don’t have a full understanding of the situation? What if Cohen is on The Godfather level you refer to - would you be appalled then?

(04-10-2018 12:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-10-2018 10:44 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Lad, as per your first statement there is an incredible level of faith that the DOJ 'does it' the way they say. I am glad you have the ultimate faith in that the government and authorities deem their manuals as inviolate.

Illegally obtained evidence is never supposed to be used in any fashion. Period. But it is -- all the time.

But the DOJ does have a somewhat storied history of the parallel construction methodology. Even more so when you consider the additional raft of situations where the DOJ tips the local authorities to make a bust on their procurement.

If the second sentence in this post was adhered to, you would not have the raft of post-conviction litigations occurring as we see presently.

So, no, given the actual history of the practice, as opposed to what is written as to another shielding practice, the answer for me is in doubt. Just like when McCabe was fired for lying, the stringency of the FBI/DOJ in adhering to the policies in a legal and transparent manner is highly important.

McCabe lied. He damaged the credibility of the FBI to a great extent.

Similarly, the DOJ statement about 'what happens' re: parallel construction is seemingly occurring contrary to DOJ stated guidelines on a rather seemingly consistent basis. In that manner, my personal 'feel goodness' factor about that as it relates to Cohen (and his client Trump) I have doubts and reservations about.

On a related note, I found it interesting that Alan Dershowitz (the noted conservative voice) voiced the correct statement that the raiding of the legal files and offices of Cohen is only typically reserved for Mob lawyers --- those so caught up in the illegal organization that no other alternative is open.

In this manner, as voiced before, I do hope in this instance that Cohen is found to be akin to Tom Hagen/consigliere level broker in 'The Godfather'. If what comes out of it is some claptrap Stormy Daniels issue or 'money laundering' **** that seems so prevalent to charge, then, as Dershowitz alluded to, I think the political damage to this country will be incalculable.

As an attorney I am utterly appalled at the raid. The *only* instance I can see this being justified is for some very high level issues. I am saddened, yet not surprised, that the ACLU is somewhat silent on this.

How can one be utterly appalled by an action when you don’t have a full understanding of the situation? What if Cohen is on The Godfather level you refer to - would you be appalled then?

Lad, there are a lot of things I don't have a full understanding of that appall me. If fact, it is some of the things that I cannot understand that appall me the most.

List upon request.

Lad, the mere idea that someone other than me would be privy to *any* client information I might hold is chilling. The level of active participant by an attorney needs to go well above the Godfather status ----

I can understand piercing the privilege with respect to one client. And, in fact, that has happened with respect to one client of mine before --- and the information was supplied to the court with the appropriate court order.

The idea that my entire set of client files would end up in governmental hands is, in fact, appalling. You singularly neglect the fact that the information of *all* of Cohen's clients are at issue here based on supposed Cohen-only misconduct. I hope this clears up my statement so that you may understand the depth of concern here.

The other singular fact here is that the main investigator conveniently refers the personal attorney to another authority --- and gets in all probability potential freebie into every single facet of the original target to boot. Yes, there are going to be *very* few situations where that is *not* going to be grotesque, to be honest. Mind boggingly few.... And, as I noted previously, I hope to god in a very perverse fashion that that happens. Otherwise the fallout will be inf--king enormous for a very long time.

In all aspects, a very real rubicon has been crossed with this action. So, to be blunt, probably to the point of truly being snide or a dick, I think I probably have a much greater and deeper appreciation of the issue than you do, to be honest.

(04-10-2018 01:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Lad, the mere idea that someone other than me would be privy to *any* client information I might hold is chilling. The level of active participant by an attorney needs to go well above the Godfather status ----

I can understand piercing the privilege with respect to one client. And, in fact, that has happened with respect to one client of mine before --- and the information was supplied to the court with the appropriate court order.

The idea that my entire set of client files would end up in governmental hands is, in fact, appalling. You singularly neglect the fact that the information of *all* of Cohen's clients are at issue here based on supposed Cohen-only misconduct. I hope this clears up my statement so that you may understand the depth of concern here.

The other singular fact here is that the main investigator conveniently refers the personal attorney to another authority --- and gets in all probability potential freebie into every single facet of the original target to boot. Yes, there are going to be *very* few situations where that is *not* going to be grotesque, to be honest. Mind boggingly few.... And, as I noted previously, I hope to god in a very perverse fashion that that happens. Otherwise the fallout will be inf--king enormous for a very long time.

In all aspects, a very real rubicon has been crossed with this action. So, to be blunt, probably to the point of truly being snide or a dick, I think I probably have a much greater and deeper appreciation of the issue than you do, to be honest.

From what I’ve read, this is not the first time a search warrant like this has been executed. And the potentially sever consequences of its misuse (which you discuss), are real, but also generally appear to be realized by the parties involved (including the judge who granted the warrant).

I get the concerns you have, but do you really think that the investigators would Ben so stupid to execute such a controversial search warrant, and a judge to grant it, without very compelling evidence? I do have enough faith in the process that they would not go through such extreme measures on a whim and without significant rationale.

I mean, is it more likely Cohen legitimately screwed up or Mueller, the Southern District of New York, and the judge who allowed the warrant to be executed screwed up?

I am curious: has anyone looked up which judge issued the warrant?