It was a magistrate from what I read. Dont know the particular one, though.

(04-10-2018 01:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(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?

If the breadth of the warrant issued is based on nothing less than a 'embedded in the family consigliere' then people should be fing fired.

If it is based on 'Cohen paid Stormy', then potentially *many* people should be fired.

If Mueller passed this to NY as a 'Cohen paid Stormy', then Mueller should be fired.

If Michael Cohen’s only “crime” is paying Stormy Daniels, then two things appear to be true. First, the raid is the result of Mueller going well beyond the proper scope of his assignment. Second, the “crime” is not one that would be prosecuted absent an ulterior motive. And each of those should have consequences.

And, as I said, would this be any other person in the friggin United States, the ACLU would be on warpath with this issue. But we have ----- crickets. I think I did a good thing telling the ACLU to go f--k themselves about a decade ago after donating in pro bono time somewhat substantially, as they have now exhibited themselves to be an absolute "Guardian of freedoms" --- albeit in a very situational dependent manner.....

But, that seems to be the entire story of the time encompassing this Presidential administration -- on all sides of the political spectra.

Edited to add: There is no way Trump has any sort of interview with the Mueller investigation at this point.

Edited again to add: It is being reported that Rosenstein signed off on the raids and warrant.

(04-10-2018 01:52 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-10-2018 01:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(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?

If the breadth of the warrant issued is based on nothing less than a 'embedded in the family consigliere' then people should be fing fired.

If it is based on 'Cohen paid Stormy', then potentially *many* people should be fired.

If Mueller passed this to NY as a 'Cohen paid Stormy', then Mueller should be fired.

If Michael Cohen’s only “crime” is paying Stormy Daniels, then two things appear to be true. First, the raid is the result of Mueller going well beyond the proper scope of his assignment. Second, the “crime” is not one that would be prosecuted absent an ulterior motive. And each of those should have consequences.

And, as I said, would this be any other person in the friggin United States, the ACLU would be on warpath with this issue. But we have ----- crickets. I think I did a good thing telling the ACLU to go f--k themselves about a decade ago after donating in pro bono time somewhat substantially, as they have now exhibited themselves to be an absolute "Guardian of freedoms" --- albeit in a very situational dependent manner.....

But, that seems to be the entire story of the time encompassing this Presidential administration -- on all sides of the political spectra.

This is not the first time this has happened, right? Did the ACLU get involved in the other instances?

I can think of at least two local matters in my career that were met by the ACLU local chapters with strong denunciations.

(04-10-2018 02:07 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I can think of at least two local matters in my career that were met by the ACLU local chapters with strong denunciations.

Two local matters that involved a search warrant being executed on a lawyer’s office?

I’m just trying to figure out if this is an outlier for the ACLU. They obviously, on a regular basis, try and take the government to task for overreach. And their criticisms of Obama (like his use of drones) makes good evidence Ron suggest they aren’t an overly partisan group.

ACLU is an extraordinarily partisan group, Lad. Amazingly so.

ACLU is all for constitutional 'liberties' as long as that doesnt offend it's donor base --- the Democrats. Have seen it in action at the local level on a very explicit basis. Dont try to convince me otherwise on this...

As I said, great defenders with a very situational bias. And great plaintiffs, again, with a very heavy progressive bias in the cases it undertakes and the causes they represent.

(04-10-2018 03:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  ACLU is an extraordinarily partisan group, Lad. Amazingly so.

ACLU is all for constitutional 'liberties' as long as that doesnt offend it's donor base --- the Democrats. Have seen it in action at the local level on a very explicit basis. Dont try to convince me otherwise on this...

As I said, great defenders with a very situational bias. And great plaintiffs, again, with a very heavy progressive bias in the cases it undertakes and the causes they represent.

Ok, sure, let’s say they are that bias. Again, Hagen you seen them bring cases about searches like this? Is that why your local experience references?

As I stated quite explicitly the issue I have seen generated quite a vocal denunciation --- as one should expect from a group that is: a) supposedly a 'defender of liberty'; *and* b) the supposed penultimate attorney-based organization around.

Here: crickets.

Another perspective: Linky to a not so prominent conservative legal scholar on Cohen/Mueller/ACLU

I dont think I am quite such an outlier in this observation. The mechanics of the response are irrelevant and you are barking up the wrong tree if they have 'filed suit' in such matters.

Lad, this is one of those things that I don't understand but it appalls me. I don't understand why the ACLU is so partisan in their pursuit of civil liberties. But I am definitely appalled by it, even though I am used to it.

(04-10-2018 04:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Lad, this is one of those things that I don't understand but it appalls me. I don't understand why the ACLU is so partisan in their pursuit of civil liberties. But I am definitely appalled by it, even though I am used to it.

Why does this act appall you? What evidence is there that anything illegal or unethical has happened? So far, we know that the search warrant was executed in a appropriate manner and all the loop holes that needed to be jumped through, were. And we know that protections are in place to avoid potentially divulging material that is protected by attorney client privlege.

Until evidence comes out to the contrary, I can understand being concerned about this and that the safeguards that appear to be put in to place are maintained, but I can't understand being appalled. Saying that is action infringes on someone's personal civil liberties at the moment doesn't appear to be appropriate.

And if you're just talking about the supposed bias of the ACLU, please provide me some evidence that backs up your opinion that they are biased against conservatives. As I previously stated, I know that they filed suit against the Obama admin a number of times, and their fight for free speech and against illegal searches and seizures seems to strike a very libertarian, and almost conservative, chord to me.

(04-10-2018 04:48 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  As I stated quite explicitly the issue I have seen generated quite a vocal denunciation --- as one should expect from a group that is: a) supposedly a 'defender of liberty'; *and* b) the supposed penultimate attorney-based organization around.

Here: crickets.

Another perspective: Linky to a not so prominent conservative legal scholar on Cohen/Mueller/ACLU

I dont think I am quite such an outlier in this observation. The mechanics of the response are irrelevant and you are barking up the wrong tree if they have 'filed suit' in such matters.

This logic just doesn't make sense to me - I see the potential for abuse of one's civil liberties, but at this point, I don't see what those abuses are. You've even laid out a situation where this type of search warrant (which has happened before), would be warranted.

I've got no issue with you being concerned, but you seem to be bordering on hysteria for a situation that simply hasn't played out yet.

(04-10-2018 05:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-10-2018 04:48 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  As I stated quite explicitly the issue I have seen generated quite a vocal denunciation --- as one should expect from a group that is: a) supposedly a 'defender of liberty'; *and* b) the supposed penultimate attorney-based organization around.

Here: crickets.

Another perspective: Linky to a not so prominent conservative legal scholar on Cohen/Mueller/ACLU

I dont think I am quite such an outlier in this observation. The mechanics of the response are irrelevant and you are barking up the wrong tree if they have 'filed suit' in such matters.

This logic just doesn't make sense to me - I see the potential for abuse of one's civil liberties, but at this point, I don't see what those abuses are. You've even laid out a situation where this type of search warrant (which has happened before), would be warranted.

I've got no issue with you being concerned, but you seem to be bordering on hysteria for a situation that simply hasn't played out yet.

At least Im demoted to 'hysterical' as opposed to 'snide' and 'dickish' now. Please do tell what you find 'hysterical'.

as for the ACLU, to be honest Lad, I really think you need to assess the real-world view of the biases absolutely and inherently seeded in the ACLU. I find your statement and defense that they are not biased to the liberal cause to be *extremely* naive, to be blunt.

I would suggest that this is a situation where others' real-world experience (mine being associated with the group) would trump another's book description knowledge of the issue.

Quick thought-experiment for you: If the ACLU is *not* a liberally biased organization, why would Dershowitz bring them up in the example he noted? For ***** and giggles? Or, is Dershowitz (the noted conservative mind you) just showing signs of early onset dementia and getting his organizations mixed up? Or, I guess than Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who led the ACLU for close to decade would have *no* effect on the leaning of that organization? Cmon man, wake up and smell the coffee.....

(04-10-2018 05:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-10-2018 04:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Lad, this is one of those things that I don't understand but it appalls me. I don't understand why the ACLU is so partisan in their pursuit of civil liberties. But I am definitely appalled by it, even though I am used to it.

Why does this act appall you? What evidence is there that anything illegal or unethical has happened? So far, we know that the search warrant was executed in a appropriate manner and all the loop holes that needed to be jumped through, were. And we know that protections are in place to avoid potentially divulging material that is protected by attorney client privlege.

Until evidence comes out to the contrary, I can understand being concerned about this and that the safeguards that appear to be put in to place are maintained, but I can't understand being appalled. Saying that is action infringes on someone's personal civil liberties at the moment doesn't appear to be appropriate.

And if you're just talking about the supposed bias of the ACLU, please provide me some evidence that backs up your opinion that they are biased against conservatives. As I previously stated, I know that they filed suit against the Obama admin a number of times, and their fight for free speech and against illegal searches and seizures seems to strike a very libertarian, and almost conservative, chord to me.

I am appalled by the lack of evenhandedness by the ACLU, like Dershowitz. I admire evenhandedness in organizations like the ACLU and in individuals like judges and cops. It bothers me when I don't get it.

Nobody has said the ACLU NEVER takes the conservative side and ALWAYS takes the Liberal side, so a few cases of suing the Obama Administration do nothing. But the cases they choose to pursue are vastly liberal over conservative - environmental suits, for example.

I guess Alan Dershowitz and I share the same view of the ACLU. I wonder how many of the Democrats would bother to declare them unbiased. You may be alone in that.

Dershowitz on Cohen: If This Were Hillary Clinton, ACLU Would Freak Out At "Overzealous" Mueller

Do you disagree?

Do you think the ACLU would be sitting on its hands if a special prosecutor had her lawyer's offices raided? Maybe we can find out next year.

But as for the raid, it is something I understand well - the desperation of a witch hunt to find witches. Turn over every rock to find something.

You know as well as I do this has nothing to do with Collusion with the Russians. The investigation has devolved into an attempt to get as many Trumpsters indicted for something, and in doing so, maybe to cripple the original target - Trump. It is just one offensive by the Resistance.

Perhaps we will be required to 'prove up' that the NRA is a conservative biased organization in the same light? I guess next time I hear someone state that I will require them to 'prove it up'.

I guess the next step that we will have to do is to 'prove up' that Dershowitz is a liberal/progressive. Are you ready for that tooth extraction process?

(04-10-2018 06:36 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-10-2018 05:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-10-2018 04:48 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  As I stated quite explicitly the issue I have seen generated quite a vocal denunciation --- as one should expect from a group that is: a) supposedly a 'defender of liberty'; *and* b) the supposed penultimate attorney-based organization around.

Here: crickets.

Another perspective: Linky to a not so prominent conservative legal scholar on Cohen/Mueller/ACLU

I dont think I am quite such an outlier in this observation. The mechanics of the response are irrelevant and you are barking up the wrong tree if they have 'filed suit' in such matters.

This logic just doesn't make sense to me - I see the potential for abuse of one's civil liberties, but at this point, I don't see what those abuses are. You've even laid out a situation where this type of search warrant (which has happened before), would be warranted.

I've got no issue with you being concerned, but you seem to be bordering on hysteria for a situation that simply hasn't played out yet.

At least Im demoted to 'hysterical' as opposed to 'snide' and 'dickish' now. Please do tell what you find 'hysterical'.

as for the ACLU, to be honest Lad, I really think you need to assess the real-world view of the biases absolutely and inherently seeded in the ACLU. I find your statement and defense that they are not biased to the liberal cause to be *extremely* naive, to be blunt.

I would suggest that this is a situation where others' real-world experience (mine being associated with the group) would trump another's book description knowledge of the issue.

Quick thought-experiment for you: If the ACLU is *not* a liberally biased organization, why would Dershowitz bring them up in the example he noted? For ***** and giggles? Or, is Dershowitz (the noted conservative mind you) just showing signs of early onset dementia and getting his organizations mixed up? Or, I guess than Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who led the ACLU for close to decade would have *no* effect on the leaning of that organization? Cmon man, wake up and smell the coffee.....

Tanq - I repeatedly stated that my comments were about the tone you were using when you posted the other day, and they had nothing to do with the content of what you posted.

And I appreciate your assessment of my opinion on the ACLU. Just because Dershowitz says it, doesn't make it true. He has been very vocal on his opinions about the special counsel investigation from pretty much Day 1, mainly because it is his legal opinion that the charges that are being discussed in the public forum aren't legitimate because the POTUS can't obstruct justice (unless I'm mistaken).

Ironically, in the same interview, Dershowitz suggested that the corrext procedure would be to get a court to "have the judge go through it and have the judge make a determination as to whether there is anything in there that is lawyer-client privilege.” And I believe that is basically the process that is going to be in place. If it isn't the exact process, I do support what Dershowitz is suggesting.

Also of note, Dershowitz called out civil libertarians for mostly being silent on this. I think he just really doesn't like special prosecutors.

Well Lad, it isnt *just* Dershowitz. It is about 95 per cent of the people who follow politics. And yes, I suggest you actually smell the coffee on this one.

If you *really* want to believe the ACLU is a libertarian organization, have at it. I doubt you will find very many people sharing that boat with you. I'm sure you will find 20 or so nationwide...

(04-10-2018 07:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Well Lad, it isnt *just* Dershowitz. It is about 95 per cent of the people who follow politics. And yes, I suggest you actually smell the coffee on this one.

If you *really* want to believe the ACLU is a libertarian organization, have at it. I doubt you will find very many people sharing that boat with you.

I really don't care too much, to be honest. I'm mostly interested in whether the ACLU has taken up similar cases before, because that's more telling about whether their silence is an anomaly.

But my bigger point is really that, we don't know nearly enough about how the investigation will play out with Cohen to state anything more than this is a VERY sticky and delicate situation - one that is ripe to be messed up. But perhaps those involved will handle things competently and we'll find that the raid was warranted and attorney-client privilege was not inappropriately breached. So again, I get your concern, but I do not really understand being hysterical about it (I would consider saying that you're appalled that this happened as being hysterical).

I mean, what if, during the course of the special counsels investigation, they uncovered multiple instances of Cohen laundering money or bribing officials and they did not report that to the DOJ? Would you prefer that those crimes go uninvestigated? Because right now, the way this happened, it would appear as if the special counsel found evidence of crimes committed by Cohen that were not related to the Russia probe, which is why this was passed off. Now if all this has to do with is the one-time Daniel's payment, then I'm with you about how bad of an idea this was.

Funny thing Lad, you make the assertions that "everything is done perfectly hunk dory" about 4 or 5 times. So, in line with your refusing to believe anything, prove it.

And remember, you said 'just because Dershowitz says it doesnt make it so.' Using that same logic that you proffer so quickly, be prepared that any statement from any source that is *not* the office of the SDNY attorney, Muellers investigation, or the DOJ will fall under that same statement.

So now Lad, prove it.

(04-10-2018 08:18 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Funny thing Lad, you make the assertions that "everything is done perfectly hunk dory" about 4 or 5 times. So, in line with your refusing to believe anything, prove it.

And remember, you said 'just because Dershowitz says it doesnt make it so.' Using that same logic that you proffer so quickly, be prepared that any statement from any source that is *not* the office of the SDNY attorney, Muellers investigation, or the DOJ will fall under that same statement.

So now Lad, prove it.

So the raid happened Monday morning. Based on the information, there is no way to know how, after the raid, the actual handling of the evidence has gone. All we know is how things are set up to go and what processes were followed.

We know that that "a federal magistrate judged lookedat the information investigators had already gathered and agreed that Mr. Cohen probably possessed additional evidence of a federal crime." And, "Although it is unusual for the Justice Department to seek a lawyer’s materials, the United States attorneys’ manual contains procedures for how to get both subpoenas and search warrants in such cases. It tells investigators to exhaust all other ways of obtaining evidence first “to avoid impinging on valid attorney-client relationships.” It also encourages them to use a subpoena if possible. But it also acknowledges that sometimes a search warrant may be justified, even though it is more intrusive, such as if there is reason to believe the recipient would destroy the evidence rather than turn it over."

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/10/us/po...ssues.html

So based on our current knowledge of the situation, it appears as if the process for obtaining the warrant was handled correctly.

Then, I've seen multiple articles that state, per procedure, a taint team will be set up to review the documents to make sure attorney-client privilege is not broached. It seems like that hasn't happened yet, but the raid happened yesterday morning, so it seems a bit early for that information to be released.

So what hasn't been handled correctly?

edit: also, because the issues weren't directly related to the Russia investigation, the search warrant was correctly handed over to the proper authorities and Mueller's team did not lead the effort.

(04-10-2018 08:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-10-2018 07:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Well Lad, it isnt *just* Dershowitz. It is about 95 per cent of the people who follow politics. And yes, I suggest you actually smell the coffee on this one.

If you *really* want to believe the ACLU is a libertarian organization, have at it. I doubt you will find very many people sharing that boat with you.

I really don't care too much, to be honest.

Then why do you dig in your heels so much to the concept that the ACLU is a politically biased organization?