Cohen Raid starts leaking...

and it begins, the unethical media have taken the ''anonymous leaks'' that have come out of Cohen's office - and reported them front page... weeks before the midterms... if this isnt election interference, I don't know what its!

Wallstreet Journal

The Wall Street Journal today quote sources familiar with the events as saying Mr Trump instructed his then-lawyer Michael Cohen to seek a restraining order against the former adult film actress, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford.

sources familiar with... again.... they don't even attempt to hide their unethical practices

At the President’s request, made in February this year, Mr Cohen sought a confidential arbitration to compel Ms Clifford to abide by a nondisclosure agreement she signed in October 2016, the newspaper claims.

and the sucker punch just to ram it home

Mr Trump reportedly told his lawyer to work directly with his son Eric to co-ordinate the legal response.

Eric Trump, together with his brother Donald Junior, runs the Trump Organisation in his father’s absence.

I don't think anyone really gives a damn if a billionaire trump paid of a blonde bimbo whore he screwed over a decade ago. This raid was a criminal act, the leaking of information is a criminal act, the interference in government and elections is criminal.... A mainstream media organisation running such an explosive article based on anonymous sources weeks from midterms.. is a criminal act!!

I'd be keen to know how many Democrats have received money, either indirectly or directly, from Weinstein? Epstein? Soros?
I'd like to know why Feinstein can have a Chinese spy on her arm for decades and still be running these committees?
How can Clinton, Huma, Lynch, Comey, Mccabe, Strzok all be walking around collecting money for their crimes while in office?

But yes, ok... Trump paid off a bimbo whore porn star and gave her cash to shuttup!... You go Media and Democrats! yay! winning you $&!(@*#@! idiots!

a reply to: Agit8dChop

This raid was a criminal act

False. The search(es) were conducted under duly issued warrants.

Or you have information to the contrary?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Agit8dChop

This raid was a criminal act

False. The search(es) were conducted under duly issued warrants.

just like the FISA warrants I guess..

I'm so glad US Law Enforcement have such great checks and balances on those kinds of things.

a reply to: Agit8dChop

Yes. Enforcement requests warrants from the judiciary. Providing cause. Judiciary grants, or denies, the warrants.
Checks. Balances.


Or do you have information to the contrary?

I dont get it? What's new here? I thought it was already common knowledge that Trump paid off a person he had consensual sex with so that she wouldn't blab about it and hurt his standing with evangelical Christians during the 2016 election?

a reply to: Phage

Legality assumes the information provided to the judiciary was factual and complete. If it was, the search was legal. If it was not, the search is not legal.

The fact that lawyer-client confidentiality was disregarded in this case indicates to me that it might not have been legal for the reason stated above.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

The fact that lawyer-client confidentiality was disregarded in this case indicates to me that it might not have been legal for the reason stated above.

The fact that you believe this to be the case indicates that you are lacking in facts.

Special Master?

a reply to: Phage

Excuse me? I believe both of us are lacking in facts concerning this, unless you have seen the warrants and evidence submitted to the judge.

What I stated is my belief. Nothing more.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

And you believe that the warrants were not legal?
That it is unprecedented that an attorney's records be subject to warrant?

Wondering where the story is.
If you just paid someone money to sign an NDA and they then start blabbing, why would you not instruct your lawyer to get a restraining order????

Democrat tactics are just getting more strange by the day.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Phage

Legality assumes the information provided to the judiciary was factual and complete. If it was, the search was legal. If it was not, the search is not legal.

The fact that lawyer-client confidentiality was disregarded in this case indicates to me that it might not have been legal for the reason stated above.

TheRedneck

Evangelicals don’t care, as with most republicans, they might not like trump, but the reality is if they stay home or don’t vote for republicans at the mid term or for the regular election they will get a democrat which is far worse than trump. The reality is this stuff just ticks republicans off and stirs them up to vote not causes trump to lose votes. It’s the opposite effect.

I personally despise trump. I think he is a moron. However, given the choice I am voting straight republican at both mid term and regular. All this crap is rediculous and I’m a moderate independent.

Camain

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TheRedneck

The fact that lawyer-client confidentiality was disregarded in this case indicates to me that it might not have been legal for the reason stated above.

The fact that you believe this to be the case indicates that you are lacking in facts.

Special Master?

Do you know all the details of the warrant?
Are you suggesting that warrants have never been issued when they should not have been?

I seem to recall the top prosecutor in the Southern District of NY had to recuse himself just before the warrants were issued by someone else and a certain Rod Rosenstein was made aware of the warrants before the were executed.

It all seems a little suspect to me - like you I don't know the detail, but we are aware of the lengths that the DoJ and FBI have been willing to go to in order to undermine the President.

a reply to: UKTruth

It all seems a little suspect to me

What a surprise.

The election is rigged, right? Until you win it.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UKTruth

It all seems a little suspect to me

What a surprise.

The election is rigged, right? Until you win it.

Or.. the election can't possibly be rigged, until you lose it.

a reply to: Agit8dChop

I don't think it's "explosive" "news" I think it's the typical irrelevant tabloid garbage the media has been spewing for years now.

I couldn't care any less.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UKTruth

It all seems a little suspect to me

What a surprise.

The election is rigged, right? Until you win it.

Or.. the election can't possibly be rigged, until you lose it.

Ha ha, he walked right into that one.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UKTruth

It all seems a little suspect to me

What a surprise.

The election is rigged, right? Until you win it.

At least Bernie got a new house and a book deal out of it. 😄

a reply to: Phage

I believe it is a very rare occurrence warranting extreme situations, which I have not seen alluded to. So yes, I am suspicious of the legality.

TheRedneck

Well, with the media walking away from Dr. Ford, they needed something to keep their viewers engaged...i mean enraged.

deflect and distract, these clowns know they are losing the kavanaugh battle so now they need to direct peoples attention elsewhere.

look over here, people familiar with the matter say x. anonymous sources claim y. gimme a break.