Judge Andrew Napolitano: Trump and the attorney-client privilege

a reply to: mobiusmale

2) In this particular case, and only time will tell if my suspicions are correct, that many/most of the people who suddenly came under surveillance are, or were, associates of some kind of Donald Trump...Papadopolous, Page, Manafort, Flynn, Cohen - and maybe others we dont know about yet - which smells like conspiracy to gather evidence under false pretenses of (unknown) crimes committed by the President. This looks very much like an attempt to (a) fish for crimes that Trump might have been involved in and (b) to squeeze Trump associates, who are in their own legal peril, to tell them about "Trump crimes" they would have no way of discovering otherwise.

Which is exactly the concern of many ON BOTH SIDES since this sc investigation has begun.
Remember this is OUTSIDE the scope of the sc investigation as mueller referred it out.

a reply to: shooterbrody

so then tell me how his rights were not violated

Trump's rights? I don't see any indication that they were. Was his apartment searched?

gimme a break its a fishing expedition, they are looking for anything they could possibly use to damage the trump administration.

thats why it started out with russia, and segued to stormy daniels..

a reply to: shooterbrody

Remember this is OUTSIDE the scope of the sc investigation as mueller referred it out.

Yes. That's sort of the point.
Apparently Cohen is suspected of crimes (like bank fraud) which have nothing to do with Mueller's investigation. Do you think that should be ignored?

a reply to: Phage

As potus he has a right to executive privilege.
He also has a right to client privilege with his lawyer.

Unless trump committed crimes...but then mueller would have jumped on that and not passed it off to ny would he?

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Phage

As potus he has a right to executive privilege.
He also has a right to client privilege with his lawyer.

Unless trump committed crimes...but then mueller would have jumped on that and not passed it off to ny would he?

Not exactly. A prosecutor, particularly with a case against a president is going to make sure the evidence is overwhelming before bringing up charges.

a reply to: Phage

Apparently Cohen is suspected of crimes (like bank fraud) which have nothing to do with Mueller's investigation. Do you think that should be ignored?

So if he committed "bank fraud" then why were they listening in on trumps calls as they have admitted to?
This will cause cohen to walk even if he did commit crimes.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Phage

Apparently Cohen is suspected of crimes (like bank fraud) which have nothing to do with Mueller's investigation. Do you think that should be ignored?

So if he committed "bank fraud" then why were they listening in on trumps calls as they have admitted to?
This will cause cohen to walk even if he did commit crimes.

Did you even listen to Napalitano?

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Phage

As potus he has a right to executive privilege.
He also has a right to client privilege with his lawyer.

Unless trump committed crimes...but then mueller would have jumped on that and not passed it off to ny would he?

Not exactly. A prosecutor, particularly with a case against a president is going to make sure the evidence is overwhelming before bringing up charges.

That same prosecutor would in no way hand the investigation off to someone else now would he?
This is complete bs.

a reply to: shooterbrody

As potus he has a right to executive privilege.
He also has a right to client privilege with his lawyer.

Executive privilege has mostly to do giving testimony. It can be invoked (by the president, and it must be explicitly invoked) when someone is asked to testify about communications with the president. The president himself has to invoke it. Could it apply to search warrants? Maybe, but it is yet to be determined whether any of the material gathered fall under that category. Or are you thinking that it applies retroactively, to communications from before January 20, 2017?

It is yet to be determined which of the materials collected fall under privilege and can be retained as evidence.

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Phage

As potus he has a right to executive privilege.
He also has a right to client privilege with his lawyer.

Unless trump committed crimes...but then mueller would have jumped on that and not passed it off to ny would he?

Not exactly. A prosecutor, particularly with a case against a president is going to make sure the evidence is overwhelming before bringing up charges.

That same prosecutor would in no way hand the investigation off to someone else now would he?
This is complete bs.

Not really. Again Napalitano explains all of it over the course of the last week.

I would advise people wanting to look past the spin to check out Napalitano. It's amazing the guy is allowed on cable news.

insider.foxnews.com...

a reply to: shooterbrody

yea so the discovery was made via an unrelated wiretap regarding russian collusion? doesn't that make it inadmissible.

what if it was provided to the nsa or cia via the gchq? are they using parallel construction to hide the fact that the intelligence was obtained illegally?

they have no credibility at this point with the leaks of their "drumpf is finished" contingency plans.

a reply to: snarfbot

yea so the discovery was made via an unrelated wiretap regarding russian collusion?

Was it?

a reply to: Phage

It is yet to be determined which of the materials collected fall under privilege and can be admitted as evidence.

So trump can use executive privilege and wipe all the evidence gathered between himself and cohen?
en.wikipedia.org...

President George W. Bush first asserted executive privilege in December 2001 to deny disclosure of details regarding former Attorney General Janet Reno,[15] the scandal involving Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) misuse of organized crime informants James J. Bulger and Stephen Flemmi, and Justice Department deliberations about President Bill Clinton's fundraising tactics.

A significant requirement of the presidential communications privilege is that it can only protect communications sent or received by the President or his immediate advisors, whereas the deliberative process privilege may extend further down the chain of command.

I would submit communications between the potus and his lawyer fall under the communications privilege.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Phage

It is yet to be determined which of the materials collected fall under privilege and can be admitted as evidence.

So trump can use executive privilege and wipe all the evidence gathered between himself and cohen?
en.wikipedia.org...

President George W. Bush first asserted executive privilege in December 2001 to deny disclosure of details regarding former Attorney General Janet Reno,[15] the scandal involving Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) misuse of organized crime informants James J. Bulger and Stephen Flemmi, and Justice Department deliberations about President Bill Clinton's fundraising tactics.

A significant requirement of the presidential communications privilege is that it can only protect communications sent or received by the President or his immediate advisors, whereas the deliberative process privilege may extend further down the chain of command.

I would submit communications between the potus and his lawyer fall under the communications privilege.

Probably only if he starts hiring better lawyers.

a reply to: Phage

considering that these agencies coach local law enforcement on how to lie to conceal illegally obtained evidence, parallel construction, how would we know whether it was or not?

should we just accept their word for it? lol.

a reply to: shooterbrody

So trump can use executive privilege and wipe all the evidence gathered between himself and cohen?

Maybe, but I don't think so. The bush case didn't involve materials collected from an attorney by warrant. It involved non-response to a subpeona and refusal to provide testimony.

I would submit communications between the potus and his lawyer fall under the communications privilege.

Perhaps. But he wasn't POTUS until January 20, 2017.

But, once again, the point of the current court proceedings are to determine exactly this sort of thing.

originally posted by: snarfbot
a reply to: Phage

considering that these agencies coach local law enforcement on how to lie to conceal illegally obtained evidence, parallel construction, how would we know whether it was or not?

should we just accept their word for it? lol.

I mean it's republican appointed SC, Trump's appointed deputy director, Trump's FBI director..so you have to wonder. It certainly is being presented like it's the Democrats but it's Trump'so own people and appointed people from republicans.

a reply to: Phage

So who tapped his phone to gain the "evidence" to support the theory that he should not have client privilege?
from the op link

The federal prosecutors also argued that Cohen was not truly performing legal work for Trump; rather, they said, he was a fixer of Trump’s image and a trickster to Trump’s adversaries. Then they revealed that the source of their purported knowledge of the Trump-Cohen relationship was surveillance of Cohen, whose telephone calls, emails and text messages the feds had been capturing for months.
That means that federal prosecutors have overheard the president of the United States in telephone conversations he believed were protected by privilege, in which he was talking to a man under criminal investigation who he has said was his lawyer.

It appears to me the ny feds used this info to obtain their search warrant. If muellers investigation got between trump and his lawyer then passed the info on to ny there is going to be A LOT of explaining to do. RR would have had to sign off on that would he not?
Seems this potus has had questionable surveillance on him in multiple occasions now.