Judge Andrew Napolitano: Trump and the attorney-client privilege

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

I don't think the president can make such a directive. He could of course, request it, but unless there were sufficient evidence it would be a pretty crappy AG to indict someone based on a request from the president. Wait a minute...come to think of it, I don't think an AG can hand down an indictment. Can they?

But even if it did happen, he can't direct the court to produce a guilty verdict and jail someone. Even Trump knows that. I think.

a reply to: Phage

lets do that.
pacer-documents.s3.amazonaws.com...

Fourth, the USAO-SDNY has specific reason to doubt that the seized materials will include the volume and nature of attorney-client communications that Cohen claims. This is Case 1:18-mj-03161-KMW Document 1 Filed 04/13/18 Page 13 of 23 13 because the USAO-SDNY has already obtained search warrants – covert until this point – on multiple different email accounts maintained by Cohen, and has conducted a privilege review of the materials obtained pursuant to those warrants. The results of that review, as resported by the USAO’s Filter Team, indicate that Cohen is in fact performing little to no legal work, and that zero emails were exchanged with President Trump

There were already warrants issued on cohen. At least enough for them to disclose that they "found" zero emails from potus. They did this with a filter team which at least acknowledges privilege exists between cohen and potus. However it still could violate executive privilege if potus were to exert it.

Also

These searches were carried out as part of an ongoing grand jury investigation being conducted by the USAO-SDNY and the FBI.

So ny has convened a grand jury for cohen, but has been unable to obtain an indictment? Holy crap their evidence must be super super weak.

The searches are the result of a months-long investigation into Cohen, and seek evidence of crimes, many of which have nothing to do with his work as an attorney, but rather relate to Cohen’s own business dealings

Months long investigation and still no indictment??? WOW

Cohen contends that his pre-indictment claim is akin to a motion to return property seized by the government, which, in the pre-indictment context, should be treated as a “civil equitable proceeding

When a "ham sandwich can be indicted", but after "months-long investigation" cohen is not that says alot about the evidence used for "probable cause" as the standard for indictment from a grand jury is much lower.

From reading the actual court document it appears to me this is nothing more than a fishing expedition with the goal of using potus lawyer to get potus.

a reply to: shooterbrody

That isn't really accurate. Considering that month long investigation led to a highly scrutinized warrant.

And fair or not the standard procedure (which I don't agree with) for any federal prosecutor, republican, independent, or Democrat is to try and flip witnesses.

In this case they may be setting up criminal charges for state and federal felonies as well as fec violations to try and roll a witness.

Now that process should be debated. But it is standard procedure even on a local law enforcement level. They need time to scare the cap out of the witness and they probably feel the guy will flip.

Because trump can't pardon state charges this is most likely the direction.

Also I want to point out white water went on for years with no prosecution of the president and led to an impeachment over unrelated things.

a reply to: luthier

I linked the document.
Read it for yourself.
MONTHS long investigation into cohen.
Grand jury and no indictment.
Search warrant that already has looked at privileged communications with potus.
It is all in that document.

How do they not have an indictment into this guy yet? Was he smart enough to decline speaking to the fbi and getting the patented "lying to the fbi" charge?

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: luthier

I linked the document.
Read it for yourself.
MONTHS long investigation into cohen.
Grand jury and no indictment.
Search warrant that already has looked at privileged communications with potus.
It is all in that document.

How do they not have an indictment into this guy yet? Was he smart enough to decline speaking to the fbi and getting the patented "lying to the fbi" charge?

I just told you.

Because federal crimes can be pardoned. State cannot.

Prosecutors play long games not found it let's get him in these going for bigger cases.

State charges would mean no pardon.

a reply to: luthier

oh so then it is not about justice or if cohen broke the law?

a reply to: shooterbrody

Lol, not if he gets pardoned right?

Ps just telling you how this happened in the past. Again I don't support it.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Months long investigation and still no indictment???

Is that unusual?
www.google.com...

a reply to: luthier

I just didn't realize prosecutors factored pardons, state or federal, into their decision making process.

a reply to: Phage

I don't know.
How many potus lawyers have been subject to a grand jury?
How many potus have had their emails to their lawyers read by the fbi?

a reply to: shooterbrody


Really? If you were trying to get a guy to flip basically attached to the hip of the president you don't think they look for leverage.

They sure do.

Again. Whitewater. Went on for years. Clinton was charged with purgery for lying about a bj.

So just keep history in mind.

And one more time not an endorsement on my part just something to consider when thinking about reality.

a reply to: luthier

I did not and still do not agree with what was done to bill clinton.

So you agree this is just a fishing expedition then?

a reply to: shooterbrody

How many potus lawyers have been subject to a grand jury?

One. As far as I know. I guess other presidents were more selective in their choice of attorneys.

How many potus have had their emails to their lawyers read by the fbi?

I don't know. But I heard that the president doesn't use email.

In any case:

The results of that review , as reported by the USAO’s Filter Team, indicate that Cohen is in fact performing little to no legal work, and that zero emails were exchanged with President Trump.

assets.documentcloud.org...

a reply to: shooterbrody

It could be. I am not sure. Waiting to see.

What I mean is we don't know because the case against say trump would be built beyond what most people would have because of its weight.

Then there is the fact of proof vs guilt. Lack of proof does not mean innocence . Prosecutors could have known Clinton was guilty and used the bj to have some kind of penalty. Like capone with tax evasion.

My take as a carpenter is trump/Clinton are sleezy. I have been burned by people like him. So I do have confirmation bias.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: shooterbrody

How many potus lawyers have been subject to a grand jury?

One. As far as I know. I guess other presidents were more selective in their choice of attorneys.

How many potus have had their emails to their lawyers read by the fbi?

I don't know. But I heard that the president doesn't use email.

In any case:

The results of that review , as reported by the USAO’s Filter Team, indicate that Cohen is in fact performing little to no legal work, and that zero emails were exchanged with President Trump.

assets.documentcloud.org...

It's highly possible no privledge for that reason. Even Napalitano mentions this.

a reply to: luthier

Yeah. But the point was that there apparently are no presidential emails to or from Cohen. It was to this point I was replying:

How many potus have had their emails to their lawyers read by the fbi?

a reply to: Phage

Ah. Just laying out some possibilities. Again I definitely have bias here against Trump. Or Clinton for that matter.

a reply to: mobiusmale

Dont call the cops. Dont get lawyers involved.

The way people feel safe speaking freely to their attorney is insane to me.

It would be better to tell a priest. He would probably have a leg to stand on if he wished to keep his vows and not speak of what was confessed no matter what the law says.

This investigation has made me go far from indifference. I am praying to the Karma demons and angels to touch everyone involved.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: mobiusmale

Dont call the cops. Dont get lawyers involved.

Why anyone would feel safe speaking freely to their attorney is insane to me.

It would be better to tell a priest. He would probably have a leg to stand on if he wished to keep his vows and not speak of what was confessed no matter what the law says.

This investigation has made me go far from indifference. I am praying to the Karma demons and angels to touch everyone involved.

Yeah you can't commit crimes with your attorney. Or if he is a crook you are screwed.

a reply to: tadaman

The way people feel safe speaking freely to their attorney is insane to me.

It would depend what you're talking to your attorney about. If you're talking about doing something illegal to your attorney and he lets you do so, both of you are pretty stupid.

It would be better to tell a priest. He would probably have a leg to stand on if he wished to keep his vows and not speak of what was confessed no matter what the law says.

Once again, it depends. But I don't think a priest could help you if you wanted a porn star to keep her mouth shut.