The White House tapes (Cohen recordings)

No not those White House tapes, but these:

thehill.com...

Now I personally don't see these recordings being a problem since nothing shady goes on with Trump, Cohen, and associates. I mean they are upright model citizens. Role models!

a reply to: gariac

I personally believe that Mullner realized how badly the raid blew it for him. Any evidence collected would be thrown out of court and he along with the Asst Ag for Manhattan have painted themselves very black by this action.

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?

a reply to: burdman30ott6

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.

Were those other top advisors his clients?

I wonder if they knew they were being recorded.

a reply to: whywhynot

Liberal New Yawkers .........What Can you Say But.................FU ..Signed .,...The American People Who Matter........

Democrats and other assorted anti-Trumpers are crapping now because they know their own conversations will be exposed very soon.

No wonder the MSM is getting pimply-faced more than normal.

"pilot to bombardier ...... 5 minutes to target" 😎

a reply to: Phage

Both good questions, but neither really applicable to the situation at hand. If the feds are intending to use audio tapes against President Trump which contain him discussing something with Cohen, then it definitely becomes an attorney-client privilege matter. Obviously, even in that case there is the potential for the tapes to be used as evidence if they involve conspiracy or intent to commit a crime... but what good is the right of privacy if we're in a system by which those types of tapes can simply be seized and "reviewed" by investigators? How is that actually any different from the type of intrusive government and rejection of privacy rights the Constitution was initially penned to shield Americans from?

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.

The issue is the only reason they could raid him and get communications with him and Trump is if they were 'conspiring' with on another in a crime. What is this a RICO witch hunt?

Mueller has said there is no criminal complaint against Trump so there is no reason to look at their communications but they are.

This is a clear cut violation of rights but since it is the liberal labeled king of misogynistic, racist and crazy behavior it is ok. They don't need his money anymore but do not want to lost the other cash flow teets of omnibus bills...

“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?”

So they don't know who he recorded under what circumstances and if the recordings exist where he stored them or if they were seized during the raid.

Good story there.

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.

You seem to be making a pretty irrational conclusion there as well. Nobody said that. Well, except you to attempt to make a point that doesn't actually exist.

What he was pointing out is that attorney-client privilege is a pretty high bar to try to get around, legally. As in communications between a client and their attorney. See... NOT all communications between anybody. Was that so hard?

Especially on a referred fishing expedition.

Unless you think that this has nothing to do with Trump.

And there we go, all irrational again.

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: 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.

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: 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.

Or, work product that he produced or GATHERED on behalf of Trump

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?

It really depends on if those recording were of Trump and Cohen discussing legal matters and not conversations of conspiring to break the law or if Cohen recorded people who were not his clients.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

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?

Is that what happened in this case? Seems to me that they followed breadcrumbs and it led to the lawyer. Whatever took place between the lawyer and Trump, or whomever, may not be completely kosher and the FBI thinks it merits further investigation.

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.

Privacy rights are a bit different topic. A conversation with a lawyer, while protected, is not private. And if that conversation consisted of discussion relating to a potential crime, it becomes fair game.

Bottom line, the FBI's excuse for doing this isn't a crime with a direct victim...

True. What the FBI did does not appear to be a crime, despite the ignorant calls of it being so.

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.

I don't think you are in a position to know exactly what is going on, so I am a bit confused as to how you can make this statement. Not to mention it appears you are excusing a potential crime based on what you find personally important.

Again, crimes and criminals cannot be hidden behind a barrier of attorney-client privilege.

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.

Not a delusional maybe.

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: 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.

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.

I suppose I should have been specific to say credible allegations that are corroborated in some manner.

Regardless, my point stands.