It’s insane on Twitter. Like Alex Jones is running the show.
Calling Mueller a liberal plant and he’s part of the Clinton cover up. It’s just bizzaroland.
I’ve considered posting in the Conspiracies thread about it, because there seems to be some sort of schism going on with the Q followers where most are convinced this is still Trump playing 4d chess / Mueller is secretly investigating Clinton really and a smaller number breaking off because they now think Mueller and Sessions are deep state plants. But honesty there’s just so much crazy it’s very hard to keep track and I’m not sure I want to.
Anyway, I’ve been reading up on Geoffrey Berman, the New York Attorney General who sought the warrant. He’s not just Republican, he seems to be a Trump supporter - or was until very recently. He even donated to Trump’s campaign. A hefty sum.
Not only that, he used to be Rudolph Guiliani’s law partner.
Which begs the question; what the hell did he find that made him seek a no-knock warrant on Trump’s lawyer?!
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
Also attorney-client privilege is a procedural rule, it's not in the constitution, all this hand waiving about the deep state shredding the constitution with this violation. I am just sad about the state of our education.
Also attorney-client privilege is a procedural rule, it's not in the constitution, all this hand waiving about the deep state shredding the constitution with this violation. I am just sad about the state of our education.
As well as the fact that it's not immune to being broken under the right circumstances, like lawyers breaking the law.
I figured attorney-client privelige broke when Junior claimed it for conversations where no attorney was present and got away with it (so far).
+22
Options
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
edited April 2018
Just because an attorney’s hands have been on a document does not make it automatically privileged. There is for sure stuff they seized that is evidence of Cohen’s independent and potentially criminal behavior unrelated to his representation of his clients.
Hakkekage on
3DS: 2165 - 6538 - 3417
NNID: Hakkekage
+17
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
It’s not hard to protect your attorney client privilege
Don’t commit crimes with your attorney
Don’t hire an attorney who will commit crimes with you
Don’t commit a bunch of crimes and then become the most scrutinized person on earth and then commit a bunch more crimes
+79
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
Also attorney-client privilege is a procedural rule, it's not in the constitution, all this hand waiving about the deep state shredding the constitution with this violation. I am just sad about the state of our education.
As well as the fact that it's not immune to being broken under the right circumstances, like lawyers breaking the law.
And it takes a lot to convince a judge that it is worth risking. Even just for random lawyer dude, let alone the President's personal lawyer.
Also, the FBI has a separate team isolated from the investigation who will go over everything and ensure that the investigators don't get any privileged information. Privilege isn't dead, it's being carefully protected in a situation where both the client and the attorney are under investigation for both related and unrelated crimes.
The fact that those two short tweets are all he has to say on the matter and he's not running his mouth off about it tells you that he thinks this has put him in serious trouble.
+9
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
Attorney-Client Privilege isn't dead it's entirely irrelevant in this case. This isn't about the FBI investigating communications between Cohen and his client(s). The FBI is investigating Cohen for committing crimes himself which he and his attorney essentially admitted to doing so because they're the worst fucking attorneys.
I guess Trump is starting to realize that there's a reason the Office of Government Ethics exists, and it's not to make the President's life inconvenient.
Also attorney-client privilege is a procedural rule, it's not in the constitution, all this hand waiving about the deep state shredding the constitution with this violation. I am just sad about the state of our education.
As well as the fact that it's not immune to being broken under the right circumstances, like lawyers breaking the law.
And it takes a lot to convince a judge that it is worth risking. Even just for random lawyer dude, let alone the President's personal lawyer.
And this isn't some "obviously compromised partisan leftist" judge. As others have said, it's a Trump supporter who is (at least prior to this) Trump’s nominee for the seat.
That's not to day this guy is compromised (obviously not, given the decision to approve the warrants), but you don't get a more favorable set of factors for a case than this. And the judge HAD to know this could severely impact his career.
And yet he saw the evidence and heard the testimony of the FBI, and granted the warrant anyway.
Wonder if he's going to be a pariah with conservative media now, for apparently following the rule of law. It's sad that THAT is a failure point for Republicans now.
Popehat/Ken White has a similar write up in the NYT that he had on his site but this is new I believe:
But consider this: The Stormy Daniels payout may be outside the scope of the Russia investigation, but it’s possible that Mr. Cohen’s records are full of materials that are squarely within that scope. And the law is clear: If investigators executing a lawful warrant seize evidence of additional crimes, they may use that evidence. Thus Mr. Trump and Mr. Cohen, with their catastrophically clumsy handling of the Daniels affair, may have handed Mr. Mueller devastating evidence.
If they find documents not turned over in a civil suit, would that be a criminal violation or a civil one, and would evidence of civil wrongdoing fall under the same rules?
Ex: If they find evidence that Trump reimbursed him for the Stormy thing, then there's no FEC violation, but they did find documents related to civil malfeasance (breach of contracts, etc), would they be obliged to do something with it?
Popehat/Ken White has a similar write up in the NYT that he had on his site but this is new I believe:
But consider this: The Stormy Daniels payout may be outside the scope of the Russia investigation, but it’s possible that Mr. Cohen’s records are full of materials that are squarely within that scope. And the law is clear: If investigators executing a lawful warrant seize evidence of additional crimes, they may use that evidence. Thus Mr. Trump and Mr. Cohen, with their catastrophically clumsy handling of the Daniels affair, may have handed Mr. Mueller devastating evidence.
If they find documents not turned over in a civil suit, would that be a criminal violation or a civil one, and would evidence of civil wrongdoing fall under the same rules?
Ex: If they find evidence that Trump reimbursed him for the Stormy thing, then there's no FEC violation, but they did find documents related to civil malfeasance (breach of contracts, etc), would they be obliged to do something with it?
Generally speaking, if you uncover evidence of a crime while trying to find evidence of a different crime, you still get to pursue the newly-discovered crime.
Rod Rosenstein Personally Approved F.B.I. Raid on Trump Lawyer, Officials Say
Mr. Trump’s advisers have spent the last 24 hours trying to convince the president not to make an impulsive decision that could put the president in more legal jeopardy and ignite a controversy that could consume his presidency, several people close to Mr. Trump said.
While Mr. Rosenstein must sign off on all moves that Mr. Mueller makes, that is not necessarily the case for searches — like this one — that are carried out by other federal law enforcement offices. Justice Department regulations require prosecutors to consult with senior criminal prosecutors in Washington — but not necessarily the deputy attorney general — before conducting a search of a lawyer’s files.
The involvement of Mr. Rosenstein and top prosecutors in New York in the raid of Mr. Cohen’s office makes it harder for Mr. Trump to argue that his legal problems are the result of a witch hunt led by Mr. Mueller. In addition to Mr. Rosenstein, all of the top law enforcement officials involved in the raid are Republicans: Mr. Mueller, Christopher A. Wray, the F.B.I. Director, and Geoffrey Berman, the interim United States attorney in New York.
While Mr. Trump is focused for the moment on Mr. Rosenstein, many of the president’s advisers and allies are fearful that the president also intends to fire Mr. Mueller in an attempt to end the Russia investigation. Asked by reporters on Monday night whether he intends to do so, Mr. Trump said, “We’ll see what happens.”
It is cute that the NYT thinks facts matter to Trump.
Well that's new. We already knew that the USA for Southern NY would have had to approve this but that he kicked it upstairs to Rosenstein is new (and totally makes sense.) Also note, that the USA in question was appointed by Trump, after he fired Preet Bharara after publicly stating he wouldn't.
I find it curious that the New York Times article brings up all of the DoJ people being Republicans, as if that matters. Mueller is a Republican. Party affiliation doesn't really matter, only willingness to look the other way for the boss
SCOOP: ABC News has learned Geoffrey Berman, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, is recused from the Michael Cohen investigation. He had no role in raid of Cohen's office. Another recusal that will make @realDonaldTrump unhappy.
I find it curious that the New York Times article brings up all of the DoJ people being Republicans, as if that matters. Mueller is a Republican. Party affiliation doesn't really matter, only willingness to look the other way for the boss
Because Trump, Fox et al is going to call them Democrats, and that is actual journalistic due diligence
SCOOP: ABC News has learned Geoffrey Berman, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, is recused from the Michael Cohen investigation. He had no role in raid of Cohen's office. Another recusal that will make @realDonaldTrump unhappy.
I find it curious that the New York Times article brings up all of the DoJ people being Republicans, as if that matters. Mueller is a Republican. Party affiliation doesn't really matter, only willingness to look the other way for the boss
Well if we define Republican by the qualities shared by the elected representatives than looking the other way for Trump is like a central party platform plank.
SCOOP: ABC News has learned Geoffrey Berman, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, is recused from the Michael Cohen investigation. He had no role in raid of Cohen's office. Another recusal that will make @realDonaldTrump unhappy.
Can we get some info here on who this person is and why they've recused themselves?
SCOOP: ABC News has learned Geoffrey Berman, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, is recused from the Michael Cohen investigation. He had no role in raid of Cohen's office. Another recusal that will make @realDonaldTrump unhappy.
Can we get some info here on who this person is and why they've recused themselves?
Here's what google says searching for his name:
"Geoffrey Steven Berman is an American lawyer currently serving as the Interim United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. President Donald Trump reportedly intends to nominate him to permanently serve in the position."
Posts
I’ve considered posting in the Conspiracies thread about it, because there seems to be some sort of schism going on with the Q followers where most are convinced this is still Trump playing 4d chess / Mueller is secretly investigating Clinton really and a smaller number breaking off because they now think Mueller and Sessions are deep state plants. But honesty there’s just so much crazy it’s very hard to keep track and I’m not sure I want to.
Anyway, I’ve been reading up on Geoffrey Berman, the New York Attorney General who sought the warrant. He’s not just Republican, he seems to be a Trump supporter - or was until very recently. He even donated to Trump’s campaign. A hefty sum.
Not only that, he used to be Rudolph Guiliani’s law partner.
Which begs the question; what the hell did he find that made him seek a no-knock warrant on Trump’s lawyer?!
Is Fox talking about how this is a violation of attorney-client privilege and ignoring the exceptions to the rule?
Just in case anyone is tempted to provide one, this isn't a general Trump did something awful thread.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
As well as the fact that it's not immune to being broken under the right circumstances, like lawyers breaking the law.
NNID: Hakkekage
Don’t commit crimes with your attorney
Don’t hire an attorney who will commit crimes with you
Don’t commit a bunch of crimes and then become the most scrutinized person on earth and then commit a bunch more crimes
And it takes a lot to convince a judge that it is worth risking. Even just for random lawyer dude, let alone the President's personal lawyer.
Brian Kilmeade on Fox and Friends at 6:02 this morning:
The raid of Cohen's office was "to get to the documents that many people thought violated attorney-client privilege"
Which doesn't even make sense, but what can you expect?
some say!
The Best People!
Concordetly,
Politics makes for some strange bed fellows.
It could be that they'd love nothing better than a Mike Pence presidency.
Why you gotta try to ruin this for me.
That's not to day this guy is compromised (obviously not, given the decision to approve the warrants), but you don't get a more favorable set of factors for a case than this. And the judge HAD to know this could severely impact his career.
And yet he saw the evidence and heard the testimony of the FBI, and granted the warrant anyway.
Wonder if he's going to be a pariah with conservative media now, for apparently following the rule of law. It's sad that THAT is a failure point for Republicans now.
These f'n guys.
If they find documents not turned over in a civil suit, would that be a criminal violation or a civil one, and would evidence of civil wrongdoing fall under the same rules?
Ex: If they find evidence that Trump reimbursed him for the Stormy thing, then there's no FEC violation, but they did find documents related to civil malfeasance (breach of contracts, etc), would they be obliged to do something with it?
Generally speaking, if you uncover evidence of a crime while trying to find evidence of a different crime, you still get to pursue the newly-discovered crime.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Jon Karl reports for ABC
Because Trump, Fox et al is going to call them Democrats, and that is actual journalistic due diligence
So Berman didn't approve the warrant then?
Pretty sure he was appointed directly by Trump.
Well if we define Republican by the qualities shared by the elected representatives than looking the other way for Trump is like a central party platform plank.
Here's what google says searching for his name:
"Geoffrey Steven Berman is an American lawyer currently serving as the Interim United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. President Donald Trump reportedly intends to nominate him to permanently serve in the position."
That's a pretty clear conflict.