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

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: soberbacchus
a reply to: UKTruth

www.justice.gov...

Let me know if you have any questions.

A damning indictment of Obama. They knew since 2014 that Russia was trying to interfere in the US elections and did nothing to stop it. It also vindicates Trump, again, by demonstrating this all occurred before Trump was even a declared candidate.

Except neither of that is true nor reflected in the detailed indictment I provided.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Thanks for the update.
If, as the article stated, that only a small amount of documents deal with the president this will be a quick process. Also if only a few documents deal with the president then the president is not in nearly the "danger" the msm wanted the president to appear to be in.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: soberbacchus
a reply to: UKTruth

www.justice.gov...

Let me know if you have any questions.

A damning indictment of Obama. They knew since 2014 that Russia was trying to interfere in the US elections and did nothing to stop it. It also vindicates Trump, again, by demonstrating this all occurred before Trump was even a declared candidate.

Except neither of that is true nor reflected in the detailed indictment I provided.

Then you should reread the indictment. The dates start from 2014.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
The judge in Cohens case granted their motion to appoint a special master to review documents instead of allowing the FBI/DOJ "taint team" to do it.

Whilst denying the motion where they asked for Trump himself to review the evidence for attorney client privilege.

This is a good compromise and good news.

Will be fascinating when the reviewed evidence starts to roll into prosecutors hands!

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Xcathdra

Thanks for the update.
If, as the article stated, that only a small amount of documents deal with the president this will be a quick process. Also if only a few documents deal with the president then the president is not in nearly the "danger" the msm wanted the president to appear to be in.

Mueller and Rosenstein stated Trump has nothing to do / no link to Cohens case. With that being said I dont really trust either one of those guys.

Its being reported (but not confirmed) that Rosenstein is looking to leave the DOJ for other job opportunities. Personally, and if accurate, I think the decision to leave will be based on the IG report.

a reply to: soberbacchus

I found this part interesting -

Legal experts told Business Insider that Wood would be more likely to select one of the government's nominees, who were retired judges from the Southern District of New York. Cohen's team submitted names of former federal prosecutors.

Instead, Wood made a decision outside of both lists. Her selection, however, pleased Cohen's legal team.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: soberbacchus
a reply to: UKTruth

www.justice.gov...

Let me know if you have any questions.

A damning indictment of Obama. They knew since 2014 that Russia was trying to interfere in the US elections and did nothing to stop it. It also vindicates Trump, again, by demonstrating this all occurred before Trump was even a declared candidate.

Except neither of that is true nor reflected in the detailed indictment I provided.

Then you should reread the indictment. The dates start from 2014.

And spans through the 2016 election. So you lied here, again:

originally posted by: [post=23350345]Xcathdra

It also vindicates Trump, again, by demonstrating this all occurred before Trump was even a declared candidate.

a reply to: soberbacchus

Then Trump could not have colluded with the Russians to interfere in the election.

I didnt lie but once again thank you for proving my point.

You up to speed now?

a reply to: Xcathdra

I agree Rosenstein will be leaving the DOJ, but it may not be the way he wants to. He is responsible for mueller and the circumstances in which he was appointed. Seems those circumstances change depending on who is asked.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Xcathdra

Thanks for the update.
If, as the article stated, that only a small amount of documents deal with the president this will be a quick process. Also if only a few documents deal with the president then the president is not in nearly the "danger" the msm wanted the president to appear to be in.

RIGHT, so the Special Master is going to be able to quickly pass along virtually all the evidence gathered since virtually none of it is privileged ACCORDING TO COHENS "CLIENTS".

As the court is aware, after originally stating that the government seized "thousands, if not millions" of privileged documents, Cohen subsequently identified three current clients.

Of those three clients, one, Sean Hannity has since stated "Michael Cohen has never represented me in any matter, I never retained him, received an invoice or paid legal fees".

Another, President Trump, reportedly said on cable television this morning that Cohen performs "a teeny, tiny little fraction" of his overall legal work.

These statements by two of Cohens three identified clients suggest that the seized materials are unlikely to contain voluminous privileged documents, further supporting the importance of efficiency here

www.vox.com...

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: soberbacchus

Then Trump could not have colluded with the Russians to interfere in the election.

????

Of course he could have.
He could have ran at the behest of Russia. They have had Kompromat on him since 2013 and he amped up his anti-American rhetoric and Putin-love rhetoric immediately following that 2013 Moscow trip.

And if not that, they could have simply recruited him to their election meddling. They certainly managed to recruit his son according to publicly available emails.

I am looking forward to what indictments come next for the Special Counsel.

a reply to: soberbacchus

www.businessinsider.com...

In a filing later Thursday, the government cited the comments as evidence that "the seized materials are unlikely to contain voluminous privileged documents."

It appears the prosecution and defense agree it is not a large amount of information that needs to be reviewed with respect to the president.
Did you miss the part where RM and RR told trump the cohen case has nothing to do with him?

a reply to: shooterbrody

It appears the prosecution and defense agree it is not a large amount of information that needs to be reviewed with respect to the president.

Read that statement again. It says that there is unlikely to be a lot of privileged documentation. It doesn't say anything about the total amount of documentation which concerns the president.

The president himself said that Cohen did very little legal work on his behalf. This would mean that the majority of any documentation concerning the president would not be privileged. That is why the government made that argument.

a reply to: Phage

When the government sited the president as evidence to the judge "the seized materials are unlikely to contain voluminous privileged documents" I read it as there is little information to be reviewed.
As to your interpretation, read it as you wish, but it is no secret that the sc and the dag have told trump the case against cohen has nothing to do with him. If it has nothing to do with trump then ALL of trumps communications with cohen are privileged as the only time they are not is when the communications involve committing a crime.
So either RM and RR lied to the president, or all of the president communications with his lawyer are privileged and will be excluded from this case.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Phage

When the government sited the president as evidence to the judge "the seized materials are unlikely to contain voluminous privileged documents" I read it as there is little information to be reviewed.

Not at all.

They were making the case that very little of the evidence was likely to be privileged (contrary to what Cohen's Lawyers had claimed).

The governments argument was bolstered by 2 of 3 of Cohen's claimed clients claiming either they were not clients (Hannity) or that only a "teeny, tiny" percentage of their legal work used Cohen (Trump).

a reply to: shooterbrody

If it has nothing to do with trump then ALL of trumps communications with cohen are privileged as the only time they are not is when the communications involve committing a crime.

Only communications which fall under attorney/client privilege would be privileged. If it isn't regarding legal work it isn't privileged since Cohen was not acting as his attorney with those communications. Trump said that Cohen served as his attorney on the Stormy Daniels case. Those communications would fall under privilege (unless a crime were being discussed).

Since Trump said that Cohen did very little legal work for him it would follow that there is very little privileged material. That is why the government said that.

a reply to: Phage

The president himself said that Cohen did very little legal work on his behalf. This would mean that the majority of any documentation concerning the president would not be privileged.

So only part of what one speaks to a lawyer about is privileged? I am confused as the tv and others here have repeatedly said communications are privileged unless there is evidence of a crime? How is the president involved with cohen in a crime if RM and RR have told the president the cohen case does not involve him?
www.bloomberg.com...
www.cbsnews.com...
abcnews.go.com...

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Phage

The president himself said that Cohen did very little legal work on his behalf. This would mean that the majority of any documentation concerning the president would not be privileged.

So only part of what one speaks to a lawyer about is privileged?

Correct.
Asking a lawyer that works for you advice on a divorce is privileged.
Asking a lawyer for his soup recipe is not.
Neither is asking for help or guidance in covering up or committing criminal activity.

The occupation of lawyer is not by itself a magical sphere of immunity.

How is the president involved with cohen in a crime if RM and RR have told the president the cohen case does not involve him?
www.bloomberg.com...
www.cbsnews.com...
abcnews.go.com...

The fact that Trump is not a "Target" of the investigation does not insulate him from being implicated in criminal activity discovered through the investigation.

If a murder or kidnapping is discovered when the police search a house looking for drugs, they do not ignore those crimes or evidence.

a reply to: shooterbrody

So only part of what one speaks to a lawyer about is privileged?

Yes. The part where the lawyer is acting as an attorney for the client.

The government's position is that much of Cohen's dealings had nothing to do with being an attorney. Something reinforced by what Trump said on Fox this morning.

EARHARDT: Then why is he pleading the Fifth?

TRUMP: — which would have been a problem. Because he's got other things. He's got businesses, and from what I understand they're looking at his businesses, and I hope he's in great shape.

a reply to: soberbacchus

www.nolo.com...

The attorney-client privilege protects most communications between clients and their lawyers. But, according to the crime-fraud exception to the privilege, a client’s communication to her attorney isn’t privileged if she made it with the intention of committing or covering up a crime or fraud. Because the attorney-client privilege belongs to the client, the client’s intent determines whether the exception applies. Most courts will apply the exception even if the attorney had no knowledge of, and didn’t participate in, the actual crime or fraud. The crime-fraud exception applies if: the client was in the process of committing or intended to commit a crime or fraudulent act, and the client communicated with the lawyer with intent to further the crime or fraud, or to cover it up.

That states the "privilege belongs to the client", who in this case is the president. So if the president committed no crime (per RM and RR) then why would the privilege not stand? I do not see any other time listed that the privilege does not apply.
I do not think the seizure will turn out to be the fishing expedition many hoped it would be.
It appears to me cohen is in trouble for things NOT related to the president, in which case ALL the presidents communications with cohen are protected.
Interesting that a special master was appointed.