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

originally posted by: shooterbrody

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?

Actually it would be easier if you stopped claiming absolute BS as facts.

that way we could debate something of substance rather than spend time in flat earth debates with people looking to defend lies?


As for this thread of the debate, it is turning into an investigation of it's own as it appears someone at DOJ tried unsuccessfully and potentially illegally classify Comey's notes after the fact in order to appease Trump's false claim.

“(U) This letter serves as confirmation under my authority as a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Original Classification Authority (OCA) that your handwritten notes derived from your March 30, 2017 conversation with former FBI Director James Comey are UNCLASSIFIED.

“(U) Understanding that your notes were marked as TOP SECRET by an employee of the Department of Justice without your consultation, this letter memorializes a duly authorized OCA finding that the contents of your notes are not TOP SECRET (or classified at all).”

“It is unclear why anyone at the Department of Justice improperly sought to classify these notes,” Cummings and Lynch wrote. “However, if these reports are accurate, it appears possible that someone at the Department of Justice may have attempted to prevent the public release of these notes by misusing the classification process, but that career officials at the FBI intervened to reject this effort.”

Under Executive Order 13526, Classified National Security Information, officials may not abuse the classification process to conceal information that may be incriminating:

“In no case shall information be classified, continue to be maintained as classified, or fail to be declassified in order to: (1) conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error; (2) prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency; (3) restrain competition; or (4) prevent or delay the release of information that does not require protection in the interest of national security.”

More here in the Congressional letter requesting an inquiry:


LINK

a reply to: soberbacchus

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

This is the part that concerns me.

I challenge you to find anyone who has never committed a crime of any kind. I seriously doubt Mother Teresa could hold to that standard... there are just so many laws, so many legal nuances... I'm sure that if anyone ever looked back through my books with an eye to hang me on something, I could be hung. Not because I intentionally broke any laws, but because minute details are easily missed. In know in accounting, that is how people get by with 'cooking the books'... they use the fact that minor details are not typically scrutinized. I mentioned that above. To catch them in actual money laundering charges requires a long-standing pattern of such deviations. Otherwise, no judge would consider minor errors to be indicative of criminal intent.

I have a electronics lab with machining, plastic-working, and some chemical capabilities. I use it for completely legal means. If someone wanted to indict me on something, however, I'm sure I am in violation of some drug paraphernalia laws, even though I do not use, manufacture, or deal with illicit drugs in any way.

Of course, if Mueller's job is to find something to charge people with, that all becomes concerning. It becomes especially concerning if he uses these minor problems he finds to seize private property... excuse me, to tell someone else to seize private property.

TheRedneck

a reply to: soberbacchus

SB, per your post, Cohen may have registered his company (companies?) in DE, but his office was in NY.

At least the one that was reportedly raided by the FBI was in NY.

Where did Cohen actually conduct his business? Where were the contracts signed and the funds paid?

These are actions that many states consider “doing business”, which has specific legal implications in such states.

Some states require that all businesses “doing business” (by their definition, and the definition can vary state to state) must be authorized, or registered with some state authority, to do so. Failure to comply with a state’s regulations can result in delays, fines, and even nullification of contracts signed in that state.

It’s the kind of thing one might overlook when one is too focused on “hushing up” a witness to bother with “details” like where a contract is signed.

a reply to: soberbacchus

That there is frightening 3rd world dictator crap BTW.

Someone unidentified attempted to circumvent the classification authority and stamped notes regarding the Comey Conversation Top Secret despite it's original unclassified status.

The BS was caught and corrected by the classification authority, but the idea of a WH stamping anything Top Secret that the President doesn't want the public to know?
Or worse yet, ignoring the original classification determination made by OCA and stamping something Top Secret after the fact so that they could potential charge an ex-government official they don't like with a crime?

Seriously..someone needs to go to jail on that one and that is a non-political reality.

That is 3rd world dictator crap.

a reply to: soberbacchus

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

I can see an issue. I withhold judgement on whether or not they were used for nefarious means.

I can also see why Delaware is one of the states that is popular for establishing LLCs. That is concerning to me in general.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Bhadhidar
a reply to: soberbacchus

SB, per your post, Cohen may have registered his company (companies?) in DE, but his office was in NY.

At least the one that was reportedly raided by the FBI was in NY.

Where did Cohen actually conduct his business? Where were the contracts signed and the funds paid?

Good question. He apparently had offices at the NYC law firm that represents Cambridge Analytica and that wasn't public knowledge until the raid.

He also had a Hotel room that he worked out of (Also raided).


Just a guess, but he strikes me as the type of guy that "does business" wherever he is sitting at that moment.

These are actions that many states consider “doing business”, which has specific legal implications in such states.

Some states require that all businesses “doing business” (by their definition, and the definition can vary state to state) must be authorized, or registered with some state authority, to do so. Failure to comply with a state’s regulations can result in delays, fines, and even nullification of contracts signed in that state.

It’s the kind of thing one might overlook when one is too focused on “hushing up” a witness to bother with “details” like where a contract is signed.

Delaware by all accounts has a different set of lax rules and regulations.
I don't know what they all are, but plenty of Companies that operate around the country are only registered in Delaware without offices there.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soberbacchus

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

This is the part that concerns me.

I challenge you to find anyone who has never committed a crime of any kind.

Again. The Special Counsel needs approval from Rosenstein before indicting anyone. Rosenstein can (and possibly has repeatedly) said no, this is small potatoes. With Cohen it wasn't. It was however outside of Mueller's lane of "Russia" so he told Mueller to hand the evidence off for someone else to decide on. The FBI and State of NY found it significant.

Put another way "I challenge you" to cite anyone Mueller has indicted for small crimes.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soberbacchus

Of course, if Mueller's job is to find something to charge people with, that all becomes concerning. It becomes especially concerning if he uses these minor problems he finds to seize private property... excuse me, to tell someone else to seize private property.

TheRedneck

There is no evidence that he has pursued anything for "minor crimes". Frankly I imagine his plate is full enough.

If you disagree please cite who he has indicted for "minor" crimes.

a reply to: soberbacchus

Good question. He apparently had offices at the NYC law firm that represents Cambridge Analytica and that wasn't public knowledge until the raid.

I would love to see some verification of that statement.

Just a guess, but he strikes me as the type of guy that "does business" wherever he is sitting at that moment.

I wouldn't judge anyone by that standard. I do business wherever I am sitting at the moment, if there's business to be done. Not everything requires an office setting.

I don't know what they all are, but plenty of Companies that operate around the country are only registered in Delaware without offices there.

I can verify this. Trucking companies are notorious for shopping around to find the best state to incorporate in, and quite a few choose Delaware. I'm starting to realize why...

TheRedneck

a reply to: soberbacchus

You notice that little two-letter word in there that starts with an 'i' and ends with an 'f'?

It's there for a reason.

Now, can you show me some of these minor crimes that have been overlooked?

TheRedneck

General off-topic note: I have to leave for a while... I will catch up when I get back this evening. My absence has nothing to do with any assumed abandonment of my statements.

TheRedneck

a reply to: soberbacchus

Yes, I got the same impression of Cohen.

And yes, I would venture to guess that thousands of businesses are registered in DE, that the vast majority of them are not located there.

In my more than twenty years of experience for the state of California, I have encountered dozens, if not hundreds, of such firms after they have run afoul of CA tax and registration requirements because their supposedly professional representatives (CPA’s Accountants, and especially, attorneys) simply assumed that their clients’ DE registration was a “key to the World”.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soberbacchus

Good question. He apparently had offices at the NYC law firm that represents Cambridge Analytica and that wasn't public knowledge until the raid.

I would love to see some verification of that statement.

Trump Lawyer Michael Cohen Was Discreet Presence at Squire Patton Boggs

Between the start of his unusual relationship with the firm and this week's raid on his office, the nature of Cohen's work at Squire Patton Boggs was a mystery to many there.
www.law.com...

Squire Patton Boggs cuts ties with Trump's personal lawyer after FBI office raid

“The firm’s arrangement with Mr Cohen reached its conclusion, mutually and in accordance with the terms of the agreement,” the firm said in a statement. “We have been in contact with federal authorities regarding their execution of a warrant relating to Mr Cohen. These activities do not relate to the firm and we are in full cooperation.”

www.legalweek.com...

*That should confirm his presence there and the raid.

as for the firm being Cambridge Analaytica's legal team:

The London-based firm, which last week suspended CEO Alexander Nix (pictured) after he was caught on film by Channel 4 News discussing unscrupulous political campaigning tactics, is being advised by both US firm Squire Patton Boggs and ‘new model‘ UK law firm Gunnercooke, which was founded in 2010.

www.legalweek.com... candal/

Of course many other sources if needed.

Cohen's former firm also counts Russian Oil Company Gazprom (or some such spelling) as a client.

a reply to: soberbacchus

Who cares about any hearsay?
What does this have do do with comeys notes that comey gave to a civillian(now his attorney lets see if that privilege stands) to leak to the press?
Because mr madcow says so? lol yeah you two tuned in for the trumps taxes episode too didnt ya?

Anyone ever hear of the longstanding fbi policy NOT to comment on ongoing investigations? Yea neither did comey....

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soberbacchus

Now, can you show me some of these minor crimes that have been overlooked?

TheRedneck

Likely never will. Rosenstein has made clear his philosophy on publicly sharing evidence if there is not going to be an indictment Impeachment is a political thing so the POTUS might not qualify as impeachment is the political remedy to be decided by congress.

It is the principle thing he disagreed with Comey on. Indict or don't indict, but if you are not going to indict, don't publicly discuss evidence and details. Rosenstein opinion on what to tell the public 101.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Yada yada.

I will respond when you offer something factual or logical.

The rest is boring. Your posts appear the opposite of credible.

a reply to: soberbacchus

As I did not address you I am puzzled at your need to set conditions on your replies? Not so boring as to see you reply?

What is hilarious is the sited "fbi determined" in the post still has yet to appear, almost as if it doesn't exist. Sadly to some if it isn't on morning joe or madcow it isn't really real.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
General off-topic note: I have to leave for a while... I will catch up when I get back this evening. My absence has nothing to do with any assumed abandonment of my statements.

TheRedneck

No assumptions

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: TheRedneck


Cohens lawyers wants the court to suspend the hearing saying answering question in this instance can place their client in legal jeopardy in another court action.

Still interested in this.

What other court action?

Has Cohen been charged?

a reply to: TheRedneck

And this:

Mr. Trump and Mr. Cohen still were trying to determine what exactly was seized in the raids, which were even broader than have been previously reported. In addition to searching Mr. Cohen’s office and hotel room, prosecutors also obtained warrants to seize material from his cellphones, tablet, laptop and a safe deposit box, according to people briefed on the warrants.

www.nytimes.com...

same link

The lawyers (Trump's) fear that Mr. Cohen will not be forthcoming about what was in his files, leaving them girding for the unknown.

And THIS:

President Trump’s personal attorney Michael D. Cohen sometimes taped conversations with associates, according to three people familiar with his practice, and allies of the president are worried that the recordings were seized by federal investigators in a raid of Cohen’s office and residences this week.

...

“We heard he had some proclivity to make tapes,” said one Trump adviser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation. “Now we are wondering, who did he tape? Did he store those someplace where they were actually seized? . . . Did they find his recordings?”

WAPO Link easy to find, hard to cut and paste