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

a reply to: soberbacchus

What attorney-client privilege???

The payment was made on Trump's behalf, ostensibly based on personal knowledge of Trump's legal situation. That is attorney-client privilege, even if the client's name is Trump.

Your attempts to twist this into something else in order to 'get Trump' notwithstanding. I know this might be hard to understand, but Donald Trump is a US citizen and has all the rights thereunto... even if you don't like it. You do not get to decide who has rights and who doesn't.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: Wayfarer

The warrant was authorized by Geoffrey Bergen: Federal Judge of the Southern District of NY (appointed by Trump himself), so logically it stands to reason Mueller would have provided adequate evidence to Bergen to allow for the raid (implying that he's got a fair bit of damning evidence that some kind of malfeasance has occurred already).

I would agree, but we have been increasingly shown that the judicial process is tainted, so I can't rely on logic anymore to form assumptions--my default now is to wait and see. Speculate, sure, but wait and see in the end.

But again, from what I can gather, Trump isn't really a signatory in any of the Stormy Daniels "hush money" (NDA), so if there is something going on, it's probably only against Cohen and, once again, won't have much, if anything, to do with Trump (unless, maybe, there's some secret fund funneling going on, and the money ends up coming from Trump through Cohen).

Like I've said starting with the Manafort/Gates indictments, if people are doing things that are illegal, it needs to be discovered and processed through the legal system. My concern is how out-of-control the special counsel might be getting, and I still have concerns about the scope of the investigation as approved at its genesis. I'm also concerned that this may be a backhanded way to try and legally obtain documents in an effort to keep digging at Trump--documents that they could not have legally obtained otherwise, unless they went after his lawyer.

Again, if that's the case, I find the behavior and motivation behind Mueller to be a disgusting abuse of the legal system.

Oh I suspect it probably has something to do with Trump's business dealings/financing via Russian oligarch money. Since Cohen was his lawyer and facilitated all those deals/transactions it stands to reason he likely has some evidence to corroborate potential Russian financial influence over Trump (which is what Mueller's purview has been).

Ultimately you're correct though that all we can really do is speculate until this whole thing comes out into daylight.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soberbacchus

What attorney-client privilege???

The payment was made on Trump's behalf, ostensibly based on personal knowledge of Trump's legal situation. That is attorney-client privilege, even if the client's name is Trump.

Your attempts to twist this into something else in order to 'get Trump' notwithstanding. I know this might be hard to understand, but Donald Trump is a US citizen and has all the rights thereunto... even if you don't like it. You do not get to decide who has rights and who doesn't.

TheRedneck

Admittedly I'm not a legal scholar, but I thought I had heard that attorney-client privilege doesn't extend to criminal actions, so if the attorney was privileged with information from his client of a criminal nature, the protection was invalid. Have I misunderstood?

a reply to: Wayfarer

Oh I suspect it probably has something to do with Trump's business dealings/financing via Russian oligarch money.

Isn't that what the Special Council investigation is for?

a reply to: MotherMayEye

If Trump isn't a signatory, then there's no contract between Daniels/Trump, and the NDA isn't valid. If he is, then Trump running his mouth made the whole thing void.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Actually, they are. An attorney is allowed to take action to legally protect their client, unless their client has directed them otherwise. If, as you say, an attorney is not allowed to take some independent action, then every legal document that is filed must be independently reviewed and approved by a client, which I assure you is not the case.

They can navigate the legal process without input from their client, but they cannot attach a client to a legally binding document without that clients ok, unless Trump handed his power of attorney over to Cohen.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Wayfarer

Oh I suspect it probably has something to do with Trump's business dealings/financing via Russian oligarch money.

Isn't that what the Special Council investigation is for?

Well, yeah, that's why I feel that my aforementioned assumption is the most likely reason for the raid.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: MotherMayEye

If Trump isn't a signatory, then there's no contract between Daniels/Trump, and the NDA isn't valid. If he is, then Trump running his mouth made the whole thing void.

No, 'EC' was authorized to sign for the first party because of that "or" in the "and/or."

Also (unlike the 'Side Letter') Stormy was the ONLY one required to deliver a signed copy:



Stormy has no reason to believe the agreement is not valid just because she doesn't have a copy signed by Trump. She was never entitled to one.

***

ETA: Also, what do you mean Trump voided the agreement by running his mouth about the whole thing?

a reply to: Wayfarer

I thought I had heard that attorney-client privilege doesn't extend to criminal actions, so if the attorney was privileged with information from his client of a criminal nature, the protection was invalid. Have I misunderstood?

Yes, it does extend to criminal actions, unless the attorney assists or abets the criminal activity. A person accused of a crime cannot be denied legal representation, even if that person admits privately to his/her attorney that they are guilty. The attorney is not allowed to lie to the court; if under oath they are asked directly about any potential private confession, their only real option is to refuse to answer under the attorney-client confidentiality.

Of course, a private attorney (not one appointed by the court) can drop their client if they hear something in private that causes them to have personal issues with continuing to represent, but even if they drop the case, they are still bound to not disclose private communications.

The attorney cannot assist criminality in any way. If a client has murdered someone, the attorney may not pay a potential witness for their silence; that does supersede attorney-client privilege. However, in this case, having an affair is not criminal (and is also a non-issue as far as I'm concerned... if anyone really cares so much about who did what with who, go become a professional peeping Tom).

TheRedneck

a reply to: Aazadan

Where did the NDA attach Trump? It is a NDA between Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels.

Are you stating that for some reason Michael Cohen did not have the power to execute a contract himself? If so, how in the Hades did he take out that mortgage?

TheRedneck

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.

Except that Trump never signed the NDA, neither as himself, nor under the alias provided by his attorney, Cohen.

So neither Trump (nor his alias) can be bound by the terms of the NDA, including those provisions which would preclude him from acknowledging the existence of an NDA. Which is why you and I are able to freely discuss that NDA; neither of us appear to have signed on as parties to the agreement.

My question goes to the of the ownership of the LLC that actually paid the “hush money”.

Ownership = Responsibility

SMLLC’s are not recognized by the state of DE, they default to sole proprietorships, which means direct, personal ownership by whoever formed the entity; no “arms length” deniability.

A multi-member LLC, the only kind recognized by DE as a “legitimate” LLC, would have to have, as the name implies, more than one member; and all the members would have to have knowledge of, if not responsiblilty for, the liabilities incurred by the LLC.

Which would include payment by the LLC (verified by Daniels/Clifford and her attorney) of $130K in “hush money”.

The SoS records show that the LLC was registered on 10/17/2016, less than a month before the 2016 election. That seems rather hasty, but would be in keeping with the purported purpose of the LLC’s formation: to facilitate the payment to Daniels while minimizing the public exposure of those involved.

But, who were the other members of the LLC, if there were other members? They would had to have been aware of, and in majority agreement with, this expenditure made in the name of the firm.

Given the circumstances, the desire for discretion, and the time-pressure of the impending election,

Is it possible that one of the other members, perhaps the only other member (since only one additional member would be required to meet the “multiple member” requirement for a recognized LLC registered in DE)

Was Trump himself?

abcnews.go.com...
More interesting details from this raid.

ABC News has learned that Geoffrey Berman, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, is recused from the Michael Cohen investigation.

a reply to: shooterbrody

I don't find you credible or honest.

What do you remain confused about?

COHEN STATEMENT RELEASED TO MULTIPLE OUTLETS in FEB

“Neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford, and neither reimbursed me for the payment, either directly or indirectly,” Mr. Cohen said in a statement to The New York Times. “The payment to Ms. Clifford was lawful, and was not a campaign contribution or a campaign expenditure by anyone.”

Mr. Cohen said that he had given a similar statement to the Federal Election Commission in response to a complaint filed by the government watchdog group Common Cause,

“The complaint alleges that I somehow violated campaign finance laws by facilitating an excess, in-kind contribution,” Mr. Cohen said in his statement. “The allegations in the complaint are factually unsupported and without legal merit, and my counsel has submitted a response to the F.E.C.”

www.nytimes.com...

You willful denial that he submitted a filing with the FEC is the definition of trolling.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Silly, I'll default to my knowledge of (because of my day job that pertains to) the legal system, thanks.

Yes, the system has been abused many times, and the instances are increasing as of late and consistently at the federal level--I don't care who makes what claim about it, I come to that conclusion through good ol' observation and understanding.

And please note that I'm not saying that it's being abused in this instance, I'm saying that there is the possibility, but since we know very little about this at the moment, we're left to wonder without knowledge.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: SlapMonkey

How do you expect anyone but yourself to answer this?

It was a rhetorical comment to make a point...a point that should have been easily understood.

This has devolved into a bickering-match thread, and it's disappointing. But since "Mueller" and "Trump" are parts of the issue, it can't avoid becoming a political circus.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soberbacchus

What attorney-client privilege???

The payment was made on Trump's behalf, ostensibly based on personal knowledge of Trump's legal situation. That is attorney-client privilege, even if the client's name is Trump.

It is profoundly illegal for an Attorney to act on a clients behalf without their knowledge or direction.

It is cause for immediate disbarment and charges.

Trump was either his client in the transaction or he wasn't.

a reply to: shooterbrody

BREAKING: FBI agents who raided the office of President Trump’s lawyer sought records of payments to 2 women who claim they had affairs with Trump - NYT

So there are two women who were paid off, allegedly. Looks like they are going to "Lewinsky" the President.

Trump should definitely NOT sit down for an interview with Mueller, or answer any questions. Official WITCH-HUNT Ongoing..

a reply to: Wayfarer

Except that if this raid had something to do with Trump and Russia, Mueller could have handled it as part of the special counsel investigation, right?

This has to be because of something else, but I wouldn't be surprised that what you said is the ultimate goal of Mueller providing whatever he did to the NY folks.

a reply to: Bhadhidar

But, who were the other members of the LLC, if there were other members? They would had to have been aware of, and in majority agreement with, this expenditure made in the name of the firm.

Incorrect. An LLC (or any corporate structure) can sign contracts but such do not infer on the owners of the LLC any responsibility. All responsibility of the LLC is limited to the LLC itself; it is a separate legal entity.

That is the very purpose the concept of LLC exists for. It is a legal barrier between the principles who own the LLC and the LLC itself. The very name implies this: Limited Liability Corporation. As long as the corporate veil is not pierced, there is no legal obligation on the owners whatsoever, nor any statute that says the owners must be informed of daily operations.

If, as has been stated (and which is not unusual), DE does not recognize Single Member LLCs, then there were other members. No ifs about it. But they would not necessarily have known about, nor would they bear personal responsibility for, any contractual obligations made by the LLC.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Wayfarer


You are correct. Attorney client privilege protects your communications with your attorney from being used as evidence against you. But there's an important exception to this privilege: you can't conspire with your attorney to break the law. If any of the records seized by federal prosecutors yesterday show the President conspiring with his attorney to break the law, those records can be used against the President.

In order for federal prosecutors to get a warrant to search the office of a subject's attorney, these prosecutors must first get approval from top DOJ management, and then must convince a federal judge that the search is likely to uncover evidence of a crime. So, federal prosecutors already had probable cause that the President and his attorney were conspiring to break the law, or this search could not have happened.

It doesn't mean the President definitely broke the law, he still gets a presumption of innocence under our system, but this is a very very serious development. This is about as bad as it gets. Prosecutors rarely take this kind of step -- raiding a subject's attorney.

It is also significant that this raid was not taken under the direction of the special counsel Mueller, but by federal prosecutors in Manhattan who are not working on the "Russian collusion" investigation. So it wouldn't help Trump if he were to fire Mueller this afternoon. The investigation of Trump is now larger than just Mueller. To end this branch of inquiry, Trump would have to fire a lot more people than just Mueller. He'd have to wade deep into the Department of Justice, firing anybody who refused to shut down this investigation. He'd have to fire dozens of people, most of them career prosecutors.


But hey, let's see how deep the delusions of Trump fans go here, at what point the brainwashing breaks and they realise they've maybe been conned by a consummate con-man.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Wayfarer

I thought I had heard that attorney-client privilege doesn't extend to criminal actions, so if the attorney was privileged with information from his client of a criminal nature, the protection was invalid. Have I misunderstood?

Yes, it does extend to criminal actions, unless the attorney assists or abets the criminal activity. A person accused of a crime cannot be denied legal representation, even if that person admits privately to his/her attorney that they are guilty. The attorney is not allowed to lie to the court; if under oath they are asked directly about any potential private confession, their only real option is to refuse to answer under the attorney-client confidentiality.

Of course, a private attorney (not one appointed by the court) can drop their client if they hear something in private that causes them to have personal issues with continuing to represent, but even if they drop the case, they are still bound to not disclose private communications.

The attorney cannot assist criminality in any way. If a client has murdered someone, the attorney may not pay a potential witness for their silence; that does supersede attorney-client privilege. However, in this case, having an affair is not criminal (and is also a non-issue as far as I'm concerned... if anyone really cares so much about who did what with who, go become a professional peeping Tom).

TheRedneck

Ah, thanks for explaining that! Are there then implications that Cohen himself was a party to some criminal activity and therefore the privilege is invalidated?