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

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soberbacchus

It is possible that Trump has been identified as having committed illegal acts, but still remains a "subject" and not a "Target".

Only if one changes the legal and ordinary definitions of the terms. The definition of a "target" is "a subject who is known to have committed a crime." A subject is "someone who is being investigated and who may or may not have committed a crime."

First let's get this out of the way:

Non-political source unrelated to current events.

The first status you have to worry about is being a target. A target is the person to the prosecutor is gunning for, that's the target of investigation. It's the person who the prosecutor believes has committed a crime and their trying to figure out what the crime was and how to build a case against them.

A witness, on the other hand, is somebody who has really got very little exposure. The prosecutor believes that the person hasn't done it wrong, they simply have information, they were there, they saw something, they have documents that relate to something. They're not caught up in it.

The last status is in-between the two, you’re a subject. And so if you're subject in an investigation what that means is that you're not a target, so they're not gunning for you, but the prosecutor thinks that there is good reason to believe you may have done something wrong. You may have committed a crime or been a part of a criminal activity or part of a conspiracy.

www.whitecollarcrimeresources.com...

a reply to: Xcathdra

I'm watching the reports on that now. According to law, Cohen's property cannot be seized unless he is charged with a crime. I'm curious to see what crime they charge him with.

I think the standard is 24 hours, but I might be wrong on that. It has been over 24 hours already since the raids, hasn't it? I tend to ignore time and date when I'm this involved with a project...

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: shooterbrody

FBI has determined that the contemporaneous notes taken by then AG Dana Boente from the conversation he had with director Comey regarding what happened in the oval office is not classified. If his notes aren't considered classified and he was acting AG at the time. Comeys notes which were personal are not classified either. So there goes that argument.

As you site the "fbi" determining this your fbi Source please?

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soberbacchus


A binary fallacy is dependent on the implication of an unproven assumption. In this case, where is my unproven assumption?

Your unproven assumption is that if Mueller had sufficient evidence that the President's actions met the legal standard for Obstruction of Justice, then he would have filed an indictment by now.

Reality STRONGLY disagrees with that assumption. A sitting president has never been indicted before and the courts have never fully ruled on if that is possible, most presidents resign before that occurs.

Separation of Powers, constitutional issues, legal uncertainty etc.

All observers agree that short of some crazy serious crimes, the most likely scenario is that Mueller will present evidence and conclusions to Deputy AG who then decides to refer or not to congress and from there congress decides wether or not to impeach.

Presidents friends and lawyers do not enjoy the same constitutional separation of powers concerns as Trump does.
They get indicted.
The President? It will be a report and potential impeachment proceedings.

a reply to: soberbacchus

So your assertion is that Mueller's objective is not to prove Trump guilty of any action, but rather to find and prove violations made by his friends and relations?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck



So now we have secret LLCs?
....

That's public record, accessible to anyone who knows where to find it.

...

There are no secret LLCs.

Nothing personal red, but I trust my financial advisor more than you, but since I can't introduce you to him, how about the Wall Street Journal?

Mr. Cohen’s decision to establish the company in Delaware offered him privacy and simplicity, hallmarks of a state that has attracted more than one million business entities. Unlike some states, Delaware doesn’t require companies to publicly disclose the names of their managers.

www.wsj.com...

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soberbacchus

So your assertion is that Mueller's objective is not to prove Trump guilty of any action, but rather to find and prove violations made by his friends and relations?

TheRedneck

My assertion is that Mueller's Objective is to investigate matters related to the Russian interference campaign in the 2016 Presidential election and any crimes that might arise during that investigation. Like the documents outlining his appointment dictate.

If they discover evidence of a crime that appears not directly relevant, he asks the Deputy AG for guidance and that evidence can be handed off to other people for follow up or ignored depending on the Deputy AGs direction.
Cohen was not ignored and was handed off to NY+FBI.

If anything he discovers implicates the President, due to constitutional concerns I believe the Deputy AG would refer to congress.

If anything he discovers relates to people other than the President of the United States I believe the Deputy AG would OK Indictments where warranted.

Notice Special Counsel is not empowered to make the decision to indict anyone. He needs approval from the Deputy AG.

a reply to: soberbacchus

I cannot speak for Delaware, but Alabama does.

I would be somewhat suspicious of any state or any financial advisor that supports secret business dealings, just as I have refused collaboration on projects with people who 'knew' obvious misconceptions and would not listen to me concerning them. I still remember when I made that policy; the guy was adamantly trying to tell me household current was 120V peak instead of 120V RMS. I refused to move forward on his project. Too bad, too: decent idea, but there was no way to make it work in his reality.

That may be inconvenient for you, but it has served me well. I also won't listen to any car salesman I catch in a lie.

That kinda destroys your arguments overall for me. Sorry. Caught you too many times.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: soberbacchus

Whatever source you are using for your answers you should replace... as soon as possible. I dont know where you get half this crap you spout out. Even when you are proven wrong you just simply ignore the truth and double down on your wrong answer.

Everything in your last post does not reflect what the actual laws says.

Please show me where it is legally prohibited for a CEO or President to fire someone that reports to them?

A CEO or a President can be accused or charged with the illegality surrounding the circumstances.

They can be fined or financially penalized for the REASON, they can owe money due to employment contracts, but the act of firing someone by itself is not illegal.

Sexual harassment is illegal. Firing someone is not. The reason for firing can be strong evidence in a sexual harassment case. Etc. Etc.

If you think otherwise I can't help you.

Red asked if the President had the legal authority to fire the Director of the FBI.
The answer is yes.
That is a different question from did the President meet the legal bar for Obstruction of Justice.

a reply to: yuppa

Flat ass wrong. They have never been classified. That's just some crap you guys made up.
Boentes notes were reviewed and determined not to be classified by the FBI. His notes were identical to Comeys in discussing what Comet said happened almost word for word. . The notes were on Rachel Madows show the other night and the verification from the FBI that they were not classified. Sooo.

a reply to: soberbacchus

My assertion is that Mueller's Objective is to investigate matters related to the Russian interference campaign in the 2016 Presidential election and any crimes that might arise during that investigation. Like the documents outlining his appointment dictate.

That doesn't sound like what you wrote a few minutes ago:

originally posted by: soberbacchus

Presidents friends and lawyers do not enjoy the same constitutional separation of powers concerns as Trump does.
They get indicted.

The implication I read in that was that anyone surrounding the President was going to be scrutinized until something was found to prosecute them on. I was curious to know if you agreed with that tactic as it sounded as though you did. Now it seems you have retreated from your earlier position... interesting...

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soberbacchus

I cannot speak for Delaware, but Alabama does.

I would be somewhat suspicious of any state or any financial advisor that supports secret business dealings, just as I have refused collaboration on projects with people who 'knew' obvious misconceptions and would not listen to me concerning them. I still remember when I made that policy; the guy was adamantly trying to tell me household current was 120V peak instead of 120V RMS. I refused to move forward on his project. Too bad, too: decent idea, but there was no way to make it work in his reality.

That may be inconvenient for you, but it has served me well. I also won't listen to any car salesman I catch in a lie.

That kinda destroys your arguments overall for me. Sorry. Caught you too many times.

TheRedneck

Nothing personal, but bizarre post?

Did I say my financial advisor advocates for secret LLCs? Where?

He is the guy I shoot the crap with about financial stuff and recently chatted with being tax season.
He explained the Cohen LLC thing to me.

I missed the part where you admitted you were wrong about Cohen's LLC being Public Record?

And what specifically in what post "destroyed" what specific "argument"?

Or are you generally reverting to trolling? If so, I'd gladly end the discussion if you have opted for a non-factual, personal debate.

a reply to: Sillyolme

The notes were on Rachel Madows show the other night and the verification from the FBI that they were not classified.

It would be easier if you just told us "i saw this on trms".

a reply to: shooterbrody

Thanks for your concern but I'm fine typing it out.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Because as he said...he is no longer getting any details. Gee he won't exaggerate or lie how refreshing. That doesn't mean Mueller doesn't have more. Your funny. You think what's in the book will have any bearing on Mueller s investigation.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soberbacchus

My assertion is that Mueller's Objective is to investigate matters related to the Russian interference campaign in the 2016 Presidential election and any crimes that might arise during that investigation. Like the documents outlining his appointment dictate.

That doesn't sound like what you wrote a few minutes ago:

originally posted by: soberbacchus

Presidents friends and lawyers do not enjoy the same constitutional separation of powers concerns as Trump does.
They get indicted.

The implication I read in that was that anyone surrounding the President was going to be scrutinized until something was found to prosecute them on. I was curious to know if you agreed with that tactic as it sounded as though you did. Now it seems you have retreated from your earlier position... interesting...

TheRedneck

I'd rather you not interject assumptions in my posts.

Yes...The Presidents friends and associates (2016 Campaign Members) will be scrutinized and will get indicted if evidence is significant they committed crimes.

Yes...Russian entities and individuals will also be scrutinized and indicted if their is evidence of crimes.
More Russians than Americans thus far.

Yes...A President enjoys a different standard is much more likely to face impeachment questions than an indictment since the courts don't have precedent or clear rulings on if a President can be indicted.

Let me know if you need anything else cleared up.

Better to ask rather than assume.

a reply to: soberbacchus

I missed the part where you admitted you were wrong about Cohen's LLC being Public Record?

And even more interesting. You quoted it. It's actually the first line in the quote.

And what specifically in what post "destroyed" what specific "argument"?

Or are you generally reverting to trolling? If so, I'd gladly end the discussion if you have opted for a non-factual, personal debate.

Such anger... I have been posting facts, and you have been denying them. Now you're angry about it.

Tell me, have you ever owned and operated a company? As in, dealt with accounting and taxes on a day to day basis?

It sucks, btw...

TheRedneck

Wow Comeys got you guys triggered. It's all going south. Lol

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soberbacchus

I missed the part where you admitted you were wrong about Cohen's LLC being Public Record?

And even more interesting. You quoted it. It's actually the first line in the quote.

Did you assume Cohen incorporated in AL?

Such anger...

Again, interjecting assumptions into my post. Are you sure you are not aiming for troll?

I have been posting facts, and you have been denying them. Now you're angry about it.

????
Like when you said Cohen's LLC was public record? And I denied that (alternative?) fact with showing how his LLC clearly was NOT public record?

Tell me, have you ever owned and operated a company? As in, dealt with accounting and taxes on a day to day basis?

It sucks, btw...

TheRedneck

Yes and YES it does suck. Payroll tax updates and some new online methods by my state for payroll withholding deposits requiring an insane amount of bureaucracy just to issue payroll properly right now. It has taken me 2 weeks of waiting and a couple hours on the phone just to re-activate a State Unemployment account that got scrambled through no fault of my own and then EFTPS plus quickbooks bug..But all of that is a different story.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soberbacchus

I cannot speak for Delaware, but Alabama does.

I would be somewhat suspicious of any state or any financial advisor that supports secret business dealings,

So you can see why Cohen's LLCs were "suspicious"?