F.B.I. Raids Office of Trump’s Longtime Lawyer Michael Cohen; Trump Calls It ‘Disgraceful’

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by Abner, Apr 9, 2018.

  1. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    You know, there is only two explanations for this weird certainty about future events. Either you are in on a plot to fix the results - like virtually everyone in Russia, but that'd be a crime in US. OR, you imply a self-proclaimed prophetic gift for yourself. This, I don't have to tell you, is profoundly dangerous - spiritually. Watch your step bro.
  2. me again

    me again Well-Known Member

    Stanislav, no, the Lord Jesus has not personally given this writer a prophetic revelation about the next election. However, an atheist once said: "Miracles died with [the original 12] apostles." Stanislav, do you believe that?
  3. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    Of course not; miracles happen every day. Even a modest believer like myself noticed that. However, there's a distance between knowing that and implying supernatural license for one's political pronouncements. Do you know what the world prelest' means? Unfortunately I can't think of a direct translation right now.
  4. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator

    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire

    So many people are in masturbatory glee about this, solely because they (foolishly) think this is finally the thing that "gets" the target of their unhealthy hatred (President Trump). They can't see the forest, because all those damn trees are in the way.

    This is so dangerous, on so many levels, including the violation of attorney/client privilege, that I barely know where to start. Oppressive government action is a great idea.....until they knock on your door.
  5. me again

    me again Well-Known Member

    Raiding the home of a subject's personal attorney to seize confidential attorney/client privileged information must be predicated on evidence (probable cause) that the seizure will yield incriminating information.

    Many patriots are upset that HRD was given a pass for committing alleged felonies.

    Where is the justice?
  6. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    Who told you that the goal of the raid was "seizing confidential attorney/client privileged information"? At this point it appears that, so far, technically, the suspect is Cohen himself, and in all likelihood, the NY prosecutors did provide a judge with at least "probable cause". Hysterically screaming about any wrongdoing on the prosecutors' part is seriously premature. Especially as we now know that the man doing a lot of screaming, Hannity, dealt with Cohen himself, so there might be "confidential and privileged" info he doesn't want the public to find out.

    Meanwhile, from the "leaks in lyin' MSM":

    In short, "source" claims that Cohen visited Prague, after all, driving from another Shengen Zone country (so, no border stamp in passport). According to "the dossier" ("unconfirmed"as it is), he was there to meet with Russian officials in the local office of Russian "cultural" front organization, Rossotrudnichestvo. "Rossotrudnichestvo" literally means "collaboration with Russia"; an FSB front aimed at finding and cultivation of useful idiots to collude with.

    Of course, there's no way to check the truth of each individual claim. But, golly, that's a lot of smoke. there's Trump Tower meeting; chat with WikiLeaks; Manafort; Gates; Flynn,... So basically, we're supposed to believe the KGB doesn't have any dirt on Trump, and there were no improper dealings with Russians... even though Trump is known to work with a Russian mafia stooge right until 2016, and his family maintained friendship with Russian oligarch clan close to both Putin (a KGB "retired" Lt. Col. who currently basically owns Russia) and Heidar Aliev (late KGB full General and Soviet Politburo member who came to own the nation of Azerbaijan) heir. So, a Trump Plaza doorman has dirt on The Donald... and KGB doesn't. Sorry, I call bullshit on this.
  7. me again

    me again Well-Known Member

    Stanislav, do you want the names of the original author(s)? There is U.S. case law that supports the seizure of confidential attorney/client documents, but ONLY if there is probable cause that the attorney helped to facilitate the crime (instead of defending his client). However, it is rarely used and has only been used in a very small number of cases. A classic example of this kind of legal seizure is when a lawyer who is working for the mafia is:
    • Defending his clients in court
    Stanislav, yes, it is true that the MSM reported that and that you believe the MSM's reporting. Here are the facts:
    1. Mueller wanted the seizure of President Trump's privileged attorney-client documents, but it exceeded the scope of his politically motivated "Russian-Trump electoral collusion investigation."
    2. Under the "color of authority" (a U.S. legal term), Mueller had another prosecutor (who is not related to the collusion investigation) orchestrate the seizure of confidential attorney/client records. Interestingly, Alan Dershowitz (a former ACLU board member) described the seizure as "prosecutorial laundering."
    3. This is clearly politics.
    Alan Dershowitz said that the seizure of President Trump's privileged attorney-client records is illegal, based on points 1-3 above.
  8. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    You said it :) haha.
    Seriously, there's no official word on whether documents FBI was looking for fall under attorney/client privilege. For example, whatever Cohen did in Stormy Daniels affair clearly doesn't; he himself emphatically stated that he acted NOT as Trump/Trump Org lawyer on this. This strains credibility, true, but he effectively waived privilege over whole affair. It seems that Mr. Cohen is not a very good lawyer.
    Sorry, but you forfeited all credibility by inventing a "fact" about what Mueller wanted; something you clearly don't and can't know. But thanks for playing.
  9. Kizmet

    Kizmet Moderator

    Trolling: Lesson #1 - Pick a topic that seems to be of interest to a group of people and say something remarkably stupid in order to elicit a big reaction.
  10. Kizmet

    Kizmet Moderator

    There are limits to attorney-client privilege

    When the privilege may not apply[edit]
    When an attorney is not acting primarily as an attorney but, for instance, as a business advisor, member of the Board of Directors, or in another non-legal role, then the privilege generally does not apply.[7]

    The privilege protects the confidential communication, and not the underlying information. For instance, if a client has previously disclosed confidential information to a third party who is not an attorney, and then gives the same information to an attorney, the attorney–client privilege will still protect the communication to the attorney, but will not protect the communication with the third party.

    The privilege may be waived if the confidential communications are disclosed to third parties.

    Other limits to the privilege may apply depending on the situation being adjudicated.

    Disclosure in case of a crime, tort, or fraud[edit]
    The crime-fraud exception can render the privilege moot when communications between an attorney and client are themselves used to further a crime, tort, or fraud. In Clark v. United States, the US Supreme Court stated that "A client who consults an attorney for advice that will serve him in the commission of a fraud will have no help from the law. He must let the truth be told."[8] The crime-fraud exception also does require that the crime or fraud discussed between client and attorney be carried out to be triggered.[9] US Courts have not yet conclusively ruled how little knowledge an attorney can have of the underlying crime or fraud before the privilege detaches and the attorney's communications or requisite testimony become admissible.[10]

    Disclosure ostensibly to support lawyer's own interests[edit]
    Lawyers may disclose confidential information relating to the retainer where they are reasonably seeking to collect payment for services rendered. This is justified on policy grounds. If lawyers were unable to disclose such information, many would undertake legal work only where payment is made in advance. This would arguably adversely affect the public's access to justice.

    Lawyers may also breach the duty where they are defending themselves against disciplinary or legal proceedings. A client who initiates proceedings against a lawyer effectively waives rights to confidentiality. This is justified on grounds of procedural fairness—a lawyer unable to reveal information relating to the retainer would be unable to defend themselves against such action.

    Disclosure for the purpose of probate[edit]
    See also: Probate court and Surrogate's court
    Another case is for the probate of a last will and testament. Previously confidential communications between the lawyer and testator may be disclosed in order to prove that a will represented the intent of the now deceased decedent. In many instances, the will, codicil, or other parts of the estate plan require explanation or interpretation through other proof (extrinsic evidence), such as the attorney's file notes or correspondence from the client.

    In certain cases, the client may desire or consent to revelation of personal or family secrets only after his or her death; for example, the will may leave a legacy to a paramour or a natural child.

    Courts have occasionally revoked the privilege after the death of the client if it is deemed that doing so serves the client's intent, such as in the case of resolving testamentary disputes among heirs.

  11. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    Hey, I don't like Trump either, but if that thing with a beak and webbed feet waddles, swims, and quacks, then let's face it, it's probably a duck.
  12. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    It looks like the prosecutors suspect that Cohen broke the law; it looks increasingly likely that he, in fact, did. Here's one opinion:

    Short version: the author suspects that Cohen is being nailed for, essentially, felony aggravated stupidity, and that he's in fact guilty of it. He thinks Cohen may have dirt on Trump, but it's far from certain, considering his job was basically to scare people by threating litigation. Granted, this is written by a Harvard Law grad about Thomas Cooley Law believed by some to be the dead worst ABA law school in the country), so a bit of snobbery could be evident. Yet, this sounds plausible.
  13. me again

    me again Well-Known Member

    1. James Comey participated in a confidential meeting with the president of the United States.
    2. Comey then wrote unauthorized secret memos about the confidential things that were allegedly discussed.
    3. Without seeking supervisory approval, permission or government oversight, Comey then secretly leaked those unauthorized memos to the leftist MSM.
    4. Comey’s felony was premeditated, criminally secretive and was politically calculated to influence public opinion, based on the things [lies] he claimed in his unauthorized memos.
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2018
  14. heirophant

    heirophant Well-Known Member

    Ironically, the thing in the link isn't a "raw story" at all (an objective description of events) but rather a hugely speculative anti-Trump opinion piece by somebody called 'Bob Brigham'.

    As is usually the case, there are all kinds of hidden unstated premises

    Certainly no convincing evidence has been made public at this point. A couple of hidden premises here seem to be:

    1. That the Russians did in fact do something to influence the 2016 election. The details of what they are accused of doing needs explaining.

    2. That 'collusion' is a crime. In reality apart from anti-trust law, there's no such crime as collusion in federal law.

    From where I sit, all kinds of foreigners tried to influence the election. Every week running up to the election, the British news magazine the Economist ran hideous caricatures of Trump on its cover along with stories declaring him the second coming of Mussolini and a clear and present danger to the post-war world order if not to Western civilization itself. Stupid, over-the-top and obviously meant to influence American voters to vote for Hillary.

    Remember the big 1930's-style Berlin rally that Barack Obama held in 2008? 200,000 Germans showed up to hear the annoited one and the media were totally ecstatic. One wonders why Obama was campaigning in Europe (they subsequently gave him a Nobel Prize for doing nothing except getting elected, so it certainly paid off), but the point is that a rally of that scale couldn't have occurred without the active collusion of the German government. (Streets had to be closed, politzei assigned and so on.)

    And in 2016, many European leaders didn't bother to hide their preference for Hillary. Neither did state broadcasters like the BBC.

    They were all trying to influence American election results. So why are the Russians different? Assuming that they did favor Trump which is hugely questionable. They seem to be to have just been trying to stir up consternation and dischord. Leaking lurid allegations to Christopher Steele about Trump and hookers certainly seems to have been done in Hillary's behalf.

    True. Based on a popular vote in which Trump won 30 of the 50 states. One hidden assumption is that whatever mysterious things the Russians are supposed to have done, it swayed the popular vote enough in enough states that Hillary would have won had they not done it.

    That suggests a second hidden assumption that Trump's voters didn't really vote for Trump because they liked his positions, but because they had been manipulated somehow, by Facebook 'likes' or something (who knows?). So there's a thinly-veiled expression of contempt and disdain for Trump voters hidden right there.

    Never mind that the Democrats have essentially ignored, ridiculed and attacked the American white lower middle class (potentially America's largest voting bloc and once the Democrats' base) for the better part of a decade, concentrating instead on marginal groups in voting terms, like illegal aliens and transvestites. Never mind that Hillary hardly bothered to campaign in states like Wisconsin at all, mistakenly assuming that she already had them in the bag.

    So the whole idea that it was Russians that caused so many Americans to vote for Trump conveniently glosses over Trump's voters reasons for voting for him, the defects in the Democrats' own election strategy, to say nothing of the defects in Hillary herself as a candidate.

    There's a belief hidden in there that Obama's 2008 election (a left wing black man!!!) was the long awaited Revolution, a "Change" (Obama's 2008 buzzword, remember the posters?) so profound that America was irrevocably set on a leftward course. (That's why the media was so ecstatic at his victory and why he was awarded the Nobel Prize.) Hillary seems to have considered herself Obama's annoited successor. All the fawning polls underlined it. She couldn't lose! Especially not against Trump!

    But she did. The Obama Revolution wasn't quite so irrevocable as originally thought and America was not yet a Russian-style one-party state posing as a sham multi-party democracy. (Though the current Deep State mechinations show how dangerously close that moment was and is.) So there had to be something evil lurking in the 2016 election that stole Hillary's rightful destiny from her. It was all bought and paid for! The Presidency was hers! She had awaited that moment all her life!

    I certainly hope so. But we don't know that. I don't want to live in a country where the elite classes hate and despise the people they rule, where all of the media, academia and opinion leaders speak with one (enforced) voice, and where only one party is permitted to hold national power.

    That's too much like China and exceedingly totalitarian. As a believer in traditional American liberty and democracy (a true 'liberal' in the old meaning of the word) I can only support alternatives to the new growing American (and Western) totalitarianism.

    The big assumption there is that there are buried bodies, the assumption that crimes have been committed.

    I'd wager that there's nothing regarding "Russian collusion". There might (just conceivably) be tax problems or some other kind of violations ragarding various real-estate deals. But that's just speculation.

    As I write over and over, it's basically a fishing expedition at this point, the Democrats looking for anything that they can use to try to bring Trump down. As Stalin's secret police chief Lavrentiy Beria is supposed to have said: "Show me the man, I'll find you the crime." Of course that only applies to the enemies of the permanent ruling elites, while their allies can effectively get away with anything. That's why I think that the politicization of the FBI and the other alphabet agencies (the heart of the "Deep State") is so dangerous to the future of American democracy.

    To tell the truth, I'm not sure that American democracy has a future.

    I remember Lois Lerner (who spearheaded Obama's politicization of the IRS) pleading the fifth before Congress. In fact, most of the witnesses that Congress has subpoenaed recently have declined to answer questions about various things for various reasons. They are strangely reluctant to hand over physical documents too.
  15. heirophant

    heirophant Well-Known Member

    A "news" story citing two anonymous sources claiming that Mueller has information that Cohen has been in Prague.

    As for me, I'm skeptical about anything that journalists write, unless they source it in such a way that their sources are revealed and readers have some way of judging how those sources had access to the information they gave the journalist and what the sources' own motives, prejudices and biases were.

    It's foolish to simply believe whatever we are told, when the subject is highly emotional and ideological, and when the provenence of the information is totally opaque.
  16. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    You can't possibly be THAT unintelligent. So the only possibility is, you're intentionally dishonest. A common trait in Trump apologists.

    For people from the other side of the Moon: Russians are "different" because they broke the law trying to influence the elections. In other words, committed crimes. There are Russian nationals indicted for some of the crimes. More were revealed by US intelligence agencies. Trying to paint it as equivalent to The Economist reporting is... I am not sure English has a word for it... let's say "Trumpian". When done deliberately, it's "dezinformatsija", a big chunk of what the KGB was doing both domestically and internationally. Funny thing is, KGB heirs and pro-Trump "conservatives" are actually on the same side in the information warfare now!!! This is astounding; historically the Russkies recruited foot soldiers on the extreme Left (still do, actually; they just added the deplorables from the other fringe).
  17. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    I see. A call to cripple journalism by excluding anonymous sources. War on the press continues.

    P. S. It may well turn out that this particular report (that Cohen traveled specifically to Prague in August-September, entering from another EU country) may very well be erroneous. Things like the Steele Dossier carry a risk that an individual claim may be false. Yet claiming there were no illicit contacts between DT and Russian mafia state becomes harder and harder by day.
  18. decimon

    decimon Well-Known Member

    Democracy is just a voting booth. Cuba has elections.
  19. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    Other than number 1, every point here is inaccurate. Number 4 is slanderous, and now YOUR felony is politically calculated to influence public opinion. Enjoy.
  20. me again

    me again Well-Known Member

    Stanislav, what felonious crime(s) are you referring to, pray tell? If felonies are being committed at degreeinfo.com, then government authorities need to be notified ASAP. Who are you going to notify and what are you going to tell them? :)

Share This Page