(04-13-2018 11:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-13-2018 10:43 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-13-2018 09:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-13-2018 08:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  They're out to get him at any cost

Dershowitz brings up a good point about the inherent potential violations of attorney-client privilege by having someone, even if it isn't the prosecution, review material that would be deemed privileged.

It does make me wonder though - if, as Dershowitz seems to suggests, attorney-client privilege was something so sacred that no one could ever review material deemed to fall under that umbrella, would that not just open up a very easy and legal way for people to conspire about committing crimes? I've read that the privilege is nullified if the material indicates the meeting was about furthering a crime, but is seems like Dershowitz suggests that even that would be covered because of his concerns about anyone, not just the prosecutors, reading the material.

The violations arent just of the attorney-client privilege; the actions implicate violations of the 4th and 6th amendments of the Constitution.

I really didn’t get his use of the 6th - can you explain that?

And for the 4th, isn’t the issue there that the attorney client privilege is being illegallly searches/seized? I mean, I’m not sure I get your response at all - Dirshowitz’s whole point was these amendments were being violated because of the intrusions into attorney-client interactions.

They also exist because the warrant typically targets Atty - Specific Client interactions. And you would be correct that the attorney/client privilege is at the root of that issue.

What also gets swept up are the interactions between Atty and the entire rest of the universe. Therefore there is a huge problem there, since the 'rest of the universe' has no valid warrant issued against them.

What most do not realize is that under the law pretty much every jurisdiction, an attorney's files and information in a matter are deemed to be the property of the client --- not the attorney.

For them (the rest of the universe), the rummaging of the files is in fact not just a search of otherwise 'protected' material, but is in fact a warrantless search of *their* property.

For third parties, the attorney/client privilege is just a portion of the Constitutional question that is raised.

(04-13-2018 11:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-13-2018 11:14 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(04-13-2018 11:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-13-2018 10:43 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-13-2018 09:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Dershowitz brings up a good point about the inherent potential violations of attorney-client privilege by having someone, even if it isn't the prosecution, review material that would be deemed privileged.

It does make me wonder though - if, as Dershowitz seems to suggests, attorney-client privilege was something so sacred that no one could ever review material deemed to fall under that umbrella, would that not just open up a very easy and legal way for people to conspire about committing crimes? I've read that the privilege is nullified if the material indicates the meeting was about furthering a crime, but is seems like Dershowitz suggests that even that would be covered because of his concerns about anyone, not just the prosecutors, reading the material.

The violations arent just of the attorney-client privilege; the actions implicate violations of the 4th and 6th amendments of the Constitution.

I really didn’t get his use of the 6th - can you explain that?

Violation of attorney-client privilege compromises the ability of the attorney to provide effective counsel. If the accused cannot be completely frank and honest with his attorney for fear of self-incrimination, then that hinders effective discovery and defense strategy.

So it is the violation of, in essence, Trump’s rights with regards to the 6th?

It is *every client's* rights with regards to the 6th, not just Trump.

And, *every client's* rights with regards to the 4th, not just Trump.

These searches are not laser guided bomb strikes. These searches are Hoover-matic searches of all of an attorneys files -- they have to be in order for the laser guided search to be effective.

Hopefully this is instructive of why these types of searches overall are so 'appalling' to legal-types in general. (But apparently not the ACLU, the self-deigned 'guardian of rights' in our society...)

edited to add:

hopefully after Dershowitz's comments, and the further defining comments here, you will realize that this action *is* a big deal.

To be honest, this is akin to a decision to pop a nuke in a European land war, either in today's world or in the world of Cold War. There really is no going back on this one.

And hopefully, given my comments above defining what it means, you will be more comfortable with my supposedly 'hysterical' language of this being 'appalling.'

This move is the equivalent of the Mueller/DOJ setting off of a tactical nuke in this matter. Much like a Trump decision to fire Rosenstein or Mueller would be the mirror image of the level of this action.

(04-13-2018 12:53 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-13-2018 11:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-13-2018 11:14 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(04-13-2018 11:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-13-2018 10:43 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The violations arent just of the attorney-client privilege; the actions implicate violations of the 4th and 6th amendments of the Constitution.

I really didn’t get his use of the 6th - can you explain that?

Violation of attorney-client privilege compromises the ability of the attorney to provide effective counsel. If the accused cannot be completely frank and honest with his attorney for fear of self-incrimination, then that hinders effective discovery and defense strategy.

So it is the violation of, in essence, Trump’s rights with regards to the 6th?

It is *every client's* rights with regards to the 6th, not just Trump.

And, *every client's* rights with regards to the 4th, not just Trump.

These searches are not laser guided bomb strikes. These searches are Hoover-matic searches of all of an attorneys files -- they have to be in order for the laser guided search to be effective.

Hopefully this is instructive of why these types of searches overall are so 'appalling' to legal-types in general. (But apparently not the ACLU, the self-deigned 'guardian of rights' in our society...)

edited to add:

hopefully after Dershowitz's comments, and the further defining comments here, you will realize that this action *is* a big deal.

To be honest, this is akin to a decision to pop a nuke in a European land war, either in today's world or in the world of Cold War. There really is no going back on this one.

And hopefully, given my comments above defining what it means, you will be more comfortable with my supposedly 'hysterical' language of this being 'appalling.'

This move is the equivalent of the Mueller/DOJ setting off of a tactical nuke in this matter. Much like a Trump decision to fire Rosenstein or Mueller would be the mirror image of the level of this action.

Your response helps me understand Dirshowitz's reasoning - I was having a hard time understanding it when I thought he was referring to Cohen. And I do have a better appreciation for why you're so concerned, but again, because we don't currently know what was in the warrant or what will come of these actions, I still think it's best to not lambaste the use of the warrant unless one is completely and utterly against this type of search and seizure every happening.

I think it's more appropriate to basically sound the alarm that this may be a huge mistake that, as you've pointed out, could have some nasty repercussions. I think framing the issue like that makes it more compelling and more likely to sink in and be heard.

(04-13-2018 01:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Your response helps me understand Dirshowitz's reasoning - I was having a hard time understanding it when I thought he was referring to Cohen. And I do have a better appreciation for why you're so concerned, but again, because we don't currently know what was in the warrant or what will come of these actions, I still think it's best to not lambaste the use of the warrant unless one is completely and utterly against this type of search and seizure every happening.

I think it's more appropriate to basically sound the alarm that this may be a huge mistake that, as you've pointed out, could have some nasty repercussions. I think framing the issue like that makes it more compelling and more likely to sink in and be heard.

And I will come down on the opposite side given the numbers of these things, and how these things work in real life.

It is a given to me that the 'nasty things will happen.' To me, if you hand me an M-80 and tell me to hold it in my hand and light it, nfw am I going to say, "well perhaps you really dont have the need to justify holding by saying 'theoretically the fuse wont burn to the explosives'." In the real world the fuses dont sputter out, and in the real world I prefer to have both of my hands both attached and functional.

And, in the real world level of to whom this should apply, I just dont see Cohen even coming close to that threshold. I am sure that Cohen in some way, shape, or form will leak the warrant, as they had to serve him with a copy. And I am sure that will be some very interesting reading.

And, as I noted before with just a tad of sarcasm, the vaunted 'guardian of what is right and correct with rights and the law' is ----- cricketland.

Amazing times we live in.

(04-13-2018 12:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  What a garbage hot take right there.

First, if you want to make sure millenials are/were being taught civics, please call out the Boomers and Gen Xers that were/are teaching the millenials in high school right now. Since when did high school students get to decide what the curriculum was?

Second, high schools still teach government and american history classes - just look at the offering of AP courses. I would be shocked to find any high school that doesn't require an American history course to be taught (which covers our government) and many encourage a specific course on government be taught.

Third, since when have there been controversies over self-incrimination and double jeopardy in the last 10 years?

And that doesn't even touch on the fact that the argument that "every" millennial wants to get rid of the amendments you listed. Even the more vocal Parkland students openly state that they don't want to abolish the 2nd amendment (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-r...e-second), they want to pass legislation that more tightly regulates gun ownership (which one can argue is an infringement, but is certainly different than an abolishment).

Absolute garbage hot take.

Guilty as charged!

I don't want to create a huge tangent, but while my fake quote was hyperbolic it is rooted in truth. I can't go a single day without my contemporaries (I am actually a millennial....barely) complaining on various social media about the aforementioned bill of rights. Most of these positions are from graduates from Rice. A significant percentage (less than all) unequivocally wish to ban semi auto rifles, ban hate speech, and are fans of prosecutor overreach if it behooves their political leanings.

It is shocking to me about the prevalence of people who can't discern if a political position violates the protections of the bill of rights much less have a decent idea of where the border is in terms of activity that is protected under the bill of rights.

(04-13-2018 02:09 PM)flash3200 Wrote:  

(04-13-2018 12:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  What a garbage hot take right there.

First, if you want to make sure millenials are/were being taught civics, please call out the Boomers and Gen Xers that were/are teaching the millenials in high school right now. Since when did high school students get to decide what the curriculum was?

Second, high schools still teach government and american history classes - just look at the offering of AP courses. I would be shocked to find any high school that doesn't require an American history course to be taught (which covers our government) and many encourage a specific course on government be taught.

Third, since when have there been controversies over self-incrimination and double jeopardy in the last 10 years?

And that doesn't even touch on the fact that the argument that "every" millennial wants to get rid of the amendments you listed. Even the more vocal Parkland students openly state that they don't want to abolish the 2nd amendment (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-r...e-second), they want to pass legislation that more tightly regulates gun ownership (which one can argue is an infringement, but is certainly different than an abolishment).

Absolute garbage hot take.

Guilty as charged!

I don't want to create a huge tangent, but while my fake quote was hyperbolic it is rooted in truth. I can't go a single day without my contemporaries (I am actually a millennial....barely) complaining on various social media about the aforementioned bill of rights. Most of these positions are from graduates from Rice. A significant percentage (less than all) unequivocally wish to ban semi auto rifles, ban hate speech, and are fans of prosecutor overreach if it behooves their political leanings.

It is shocking to me about the prevalence of people who can't discern if a political position violates the protections of the bill of rights much less have a decent idea of where the border is in terms of activity that is protected under the bill of rights.

Your fake quote has a measure of truth to it: it defines the difference between the originalist or literalist interpretation of the Constitution to the 'living document' school of thought.

So, while hyperbolic, not as such an 'absolute garbage hot take' as Lad vehemently counters.

If one subscribes to the originalist/literalist school, it would be. When one subscribes to the 'living/evolving document' school (as most progressives actually do), it is not such a 'garbage hot take' as Lad so vehemently objects to.

One only has to point to the incessant banter about how the evil semi-automatic Satan designed military-style assault weapons have so outpaced the Constitution as to render them 'bannable', as opposed to the originalist/literalist school. As for that point explicitly and in particular, Lad, some (many, perhaps) on progressive side the firearms issue absolutely take up and charge forward under the banner of and chanting loudly of what you so loudly proclaim to be an 'absolute garbage hot take'.

Quote:To be sure, searches of premises belonging to an attorney raise special concerns, which impose a need for heightened care, due to the fact that such premises may contain privileged material. But there can be no dispute that attorneys, like anyone else, may be criminally investigated for their conduct, and that law enforcement officials may search an attorney’s law office – or other premises – “pursuant to a valid warrant that is supported by probable cause that an attorney has been engaging in criminal activity and that the law offices in question contain evidence of this suspected wrongdoing.” United States v. Stewart, No. 02 Cr. 396 (JGK), 2002 WL 1300059, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. June 11, 2002). That is what happened here: A federal magistrate judge found that there was probable cause to believe that Cohen’s premises and devices contained evidence, fruits and instrumentalities that specified federal crimes were committed.

online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/2018_0413_cohen_vs_USA.pdf

Govt response to Cohen trying to suppress the search warrant.

(04-13-2018 02:28 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

Quote:To be sure, searches of premises belonging to an attorney raise special concerns, which impose a need for heightened care, due to the fact that such premises may contain privileged material. But there can be no dispute that attorneys, like anyone else, may be criminally investigated for their conduct, and that law enforcement officials may search an attorney’s law office – or other premises – “pursuant to a valid warrant that is supported by probable cause that an attorney has been engaging in criminal activity and that the law offices in question contain evidence of this suspected wrongdoing.” United States v. Stewart, No. 02 Cr. 396 (JGK), 2002 WL 1300059, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. June 11, 2002). That is what happened here: A federal magistrate judge found that there was probable cause to believe that Cohen’s premises and devices contained evidence, fruits and instrumentalities that specified federal crimes were committed.

online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/2018_0413_cohen_vs_USA.pdf

Govt response to Cohen trying to suppress the search warrant.

Let the games begin! Sounds like we need a gambling pool predicated on if the illegal shenanigans Cohen is accused of are outside the scope of paying out hush money to Trump's prostitutes.

(04-13-2018 02:53 PM)flash3200 Wrote:  

(04-13-2018 02:28 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

Quote:To be sure, searches of premises belonging to an attorney raise special concerns, which impose a need for heightened care, due to the fact that such premises may contain privileged material. But there can be no dispute that attorneys, like anyone else, may be criminally investigated for their conduct, and that law enforcement officials may search an attorney’s law office – or other premises – “pursuant to a valid warrant that is supported by probable cause that an attorney has been engaging in criminal activity and that the law offices in question contain evidence of this suspected wrongdoing.” United States v. Stewart, No. 02 Cr. 396 (JGK), 2002 WL 1300059, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. June 11, 2002). That is what happened here: A federal magistrate judge found that there was probable cause to believe that Cohen’s premises and devices contained evidence, fruits and instrumentalities that specified federal crimes were committed.

online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/2018_0413_cohen_vs_USA.pdf

Govt response to Cohen trying to suppress the search warrant.

Let the games begin! Sounds like we need a gambling pool predicated on if the illegal shenanigans Cohen is accused of are outside the scope of paying out hush money to Trump's prostitutes.

How about a pool based on when the first leaks from seized documents leak to the press? I'll take Tuesday.

Quote:WASHINGTON

The Justice Department special counsel has evidence that Donald Trump’s personal lawyer and confidant, Michael Cohen, secretly made a late-summer trip to Prague during the 2016 presidential campaign, according to two sources familiar with the matter.

Confirmation of the trip would lend credence to a retired British spy’s report that Cohen strategized there with a powerful Kremlin figure about Russian meddling in the U.S. election.

It would also be one of the most significant developments thus far in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of whether the Trump campaign and the Kremlin worked together to help Trump win the White House. Undercutting Trump’s repeated pronouncements that “there is no evidence of collusion,” it also could ratchet up the stakes if the president tries, as he has intimated he might for months, to order Mueller’s firing.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics...rylink=cpy

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics...70264.html

Russia

If Trump had a quid pro quo deal with Russia, then he is not keeping up his end of the deal. Of course, we don’t know exactly what he promised in return for the Russians publishing Hillary’s yoga schedule.

result

(04-13-2018 02:28 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

Quote:To be sure, searches of premises belonging to an attorney raise special concerns, which impose a need for heightened care, due to the fact that such premises may contain privileged material. But there can be no dispute that attorneys, like anyone else, may be criminally investigated for their conduct, and that law enforcement officials may search an attorney’s law office – or other premises – “pursuant to a valid warrant that is supported by probable cause that an attorney has been engaging in criminal activity and that the law offices in question contain evidence of this suspected wrongdoing.” United States v. Stewart, No. 02 Cr. 396 (JGK), 2002 WL 1300059, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. June 11, 2002). That is what happened here: A federal magistrate judge found that there was probable cause to believe that Cohen’s premises and devices contained evidence, fruits and instrumentalities that specified federal crimes were committed.

online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/2018_0413_cohen_vs_USA.pdf

Govt response to Cohen trying to suppress the search warrant.

Huge...if true.

(04-13-2018 12:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-13-2018 11:05 AM)ausowl Wrote:  

(04-13-2018 10:43 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-13-2018 09:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-13-2018 08:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  They're out to get him at any cost

Dershowitz brings up a good point about the inherent potential violations of attorney-client privilege by having someone, even if it isn't the prosecution, review material that would be deemed privileged.

It does make me wonder though - if, as Dershowitz seems to suggests, attorney-client privilege was something so sacred that no one could ever review material deemed to fall under that umbrella, would that not just open up a very easy and legal way for people to conspire about committing crimes? I've read that the privilege is nullified if the material indicates the meeting was about furthering a crime, but is seems like Dershowitz suggests that even that would be covered because of his concerns about anyone, not just the prosecutors, reading the material.

The violations arent just of the attorney-client privilege; the actions implicate violations of the 4th and 6th amendments of the Constitution.

T: In your experience, how often is the atty/client privilege invaded by law enforcement? I can think of one instance in Travis County in the last 15+ years. Not to minimize the concerns, just curious how often you've seen this happen.

Perhaps tangential, with google/gmail/facebook data issues: are we looking at a standard of practice that requires encryption?

I have known of a handful in Houston, and a handful in El Paso.

When I was in California there were also a handful.

So I can think if no more than 6 or 7 total in the jurisdictions I have been most familiar with in the last 20+ years.

I think the balance is proper -- *if* the authorities can show by an overwhelming weight that the attorney is *actively* involved in a crime, *and* functioning as a 'consigliere' or to an elevated 'kingpin' status, then, and only then, should the files and records be the subject of a search warrant.

Those are the 'explicit' ones. There is also a practice that the authorities refer to as the 'fortunate murder scene. Best exemplified by the murder of one of the best drug criminal attorneys in El Paso (in the late 1970's), Lee Chagra, in his office over a robbery gone bad.

Had acquaintances admit to me in the mid 2000's that the murder, and the subsequent sealing and searches of Chagra's offices, allowed them to bust the best and most organized smuggling ring in El Paso up until that point, as well as get evidence and break the case on Chagra's brothers for the murder of a Federal judge.

As for the standard, that *is* the standard I employ for electronic communication and digital data storage in my legal practice. And I dont even do criminal work....

As Lad noted, we do not know the items brought to the judge or magistrate. My initial gut feeling is that the bar is an extremely high one -- I can only think of one or two cases that I have heard of or read of in the case law that would pass that bar. Lee Chagra probably being one of the very few.... Given that, I find it somewhat hard to fathom that Cohen would be such a 'pulse of criminal organization' to that level to engender that type of action. It is akin to a 16 seed beating a 1 seed in March Madness. But, it *can* occur.

That is why, with a really perverse reasoning, I hope that Cohen is *such* a consigliere or kingpin. Otherwise, both the loosening of the criteria, and the political undertones of the loosening, are far more damaging to the country, imo.

Thanks for the insight.

he said, he said.

As our president so often says, we'll see.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...li=BBnb7Kz

The FBI is supposed to not let political considerations affect their decisions, right?

(04-15-2018 01:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...li=BBnb7Kz

The FBI is supposed to not let political considerations affect their decisions, right?

This isn’t new news. But did you actually read the quote?

(04-15-2018 08:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-15-2018 01:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...li=BBnb7Kz

The FBI is supposed to not let political considerations affect their decisions, right?

This isn’t new news. But did you actually read the quote?

Yes, I read the quote.

Here it is, in case you miss d it:

In his book, "A Higher Loyalty," Comey expresses a similar sentiment, writing, "It is entirely possible that, because I was making decisions in an environment where Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next president, my concern about making her an illegitimate president by concealing the restarted investigation bore greater weight than it would have if the election appeared closer or if Donald Trump were ahead in all polls."

But Why is this not new news? When did Comey say before that his decision was based on political considerations?

The FBI is supposed to be this apolitical organization, going where the evidence takes them, and making decisions without regard for political or personal considerations.

Any comments on the Scooter Libby pardon?

There is a good example of a witch hunt, The narrative was that VP Cheney had outed a CIA agent, so a special prosecutor was appointed. It was learned early on the teal person who outed Plame was Richard Armitage, yet they kept going looking foe someone to indict.

Even this lone indictment was shaky, and the prime witness against him has recanted, saying the prosecutor withheld salient information that would have changed her testimony.

Former adviser to Bill Clinton weighs in on James Comey: http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/3...deep-state

(04-15-2018 09:06 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-15-2018 08:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-15-2018 01:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...li=BBnb7Kz

The FBI is supposed to not let political considerations affect their decisions, right?

This isn’t new news. But did you actually read the quote?

Yes, I read the quote.

Here it is, in case you miss d it:

In his book, "A Higher Loyalty," Comey expresses a similar sentiment, writing, "It is entirely possible that, because I was making decisions in an environment where Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next president, my concern about making her an illegitimate president by concealing the restarted investigation bore greater weight than it would have if the election appeared closer or if Donald Trump were ahead in all polls."

But Why is this not new news? When did Comey say before that his decision was based on political considerations?

The FBI is supposed to be this apolitical organization, going where the evidence takes them, and making decisions without regard for political or personal considerations.

There was a big article in the NYTimes or Post about Comey a few months ago that we discussed on this sub, and it included this information in it. It painted Comey as a conflicted figure who tried to do what he felt was right and unbiased, and who ended up making decisions that had consequences he didnt forsee.

Your comment doesn’t make a lot of sense. Comey didn’t say that politics played into giant decision of continuing with the investigation - he said he wanted to be transparent with the American people because of the potential issues associated with concealing the restart to the investigation.

Are you actually criticizing Comey for being transparent with the Americans public?