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.

 

The White House tapes (Cohen recordings)

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2018 @ 09:04 PM
link   
I can imagine that Executive Privilege could come into play as well, after the alleged tapes are between the Presidents advisors and his lawyer so some argument could be made




posted on Apr, 12 2018 @ 09:12 PM
link   
a reply to: DJMSN
Doesn't executive privilege have to do with resisting subpoenas and such? Sort of like a spouse not having to testify against a spouse?

Do you think that anything any presidential advisor says about anything falls under executive privilege? Bannon used that ploy. Nunes bought it. Not sure a judge would.



posted on Apr, 12 2018 @ 09:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

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.



Huh? These payments are "in kind" campaign contributions that far far exceed the legal limit. This is criminal activity. Now if the money came out of Trump's pocket, it would be legal, but Trump denied all knowledge of the payments.



posted on Apr, 12 2018 @ 09:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I am no expert but yes, and a supoena was involved but due to how it was served, no knock at 3 locations one being an attorneys office prevented any arguments if EP so one can expect any discoveries to be challenged before a Judge later.

Lots of arguments, motions, challenges are made before a court, many times they are made knowing they are unlikely to suceed but sometimes you find a Judge who will grant a motion. I think a case could be argued that any recorded dicussions among a Presidents advisors could be protected. Would be worth the argument anyway, i dont know



posted on Apr, 12 2018 @ 09:21 PM
link   
a reply to: DJMSN

A warrant is not a subpoena. A subpoena is an order to appear to testify or present evidence.

edit on 4/12/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2018 @ 10:24 PM
link   
a reply to: gariac

Please, by that rationale his lawyer paying some dude to shine his shoes so he looks sharp at an event is a "campaign contributions. " This was a payment to a whore from a lawyer who wrote up the binding NDA,. Cohen likely is paid similar to a high level accountant, with expenses written into his monthly bill to Trump Inc.



posted on Apr, 12 2018 @ 10:36 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

My issue is that my tax dollars are being wasted on a trolling exercise. Not much difference between my distaste for that and, say, someone complaining about wasting tax dollars going after some dude who's found in possession of a joint.



posted on Apr, 12 2018 @ 11:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: introvert

My issue is that my tax dollars are being wasted on a trolling exercise. Not much difference between my distaste for that and, say, someone complaining about wasting tax dollars going after some dude who's found in possession of a joint.


Again, you have no way of knowing what sort of crimes this may or may not be concerning.

Not sure how you can say you have an issue with something you know very little about.



posted on Apr, 12 2018 @ 11:38 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

You're vocalizing my issue. Our legal system is not supposed to be used in the manner which this dragnet is using it. If they applied this scrutiny to everyone, we would be living in a dystopian hell where the feds could ensure anyone they wanted to jail would have something found on them. It's not equal protection under the law.



posted on Apr, 12 2018 @ 11:52 PM
link   
a reply to: gariac


Strange article. Reminds me of the (non-existent) "Comey notes" that snookered so many gullibles.



posted on Apr, 13 2018 @ 12:00 AM
link   

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.


And the FBI will go through it with a fine-toothed comb to make sure the FBI doesn't see anything that doesn't constitute a crime... so how could that possibly go wrong?



posted on Apr, 13 2018 @ 12:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: introvert

You're vocalizing my issue. Our legal system is not supposed to be used in the manner which this dragnet is using it. If they applied this scrutiny to everyone, we would be living in a dystopian hell where the feds could ensure anyone they wanted to jail would have something found on them. It's not equal protection under the law.


This simple action that the FBI has taken to secure a warrant thanks to the prosecutor and judge of New York has been used many times. The completely legal action and act of doing so was used. If you are truly disgusted by that legal move then I suggest you take your complaint and send it to the your local congress person. And also if for one second you believe that we are not already living in “their” dystopian world than you have failed.



posted on Apr, 13 2018 @ 02:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: gariac


Strange article. Reminds me of the (non-existent) "Comey notes" that snookered so many gullibles.


There are Comey notes. They weren't taken in front of the target, but written right after the meetings.



posted on Apr, 13 2018 @ 08:34 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Mueller said that there is NO criminal investigation into Trump. So, there was NO legal reason for them to do this. They should have had a subpoena to request the information.

Link

This is all about trying to get Trump to talk to them. Squeeze the lawyer. I would expect one of his children to be raided next...don't be surprised.



posted on Apr, 13 2018 @ 08:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJMSN
I can imagine that Executive Privilege could come into play as well, after the alleged tapes are between the Presidents advisors and his lawyer so some argument could be made


I think you nailed it right here. If they exist, recorded conversations like those at the hands of the partisan leaked are an issue if nationality security. Attorney client privilege still stands here, everyone is speculating based on their bias and assuming Trump is guilty of something. This has all to do with Cohen and that what the facts out there show.



posted on Apr, 13 2018 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: gariac

Amazingly informative OP. I totally have a clue what you're taking about.




posted on Apr, 13 2018 @ 08:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Allaroundyou

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: introvert

You're vocalizing my issue. Our legal system is not supposed to be used in the manner which this dragnet is using it. If they applied this scrutiny to everyone, we would be living in a dystopian hell where the feds could ensure anyone they wanted to jail would have something found on them. It's not equal protection under the law.


This simple action that the FBI has taken to secure a warrant thanks to the prosecutor and judge of New York has been used many times. The completely legal action and act of doing so was used. If you are truly disgusted by that legal move then I suggest you take your complaint and send it to the your local congress person. And also if for one second you believe that we are not already living in “their” dystopian world than you have failed.


I think the issue with most people with knowledge of law are the tactics which are typically used for mob bosses and drug lords. Are raid like this others would typically happen when all legal avenues are exhausted and the person is at flight risk. Cohen has been cooperative and a subpoena would suffice. We still don't even know what the alleged crime is. There still a lot to learn here and a lot of people are jumping to conclusions.



posted on Apr, 13 2018 @ 09:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

This is true however both can be argued against before a judge, a supoena can be suppressed before evidence is gathered and a warrant can he argued before the evidence is allowed to be considered before the court.

I dont know if EP could be sucessful but it wouldnt hurt to try. The Manafort legal team has already filed a number of motions before the court considered longshots, but sometimes the longshot is sucessful. All you can do is try.

And if i am not mistaken a supeona can compel an individual, corporation, organization, etc, not only to appear but force them to submit evidence. It basically works the same as a warrant does it not ? A supoena gives opportunity to comply, the warrant authorizes PTB to gather evidence on their own to submit to the court as evidence
edit on 4/13/2018 by DJMSN because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2018 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

This is true however both can be argued against before a judge, a supoena can be suppressed before evidence is gathered and a warrant can he argued before the evidence is allowed to be considered before the court.

I dont know if EP could be sucessful but it wouldnt hurt to try. The Manafort legal team has already filed a number of motions before the court considered longshots, but sometimes the longshot is sucessful. All you can do is try.



posted on Apr, 13 2018 @ 09:43 AM
link   
a reply to: mkultra11


I think the issue with most people with knowledge of law are the tactics which are typically used for mob bosses and drug lords. Are raid like this others would typically happen when all legal avenues are exhausted and the person is at flight risk. Cohen has been cooperative and a subpoena would suffice. We still don't even know what the alleged crime is. There still a lot to learn here and a lot of people are jumping to conclusions.


Exactly -- Bravo! And thank you for saying this.

Unless Mueller had reason to believe that Cohen had pictures of Trump stark naked in bed with a dead child, this is freaking overreach on steroids.

Especially from those who have themselves refused to turn over subpoena'd records and documents to the proper authorities. Mueller et al have already lost the trust and confidence of too many people for us to believe this is anything more than a desperate abuse of power.

This persecution of a duly elected president with no fruits for their labor has gone too far... way too far! Mueller needs to put up or shut up... either he has the goods on Trump or he doesn't.




top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join