It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

F.B.I. Raids Office of Trump’s Longtime Lawyer Michael Cohen

page: 22
53
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 10 2018 @ 09:23 AM
link   
While I want to learn more about updates surrounding this, why do I feel that, at this point, reading through the thread would be pointless?




posted on Apr, 10 2018 @ 09:27 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Trump Woos Dershowitz At Mar-A-Lago Schmoozefest
forward.com...

More interesting is that Dershowitz was a defense Attorney that defended Jeffrey Epstein (Trump Friend and Mar A Largo member)
www.politico.com...



posted on Apr, 10 2018 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I haven't felt the need to weigh in on this thread either.
The recent report claiming the lawyer of a sitting president committed bank fraud is concerning.
Without the presidents knowledge no doubt but still.
If found untrue the FBI would face charges of being overzealous.

edit on 10-4-2018 by Cauliflower because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2018 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

www.nbcnews.com...



On Monday, the FBI raided the law office of Michael Cohen, President Donald Trump's personal lawyer. They were seeking information about a $130,000 payment the attorney says he personally made to adult film star Stormy Daniels days before the 2016 election, sources told NBC News.

guess you didn't read any of the source material in this thread.....




Why do I get the feeling you only care about this guy because he is saying something you agree with?

Who said I care about this guy?
I posted his opinion about this raid because it deals with lawyer/client privilege. Something even nbc news can't make disappear.

from the nbc link



According to Department of Justice policy, an application for a search warrant of a lawyer's office such as this is so serious that it usually requires approval of either the U.S. Attorney for the district, or the Assistant Attorney General.




The U.S. Attorney's manual proposes a solution to that conundrum: A "taint team." Also called a "privilege team," this is a group, consisting of agents and lawyers not involved in the underlying investigation, brought in to review the privileged documents.

This issue was discussed here when the raid on manaforts home was completed.



Some courts have even held that where the government uses a taint team, the government bears the burden to rebut the presumption that tainted material was improperly provided to the prosecution. Other courts have suggested that it would be preferable for the privilege review to be done by magistrate judge, and not a privilege team comprised of DOJ agents and lawyers.

When legal issues arise I look for opinions of those in the field...
insider.foxnews.com...


Dershowitz said it is a "dangerous day today for lawyer-client relations." He said that federal agents confiscated many items from the office, and predicted that they included confidential documents and files pertaining to attorney-client privilege discussions with Trump.



posted on Apr, 10 2018 @ 09:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

So you think a federal judge appointed by trump has been tricked or is complacent in a plot to get the president? That Mueller hasn't presented compelling evidence and this is all just a deep state plot?



posted on Apr, 10 2018 @ 09:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus
a reply to: shooterbrody

Trump Woos Dershowitz At Mar-A-Lago Schmoozefest
forward.com...

More interesting is that Dershowitz was a defense Attorney that defended Jeffrey Epstein (Trump Friend and Mar A Largo member)
www.politico.com...


These things somehow lessen his opinion on legal matters?
Is his legal opinion incorrect?



posted on Apr, 10 2018 @ 09:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Justoneman

So you think a federal judge appointed by trump has been tricked or is complacent in a plot to get the president? That Mueller hasn't presented compelling evidence and this is all just a deep state plot?


Sessions stabbed him in the back why not the judge too!



posted on Apr, 10 2018 @ 09:43 AM
link   
a reply to: crtrvt

I think some of that came right out of trumps mouth. When he threw Cohen under the bus saying "I don't know anything about this. You'll have to ask Michael." .

sooooo...they asked Michael.



posted on Apr, 10 2018 @ 09:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

They got a warrant on one man who had already allegedly left the campaign. This is the weakest possible argument Which is why it's not going anywhere no matter how loud trump tweets.



posted on Apr, 10 2018 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

Rolls eyes.



posted on Apr, 10 2018 @ 09:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Krazysh0t
guess you didn't read any of the source material in this thread.....

And I guess you didn't read my words:
"I've heard people making assumptions and guesses based on the current news cycles but nothing concrete."



According to Department of Justice policy, an application for a search warrant of a lawyer's office such as this is so serious that it usually requires approval of either the U.S. Attorney for the district, or the Assistant Attorney General.

Yep. So do you have any evidence that these rules weren't followed in the execution of this warrant?


This issue was discussed here when the raid on manaforts home was completed.

The only thing that has happened so far is the raid. I've heard nothing about how the data is being reviewed.



posted on Apr, 10 2018 @ 09:49 AM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

So it's ok for you to quote a reply to someone else and use it out of context...literally after calling someone else out for it. If that isn't hypocrisy, I don't know what is.



posted on Apr, 10 2018 @ 09:50 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Yeah. Those are two separate issues. Separate arms of the investigation.



posted on Apr, 10 2018 @ 09:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

Trump is probably wondering why the judges he appointed aren't being loyal and protecting him.



posted on Apr, 10 2018 @ 09:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: uninspired
a reply to: soberbacchus

So it's ok for you to quote a reply to someone else and use it out of context...literally after calling someone else out for it. If that isn't hypocrisy, I don't know what is.


Geez, the personal trolling nonsense is predictable and boring.

As for the post you are citing, I followed up immediately to that poster with an apology for not reading it in more detail and said her complaint about my post was fair. You seem to have missed that?

Admitting errors. You should try it some time, like with this very post.




edit on 10-4-2018 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2018 @ 10:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: soberbacchus
a reply to: shooterbrody

Trump Woos Dershowitz At Mar-A-Lago Schmoozefest
forward.com...

More interesting is that Dershowitz was a defense Attorney that defended Jeffrey Epstein (Trump Friend and Mar A Largo member)
www.politico.com...


These things somehow lessen his opinion on legal matters?
Is his legal opinion incorrect?


From everything I have heard from Dershowitz, he doesn't give detailed "legal opinions", but is rather a regular paid commentator for Fox News where he espouses political rhetoric in support of the President.

If you are aware of some sound legal argument he has given in support of firing the Special Counsel or in defense of Manafort, gates, Flynn et al. feel free to share it and I can comment on it.



posted on Apr, 10 2018 @ 10:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Justoneman

So you think a federal judge appointed by trump has been tricked or is complacent in a plot to get the president? That Mueller hasn't presented compelling evidence and this is all just a deep state plot?


Sessions stabbed him in the back why not the judge too!


Stabbed him in the back? Or refused to obstruct justice on Trumps behalf?



posted on Apr, 10 2018 @ 10:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
It is true that attorneys can be indicted for crimes committed - attorney-client privilege does not extend that far - but NOT for crimes committed by their client, unless the attorney actively aided and abetted the crimes. Not divulging the crimes of a client is not a crime for an attorney... indeed, it is expected in order to protect the client's right to representation. Any information gained from these raids, then, may not be used against Donald Trump in a courtroom. It can only be used against Cohen.


It depends. If Cohen was committing crimes on his own, then it wouldn't be in those documents. If he communicated those crimes to Trump then Trump was complicit. If Trump and Cohen were working together to commit crimes and those documents show that... they're both in some serious trouble. Regardless, no warrant to break confidentiality would ever get issued unless there was substantial outside evidence showing that this was going on. It's no mere fishing expedition.



Now, I read most of the thread, and I am aware that the raids were said to surround the Stormy Daniels affair. What law was broken in the dealings with Stormy Daniels? There is no law against having an affair. There is no law against paying someone to drop charges. If Cohen did pay off Daniels without Trump's direct knowledge, that indicates Trump had a standing order with him to settle all such claims... which would not be unusual. Wealthy people are often accused of things in order to extort money, and it is often much cheaper to just pay them off than to fight the accusation and have their brand dragged through the mud. That is not necessarily a campaign expense; it could be classified as a business or personal legal expense.


An attorney isn't allowed to just act on their own like that. They have to make the client aware of what's going on, because part of silence from an NDA involves attaching their client to a legally binding document. So, if Trump wasn't aware, then he wasn't party to the contract, and the contract between Daniels/Trump is invalid. If Trump was aware, it also implicates him in campaign finance violations and bank fraud, rather than just Cohen. Paying someone for silence isn't illegal, but the source of those funds is most definitely a legal matter.


It makes no sense that an attorney for Donald Trump would have to take out a mortgage to pay an accuser on a standing order to do so. $130k would be almost petty cash, and would be paid out of the client's funds... not the attorney's funds! Any money fronted would have to be reimbursed quickly. Now, where was it reimbursed from? If the campaign, it could be written off as a legal campaign expense. If not, if reimbursed from business/personal funds, it could also be written off as a business/personal expense. In other words, there is no case there. It is Cohen's word against Daniels, the word of an attorney against the word of a porn star, as to whether or not she threatened the campaign, so either way could be presented as legal with no problem.


Again, this all depends. If Trump was overpaying Cohen with the expectation that Cohen would use those excess funds out of his own pocket to solve this stuff, and keep Trumps name clear from it, that is very illegal (it's called tax evasion and money laundering) and also unethical for the lawyer.



posted on Apr, 10 2018 @ 10:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Bhadhidar

It is entirely possible Trump said he didnt know about it because he is also subject to the NDA in the agreement. It is like asking the CIA director a direct question in an open hearing and he says whatever is being asked never happened. Then in a closed sessions he answers the question again and explains that the info is classified.

Even confirming the existence of something classified can be breaking the law.


That would mean he was aware of what he was using campaign funds for, which would be illegal.



posted on Apr, 10 2018 @ 10:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Bhadhidar

It is entirely possible Trump said he didnt know about it because he is also subject to the NDA in the agreement. It is like asking the CIA director a direct question in an open hearing and he says whatever is being asked never happened. Then in a closed sessions he answers the question again and explains that the info is classified.

Even confirming the existence of something classified can be breaking the law.


That would mean he was aware of what he was using campaign funds for, which would be illegal.


Not necessarily..



new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join