So you admit Putin and Trump colluded?
Comey and Mueller
- Thread starter Musburger1
- Start date
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
There it is.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Thank you attorney Garmel. Put that JD next to your Economics degree.
That is about as intelligent as your "temporary recusal" statement. I just showed you what it takes for this to be legal. Show me where I'm wrong. The attorney-client privilege can't be broken in this way. I know this incident doesn't matter to you because you're all about getting Trump, law be damned. I know of one conservative lawyer that agrees with me. One of the most renowned lawyers out there also agrees with me who's also a liberal. http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/04/...ilence-michael-cohen-trump-lawyer-office-raid Here's the kicker-This is over Stormy Daniels. Btw, you really are a dick.
Last edited:
Garmel,
Dershowitz is correct that the ACLU would be crapping in its pants about this if we were talking about anybody other than Donald Trump, and it's obviously reasonable to call into question the legality of this search. However, the issue isn't as cut and dried as it's being made out to be. I don't know exactly what the FBI is looking for or for what purpose, so I can't judge the situation.
However, let me provide an angle that the FBI is likely relying upon, and like I said, I can't comment on the merits of what they're doing, because I don't have the facts to do it. The FBI is likely going to argue that what it's seeking is not privileged communications. Not everything in a lawyer's file is a "privileged communication."
A 1950 US district court case explains when a communication becomes privileged. A communication is privileged "only if (1) the asserted holder of the privilege is or sought to become a client;
(2) the person to whom the communication was made (a) is a member of the bar of a court, or his subordinate and (b) in connection with this communication is acting as a lawyer;
(3) the communication relates to a fact of which the attorney was informed (a) by his client (b) without the presence of strangers (c) for the purpose of securing primarily either (i) an opinion of law or (ii) legal services or (iii) assistance in some legal proceeding, and not (d) for the purpose of committing a crime or tort; and
(4) the privilege has been (a) claimed and (b) not waived by the client."
See United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 89 F.Supp. 357, 358-59 (D. Mass. 1950).
There's a lot of wiggle room there. For example, suppose I'm in the unenviable position of handling slip and fall case against HEB. (I handled a few of those, and they're an enormous pain in the ***.) What's going to be my file? Several things. There's going to be my contract with the client. That's going to be privileged unless attorney's fees are sought in the case, which they wouldn't be. There's going to be an intake form filled out by the client. That's obviously privileged. There's going to be letter to the client confirming the representation. That's going to be privileged. But what else? There will be medical and billing records. Those would be covered by the physician-patient privilege, but that's at least partially waived to make a bodily injury claim. There are probably photographs of the area where the client fell and if possible, what he slipped on. Those aren't privileged. There are likely witness statements from people who saw the client fall or have knowledge of how the slippery substance got on the floor and how long it had been there. None of that is a privileged communication. There will be letters between me and HEB, its ******* adjusters, and its ******* lawyers. None of that is privileged. And of course, no matter how good your case is, HEB offers junk unless you actually sue, so there will also be a litigation file, which is going to consist almost entirely of documents exchanged with HEB and/or filed with the court. None of that's privileged.
The point is that there's a lot in a lawyer's file that isn't privileged. For example, if there is correspondence between Trump's lawyer and Stormy Daniels (which I'm sure the FBI wants to see), that's not privileged. If there's a copy of the check he gave to Daniels, that's not privileged. If there's a settlement agreement between Trump and Daniels, that's not privileged.
In addition, suppose the FBI wants Cohen's bank records to go after him for bank fraud or wire fraud and gets his financial documents that have nothing to do with Trump. None of that's privileged.
Again, I'm not saying the FBI is completely right in what they're doing. I'm just saying it's not a slam dunk that they're wrong. We would need more specific information.
Last edited:
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Reminder that not that long ago, five Clinton aides received immunity deals in the FBI purported “investigation” of Hillary.
In particular Cheryl Mills was allowed to serve as "counsel" for Hillary for the sole purpose of allowing her to invoke attorney client privilege. This was in addition to her serving as a fact witness. The other Clinton aids were John Bentel and Heather Samuelson (both of State), Bryan Pagliano ("IT aide" who was later held in contempt of Congress and allowed to keep pleading "da fif") and Paul Combetta (Platte River Networks dude who "wiped" HRC's computer/phone/email records)
Cheryl Mills Mills' home was never raided, nor were her files and computers seized.
Nor was Bentel's
Nor was Samuelson's
Nor was Pagliano's
Nor was Combetta's
Nor was Huma's
Nor was Hillary's
Principles matter. Leftists' lack of them and their tacit approval of Mueller's behavior now will come back to bite them some day in the future.
Here is an article on the Clinton aid deals from Sept 2016
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...d-immunity-deals-in-fbi-probe/article/2602684
In particular Cheryl Mills was allowed to serve as "counsel" for Hillary for the sole purpose of allowing her to invoke attorney client privilege. This was in addition to her serving as a fact witness. The other Clinton aids were John Bentel and Heather Samuelson (both of State), Bryan Pagliano ("IT aide" who was later held in contempt of Congress and allowed to keep pleading "da fif") and Paul Combetta (Platte River Networks dude who "wiped" HRC's computer/phone/email records)
Cheryl Mills Mills' home was never raided, nor were her files and computers seized.
Nor was Bentel's
Nor was Samuelson's
Nor was Pagliano's
Nor was Combetta's
Nor was Huma's
Nor was Hillary's
Principles matter. Leftists' lack of them and their tacit approval of Mueller's behavior now will come back to bite them some day in the future.
Here is an article on the Clinton aid deals from Sept 2016
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...d-immunity-deals-in-fbi-probe/article/2602684
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
You have no idea what the Federal prosecutors were seeking to find to make the claim it falls under attorney-client privilege. That's the genesis of my comment. If you don't like getting de-pantsed then question what you are reading more.
We know Dershowitz has become a frequent dinner date of Trump at Mar-a-lago. He's an accomplished lawyer who clearly has a dog in the fight.
Meanwhile, the investigation continues.
They took everything in the office. They will inevitably come across Trump/Cohen conversations on the hard drive. When they are looking through the stuff you think they'll say "we better not look at this part, it's a private conversation between Cohen and Trump". Good grief.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Using your logic, Cohen's computer is untouchable for any reason. He could be the preeminent Pedophile memorabilia dealer on the internet but if that computer has email (btw, Trump doesnt use email) between Trump-Cohen then your argument is that the whole computer is protected by attorneyattorney-client privilege? I'm not a lawyer and don't pretend to be but i suspect that privilege isn't as expansive as you are claiming.
Deez outlined some potential limits above. Your frustration may be misplaced. Rather than defending the "attorney-client" talking point recognize that the Federal Prosecutor who executed tfe search warrant, the judge that granted it and Mueller team likely aren't in the habit of blatantly violating the law, especially if their actions wouldn't hold up in court later.
Does this mean they are infallible? No. My money is on them rather the grand conspiracy advocates.
You quote Deez but you also missed the part where he said that I could be right. Perhaps my mistrust of Mueller is affecting my judgment. Looking at his history(anthrax, anyone?) I don't trust him as far as I can throw him. As corrupt as the FBI is and with them doing something like this makes me worry.
Last edited:
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
The difference is, both Deez and I have said we don't know. You've unequivocally proclaimed "ILLEGAL"!
Kellyanne Conway's husband tweeted this to DJT's claim of attorney-client privilege is dead.
From this article on TheHill.com:
As an aside, have you noticed that your trust lens is only leveraged for Mueller and co? You believe Trump and his team whole heartedly while the evidence that should make you skeptical of their statements is vastly greater than Mueller? Be skeptical, but recognize your own bias.
Last edited:
The assumption is that everyone is considered innocent until proved guilty. When I see Mueller who loads himself with biased people on the team it makes me skeptical of everything they do. When I see some of the crap the FBI has pulled it makes me skeptical of them. It will be proven in the future that this Trump investigation was due to politics. I'll be sure to point it out to you when this witch hunt is done. If this wasn't about politics Hillary would be under investigation as well.
Last edited:
We keep saying that, but I have yet to see it happen in my lifetime. Ted Kennedy got away with killing a girl.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
I'm with you here which is why I've openly advocated for simply waiting for the investigation to be completed. To me, Manafort's involvement with Pro-Kremlin Ukranians is enough to justify this investigation. Remember when Manafort personally led the softening of the Republican party platform on Ukraine and Russia's Crimea saga?
Innocent until proven guilty but you've already made up your mind? Do you always start your research with a result predetermined?
Btw, you didn't look at section A.
Alternatives to Search Warrants. In order to avoid impinging on valid attorney-client relationships, prosecutors are expected to take the least intrusive approach consistent with vigorous and effective law enforcement when evidence is sought from an attorney actively engaged in the practice of law. Consideration should be given to obtaining information from other sources or through the use of a subpoena, unless such efforts could compromise the criminal investigation or prosecution, or could result in the obstruction or destruction of evidence, or would otherwise be ineffective.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
unless such efforts could compromise the criminal investigation or prosecution, or could result in the obstruction or destruction of evidence, or would otherwise be ineffective.
Fortunately, Mueller's investigation has not been leaking so we don't know what went into the decision to get a search warrant and confiscate the documents/devices. They deserve the benefit of the doubt every bit as much as Trump and team. By any measure, Mueller has been running an above board investigation.
Last edited:
Trump's lawyer has been completely cooperative with Mueller. Where's the evidence of any wrongdoing? This raid was completely unnecessary.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Neither of us know what level of cooperation there has been. We have Cohen's (and his lawyers) statements and that's it. You have to assume their side of the story is the full story to make that declaration.
Cohen has already been proven to lie in the Stormy Daniels saga so you'd have to ignore that evidence for your story to be true. Remember, initially he denied knowing anything about Daniels then later was shown to have paid her $130k after which he changed is story.
If you believe something this minor that Manafort was doing could cause this investigation to happen then Hillary really should have been under investigation first for collusion. As I said I have made up my mind because I see this for what it is. The FBI has shown that this isn't about justice, it's about removing Trump from office at any cost. We're seeing the "insurance policy" that was mentioned in action. When you see the double standard on how Hillary is treated and on how Trump is treated you see things for what they really are. You can scream "conspiracy theory" all you want. Time will show me to be correct.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
To believe that, you'd have to believe that Rosenstien, Sessions and Mueller are in on the charade. Yes, individual agents clearly showed disrespect for Trump. They were influential but not ultimate decision makers.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
And if it doesn't will you openly proclaim mea culpa? Keep in mind, 5 individuals have already plead guilty to indictments by Mueller. They are all small fries so far, admittedly.
Cohen's lawyer said, "Cohen has cooperated completely including providing thousands of non-privileged documents to the Congress and sitting for depositions under oath"
I'm certain he wouldn't lie for Cohen openly like this if it wasn't true.
Last edited:
I have no problems admitting i'm wrong. Those indictments look to be for other things besides Russia collusion. Many of them like Manafort are criminals.
Last edited:
Sessions seems to be a bumbling fool. i don't think he knows what's going on or where he's at the moment. . Rosenstein is dirty for sure and Mueller probably is. Mueller looks to be highly unethical if you look at some of his past cases.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
You still don't know whether that's the complete list of everything. All I'm saying is they apparently had reason to believe that what they were looking for might be destroyed and or obstruction would occur. Both Cohen's lawyers' statement and my statement can be true.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
"Innocent until proven guilty"... does that only apply to your desired narrative? You are clearly giving Cohen the benefit of the doubt even though he's lied directly to the media. Meanwhile, Rosenstein is "dirty" based on conjecture? The lens you are using is being unequally applied based on your biases.
Innocent until proven guilty only applies in a court of law. I didn't give Cohen anything. I'm just quoting his lawyer. The fact that Rosenstien didn't do the right thing and recuse himself in the Russia affair and a few other things tells me all I need to know.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Uh...here is a timeline. Things other than Russia collusion? Maybe you are looking specifically for a "collusion" charge. You'll never see that because it doesn't exist. Many other laws have both admittedly been broken (guilty pleas) and have been charged with being broken. Not admitting this is akin to Al Capone supporters claiming he wasn't involved in racketeering because he was convicted of tax evasion.
This is merely the publicly available information since Mueller's team isn't leaking.
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
Mueller. Twice decorated veteran who volunteered. 1 wife of 50 years. Casio watch. Tried the private sector. Didn't like it. Came back to be a prosecutor. Republican. Served for both Bush and Obama.
Trump. Bone spurs have healed nicely. 3 wives. Various ******* grabbed along with approximately 22 very similar accusations of sexual misconduct. At least 2 examples of his people paying hush money to keep accusers quiet. That hair. Has filed bankruptcy numerous times. Known to simply not pay creditors. An obvious liar and possibly the worst human to hold an elected office.
Gee....who to trust.
Trump. Bone spurs have healed nicely. 3 wives. Various ******* grabbed along with approximately 22 very similar accusations of sexual misconduct. At least 2 examples of his people paying hush money to keep accusers quiet. That hair. Has filed bankruptcy numerous times. Known to simply not pay creditors. An obvious liar and possibly the worst human to hold an elected office.
Gee....who to trust.
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
New Jaguar TV Commercial!?
- Started by WorsterMan
- Replies: 0
- West Mall
-
Black Lives Matter; The Cerebral Warlords of Our Time
- Started by iatrogenic
- Replies: 1K
- West Mall
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
President Biden Accountability Thread
- Started by 2003TexasGrad
- Replies: 4K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
