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.
Were those other top advisors his clients?
One individual said Cohen would play recordings for him of the Trump lawyer talking with other top advisers to the president.
“It was his standard practice to do it,” that individual said.
“We heard he had some proclivity to make tapes,” one Trump adviser told the paper. “Now we are wondering, who did he tape? Did he store those someplace where they were actually seized? ... Did they find his recordings?”
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: burdman30ott6
You seem to be of the opinion that no communications between anyone can be collected during investigations. Interesting idea.
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: burdman30ott6
Attorney-Client privilege does not apply in all circumstances. It depends on whether or not a crime was potentially committed, planned, etc, between the client and the lawyer, as just one example.
In that case, that privilege no longer exists.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: burdman30ott6
Who said anything about Trump? But again, unless the conversation is between Cohen and Trump, attorney/client privilege would not seem enter the picture at all. Unless, of course, Cohen was talking about Trump to someone else. In which case the violation would be Cohen's.
You seem to be of the opinion that no communications between anyone can be collected during investigations. Interesting idea.
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: gariac
Attorney-Client privilege apparently is now considered to be along the lines of privacy during the Bush era horsesnip "if you don't have anything to hide, you don't have anything to worry about" Patriot Act shuck and jive?
My point is, in the grand scheme of things if we're going to allow dragnet "gather them all and review each one" style of evidence collection, in the name of determining what is and what is not protected personal information, then what's the damn point of anything being considered attorney-client privilege?
Privacy rights *should* mean that the majority of things in your life which you don't want to share can't be shared with any other human being other than those you specifically choose.
Bottom line, the FBI's excuse for doing this isn't a crime with a direct victim...
They're not investigating a murder or death, nobody lost their life savings here, and it strikes me that they're going after some sort of "OMG, money changed hands to avoid something legal but potentially damaging from getting out" scenario which happens daily in politics and the corporate world with absolutely NO prosecution. Those aren't situations important enough to violate privacy and attorney-client privilege while a bunch of spooks play Columbo.
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: burdman30ott6
Attorney-Client privilege does not apply in all circumstances. It depends on whether or not a crime was potentially committed, planned, etc, between the client and the lawyer, as just one example.
In that case, that privilege no longer exists.
What was the crime committed?
Need a crime for an investigation.
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: burgerbuddy
What was the crime committed?
I do not know. I'm sure we will find out, if anything did occur.
Need a crime for an investigation.
Incorrect. You need evidence or allegations of a potential crime in order for it to be investigated.
originally posted by: burgerbuddy
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: burgerbuddy
What was the crime committed?
I do not know. I'm sure we will find out, if anything did occur.
Need a crime for an investigation.
Incorrect. You need evidence or allegations of a potential crime in order for it to be investigated.
Sure.
So don't be surprised when the FBI shows up at your house and dig up your garden to find the girls you buried there.