What if it turns out he paid hush money from the campaign??
Also, if you read properly, you'll see that Mueller didn't conduct this raid and it tangential to the special counsel investigation. Open your eyes, man.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
F.B.I. Raids Office, Hotel, and Home of Trump’s Longtime Lawyer Cohen. Update: Hannity 3rd client
- Thread starter Shard Shinjuku
- Start date
- Status
What if it turns out he paid hush money from the campaign??
Also, if you read properly, you'll see that Mueller didn't conduct this raid and it tangential to the special counsel investigation. Open your eyes, man.
You're way too into hacking, it should be
C:\Users\Michael\Desktop\My Crimes
Paul Manafort said the same thing until they walked in his front door and found documents he had held from them within two feet.
User warned: Trolling and thread derailment
Another big old nothing burger?
This has been going on forever and this investigation seems to be going nowhere. Smfh
This has been going on forever and this investigation seems to be going nowhere. Smfh
That's not what this is about, and I think you know it. If I referenced Bill Clinton being impeached over a blowjob, you'd probably be the first to point out that it was about perjury. You can at least try to expend the same amount of energy in this case, can you not?
Has it dawned on you that perhaps the Special Counsel's office was investigating the Trump campaign (and Cohen specifically) for financing 'irregularities' like the kind mentioned in the Steele dossier, found evidence of this other thing, and referred it to the NY office because it was below their paygrade?
Last edited:
Just keep voting R dude. Eventually one of them wont be a crook and you'll be happy.
They'll drag Trump himself to jail and these people will still wonder if their nothingburger from 2 years ago is edible
A sitting presidents long time lawyer's offices are getting raided by the fbi, and it's a nothingburger...?
I know users like kristoffer make it difficult, but I can tell the one you're quoting is sarcasm.
clearly nothing cause I dont seen Donald being drag out of the white house in handcuffs
Shit needs to start popin I'm tired of all these nothing threads.
good explainer by a lawyer
edit: site died so i'll copy the article here for now:
The Search of Trump Lawyer Michael Cohen's Office: What We Can Infer Immediately
APRIL 9, 2018 BY KEN WHITE LEAVE A COMMENT
The Very Big News of the day: FBI Agents raided the law office of Michael Cohen, President Trump's lawyer who was involved in payment of $130,000 to adult performer "Stormy Daniels" for a nondisclosure agreement.
Recently I've been listening to the Podcast "Slow Burn," about Watergate. There's a fascinating theme throughout it: when you're living a historical event, how do you know? How can you tell when a development is a Big Deal?
This is a big deal. It's very early on, but here's some things we can already tell.
1. According to Cohen's own lawyer, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (widely regarded within itself as being the most important and prestigious U.S. Attorney's Office in the country) secured the search warrants for the FBI. Assuming this report is correct, that means that a very mainstream U.S. Attorney's Office — not just Special Counsel Robert Mueller's office — thought that there was enough for a search warrant here.
2. Moreover, it's not just that the office thought that there was enough for a search warrant. They thought there was enough for a search warrant of an attorney's office for that attorney's client communications. That's a very fraught and extraordinary move that requires multiple levels of authorization within the Department of Justice. The U.S. Attorney's Manual — at Section 9-13.320 — contains the relevant policies and procedures. The highlights:
The feds are only supposed to raid a law firm if less intrusive measures won't work. As the USAM puts it:
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.
Such a search requires high-level approval. The USAM requires such a search warrant to be approved by the U.S. Attorney — the head of the office, a Presidential appointee — and requires "consultation" with the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. This is not a couple of rogue AUSAs sneaking in a warrant.
Such a search requires an elaborate review process. The basic rule is that the government may not deliberately seize, or review, attorney-client communications. The USAM — and relevant caselaw — therefore require the feds to set up a review process. That process might involve a judge reviewing the materials to separate out what is privileged (or what might fall within an exception to the privilege), or else set up a "dirty team" that does the review but is insulated from the "clean team" running the investigation. Another option is a "special master," an experienced and qualified third-party attorney to do the review. Sometimes the reviewing team will only be identifying and protecting privileged material. Sometimes the reviewing team will be preparing to seek, or to implement, a court ruling that the documents are not privileged. (Robert Mueller is aggressive on this sort of thing; he already sought and obtained a court ruling that some of Paul Manafort's communications with his lawyers were not privileged because they were undertaken for the purpose of fraud — the so-called "crime-fraud exception" to the attorney-client privilege.
3. A Magistrate Judge signed off on this. Federal magistrate judges (appointed by local district judges, not by the President) review search warrant applications. A Magistrate Judge therefore reviewed this application and found probable cause — that is, probable cause to believe that the subject premises (Cohen's office) contains specified evidence of a specified federal crime. Now, Magistrate Judges sometimes are a little too rubber-stampy for my taste. But here, where the Magistrate Judge knew that this would become one of the most scrutinized search warrant applications ever, and because the nature of the warrant of an attorney's office is unusual, you can expect that the Magistrate Judge felt pretty confident that there was enough there.
4. The search warrant application (the lengthy narrative from the FBI agent setting for the evidence) is almost certainly still under seal, and even Michael Cohen doesn't get to see it [yet]. But the FBI would have left the warrant itself — and that shows (1) the federal criminal statutes they were investigating, and (2) the list of items they wanted to seize. Much can be learned for those. Assuming Michael Cohen doesn't release it, watch for it to be leaked.
Again: this is a Big Deal.
I'll follow up with more as it becomes available.
APRIL 9, 2018 BY KEN WHITE LEAVE A COMMENT
The Very Big News of the day: FBI Agents raided the law office of Michael Cohen, President Trump's lawyer who was involved in payment of $130,000 to adult performer "Stormy Daniels" for a nondisclosure agreement.
Recently I've been listening to the Podcast "Slow Burn," about Watergate. There's a fascinating theme throughout it: when you're living a historical event, how do you know? How can you tell when a development is a Big Deal?
This is a big deal. It's very early on, but here's some things we can already tell.
1. According to Cohen's own lawyer, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (widely regarded within itself as being the most important and prestigious U.S. Attorney's Office in the country) secured the search warrants for the FBI. Assuming this report is correct, that means that a very mainstream U.S. Attorney's Office — not just Special Counsel Robert Mueller's office — thought that there was enough for a search warrant here.
2. Moreover, it's not just that the office thought that there was enough for a search warrant. They thought there was enough for a search warrant of an attorney's office for that attorney's client communications. That's a very fraught and extraordinary move that requires multiple levels of authorization within the Department of Justice. The U.S. Attorney's Manual — at Section 9-13.320 — contains the relevant policies and procedures. The highlights:
The feds are only supposed to raid a law firm if less intrusive measures won't work. As the USAM puts it:
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.
Such a search requires high-level approval. The USAM requires such a search warrant to be approved by the U.S. Attorney — the head of the office, a Presidential appointee — and requires "consultation" with the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. This is not a couple of rogue AUSAs sneaking in a warrant.
Such a search requires an elaborate review process. The basic rule is that the government may not deliberately seize, or review, attorney-client communications. The USAM — and relevant caselaw — therefore require the feds to set up a review process. That process might involve a judge reviewing the materials to separate out what is privileged (or what might fall within an exception to the privilege), or else set up a "dirty team" that does the review but is insulated from the "clean team" running the investigation. Another option is a "special master," an experienced and qualified third-party attorney to do the review. Sometimes the reviewing team will only be identifying and protecting privileged material. Sometimes the reviewing team will be preparing to seek, or to implement, a court ruling that the documents are not privileged. (Robert Mueller is aggressive on this sort of thing; he already sought and obtained a court ruling that some of Paul Manafort's communications with his lawyers were not privileged because they were undertaken for the purpose of fraud — the so-called "crime-fraud exception" to the attorney-client privilege.
3. A Magistrate Judge signed off on this. Federal magistrate judges (appointed by local district judges, not by the President) review search warrant applications. A Magistrate Judge therefore reviewed this application and found probable cause — that is, probable cause to believe that the subject premises (Cohen's office) contains specified evidence of a specified federal crime. Now, Magistrate Judges sometimes are a little too rubber-stampy for my taste. But here, where the Magistrate Judge knew that this would become one of the most scrutinized search warrant applications ever, and because the nature of the warrant of an attorney's office is unusual, you can expect that the Magistrate Judge felt pretty confident that there was enough there.
4. The search warrant application (the lengthy narrative from the FBI agent setting for the evidence) is almost certainly still under seal, and even Michael Cohen doesn't get to see it [yet]. But the FBI would have left the warrant itself — and that shows (1) the federal criminal statutes they were investigating, and (2) the list of items they wanted to seize. Much can be learned for those. Assuming Michael Cohen doesn't release it, watch for it to be leaked.
Again: this is a Big Deal.
I'll follow up with more as it becomes available.
Last edited:
Stupid question, can't the FBI just get the trump's taxes from the Irs if they have reasonable cause?
Why would they need to raid Cohen?
Why would they need to raid Cohen?
THIS LITERALLY JUST HAPPENED. I mean, I assume the FBI needs time to read and go over the documents?
If you don't see anything of value the why post and waste your time?
This is one of the stupidest posts I've ever read.
Edit: Nevermind, I just read that half-assed troll attempt a few pages back.
I disagree. Some kind of joint US-French military response looked inevitable even before this new broke. The assets for a limited cruise missile strike are already in the region.
They always Chinese Wall potential attorney client privileged work product. They will have a separate team of lawyer investigators review it. It's protection for those conducting the investigation.
Just so we're clear on what these trolls want. What is the Mueller team expected to do if they find evidence of a crime in their efforts and it's not a big box labeled RUSSIA? Ignore it? Destroy it?
Why even post if you don't know anything about the news you're commenting on?
"It's about ethics in the Special Counsel's Office."
- Status