People have mentioned before that the payouts to Stormy Daniels probably broke the law. Unfortunately, I don't really see how campaign finance laws would be enough to justify seizing evidence from a lawyer. Especially since this is being handled at the state level.
But something I haven't considered before: What if there's evidence that Cohen did extremely shady shit in order to acquire the $130,000 in the first place? Of course, the fact that Cohen would be willing to do something highly illegal is nothing new. But the prosecutors would have to present hard evidence of this being the case.
I still don't understand why stormy danials is acting as if there is an NDA. Trump got on tv and proclaimed he knew nothing of the sort. If he wasn't party to the NDA, than there is no NDA.
Doesn't mean Trump can't ruin her financially with lawsuits
lawsuits for what? violating an NDA that he's publicly stated doesn't exist?
It's not whether he'll win, it's how long he can tie her up in court with all those legal fees.
Harder to do in treason prison, I'd imagine. Though that would be in a brighter timeline.
Oh man, I haven’t even considered that as a possibility.
What would happen if Cohen flips on Trump?
Jesus Christ, that would be historic. Like, Mad Max historic.
He's been arrested for something outside of that investigation. The only possible flip that could happen is if Cohen could prove Trump is involved in the bank fraud.
Yes, but we’ve already discussed that any evidence of additional crimes uncovered during the warrant still count.
So, hypothetically, they could uncover evidence from the raid related to the Mueller investigation (which I assume is likely), hand it over to Mueller after the “taint” thing, then Mueller uses it to flip Cohen, along with whatever charges he’ll face with the original raid.
Also, any other crimes uncovered.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
People have mentioned before that the payouts to Stormy Daniels probably broke the law. Unfortunately, I don't really see how campaign finance laws would be enough to justify seizing evidence from a lawyer. Especially since this is being handled at the state level.
But something I haven't considered before: What if there's evidence that Cohen did extremely shady shit in order to acquire the $130,000 in the first place? Of course, the fact that Cohen would be willing to do something highly illegal is nothing new. But the prosecutors would have to present hard evidence of this being the case.
I still don't understand why stormy danials is acting as if there is an NDA. Trump got on tv and proclaimed he knew nothing of the sort. If he wasn't party to the NDA, than there is no NDA.
Doesn't mean Trump can't ruin her financially with lawsuits
lawsuits for what? violating an NDA that he's publicly stated doesn't exist?
Public statements do not override legal documents.
+17
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
People have mentioned before that the payouts to Stormy Daniels probably broke the law. Unfortunately, I don't really see how campaign finance laws would be enough to justify seizing evidence from a lawyer. Especially since this is being handled at the state level.
But something I haven't considered before: What if there's evidence that Cohen did extremely shady shit in order to acquire the $130,000 in the first place? Of course, the fact that Cohen would be willing to do something highly illegal is nothing new. But the prosecutors would have to present hard evidence of this being the case.
I still don't understand why stormy danials is acting as if there is an NDA. Trump got on tv and proclaimed he knew nothing of the sort. If he wasn't party to the NDA, than there is no NDA.
Doesn't mean Trump can't ruin her financially with lawsuits
lawsuits for what? violating an NDA that he's publicly stated doesn't exist?
It's not whether he'll win, it's how long he can tie her up in court with all those legal fees.
ok but there is no case to be tied up. he's already killed it.
113 motions and 3 years later she gets it dismissed with prejudice at a cost of a million dollars. Worst cases have gone on longer, and Trump is a vindictive troll.
If you're wondering who this dude is, check out his last name. That's not a coincidence. He's the husband.
This is how not to post a tweet.
You need to explain more than this if you're gonna just basically post a couple links in a tweet and say "he's the husband". Come on now. What are the links? What do they say? Why is it significant? (I realize this has been posted about further down the thread but just giving examples of what information should have been included in the original post)
Stephanie Clifford's (Stormy Daniels) lawyer, as mentioned above.
I dunno how much stock to put in this given he doesn't mention where the request came from, but seems to be strongly hinting that the person in question is relevant; maybe named in some documents?
Idly and speculatively leaning towards this particular angle being a recurring thing for Cohen and possibly a major component of the raid.
An official Statement by the President of the United States directing the Department of Justice to ignore Attorney-Client Privilege and effectively leave it as a dead letter in ongoing investigations is a rather bold move for Trump following his personal attorney having a search warrant executed against him...
+36
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
People have mentioned before that the payouts to Stormy Daniels probably broke the law. Unfortunately, I don't really see how campaign finance laws would be enough to justify seizing evidence from a lawyer. Especially since this is being handled at the state level.
But something I haven't considered before: What if there's evidence that Cohen did extremely shady shit in order to acquire the $130,000 in the first place? Of course, the fact that Cohen would be willing to do something highly illegal is nothing new. But the prosecutors would have to present hard evidence of this being the case.
I still don't understand why stormy danials is acting as if there is an NDA. Trump got on tv and proclaimed he knew nothing of the sort. If he wasn't party to the NDA, than there is no NDA.
Well she did go through with the 60 Minutes interview
People have mentioned before that the payouts to Stormy Daniels probably broke the law. Unfortunately, I don't really see how campaign finance laws would be enough to justify seizing evidence from a lawyer. Especially since this is being handled at the state level.
But something I haven't considered before: What if there's evidence that Cohen did extremely shady shit in order to acquire the $130,000 in the first place? Of course, the fact that Cohen would be willing to do something highly illegal is nothing new. But the prosecutors would have to present hard evidence of this being the case.
I still don't understand why stormy danials is acting as if there is an NDA. Trump got on tv and proclaimed he knew nothing of the sort. If he wasn't party to the NDA, than there is no NDA.
Doesn't mean Trump can't ruin her financially with lawsuits
lawsuits for what? violating an NDA that he's publicly stated doesn't exist?
It's not whether he'll win, it's how long he can tie her up in court with all those legal fees.
ok but there is no case to be tied up. he's already killed it.
edit: what would the case even look like?
trump: "your honor, I've never asked the plaintiff to sign an NDA, but she's not allowed to talk anyway."
judge: "ummm no. dismissed."
He would contradict his public statements when under oath, and that is not perjury.
+4
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
A gentle reminder that there is no attorney-client privilege for Cohen if, as he claims, he never discussed the Stormy Daniels payoff with Trump
It is always amazing to see dumb criminals hoisted by their own petard
This is the kind of shit that works fine if you are consistently doing small-time shit or are always operating from a position of relative strength. Because even if you're wrong or lying, the other side has no recourse other than to prove it, which is not always a viable option.
It's exactly the kind of shit that blows up in your face when the shit hits the fan, though.
People have mentioned before that the payouts to Stormy Daniels probably broke the law. Unfortunately, I don't really see how campaign finance laws would be enough to justify seizing evidence from a lawyer. Especially since this is being handled at the state level.
But something I haven't considered before: What if there's evidence that Cohen did extremely shady shit in order to acquire the $130,000 in the first place? Of course, the fact that Cohen would be willing to do something highly illegal is nothing new. But the prosecutors would have to present hard evidence of this being the case.
I still don't understand why stormy danials is acting as if there is an NDA. Trump got on tv and proclaimed he knew nothing of the sort. If he wasn't party to the NDA, than there is no NDA.
Doesn't mean Trump can't ruin her financially with lawsuits
lawsuits for what? violating an NDA that he's publicly stated doesn't exist?
It's not whether he'll win, it's how long he can tie her up in court with all those legal fees.
ok but there is no case to be tied up. he's already killed it.
edit: what would the case even look like?
trump: "your honor, I've never asked the plaintiff to sign an NDA, but she's not allowed to talk anyway."
judge: "ummm no. dismissed."
Trump lawyer - " Your honor, we would like to request a full review of all documents from sub section B of the criminal enforcement code pertaining to NDAs. We'd like to submit into evidence for review the entire body of work by Miss Daniels, and request a search and seizure warrant for NDA related material we believe she is storing in her home. We'd like to request a change of venue to Hawaii, no wait, Alaska. No, Hawaii again. Your honor, we'd like to file a motion for production of the one ring to rule them all. Your honor, we would like to file this document with the court. Oh wait, we forgot it, we'll bring it in next week. We demand to see Stormy Daniels long form birth certificate. We believe that our client is an asylum seeker. We need time to review the words we just said with Jeff Sessions. Your honor, we must recuse ourselves from the case because our client has fired us. Wait, we've just been re-hired and must demand that the opening arguments be repeated."
Judge - "Err, yes to like 10% of that"
Trump Lawyer - "GREAT! See you in a month. In the meantime, we will file legal paperwork which requires review with Stormy related to the case every 10 minutes"
One thing to keep in mind about the Stormy Daniels NDA is that it's not an anomaly. Trump has a history of trying to force people to sign unlawful NDAs rather indiscriminately. i.e., he tried to get his campaign workers to sign NDAs, and he tried to get his White House Staff (who don't actually work for him) to sign NDAs.
Cohen has played a large role in pushing these NDAs through. They would never hold up in court, which is why Cohen relies on intimidation tactics to prevent people from challenging him. According to Stormy, he's not above using death threats. Those tactics will work when you're dealing with a nobody, but they won't work against a judge.
If Cohen goes down and gets disbarred, then it's going to be open season on these NDAs. We've seen news reports of Trump having a hard time finding a lawyer willing to defend him on Mueller. Good luck trying to find a lawyer willing to defend a bunch of unenforceable contracts. Heck, Trump has issued so many NDAs over the years that the people who were forced to sign them can pretty much bury Trump in lawsuits where they attempt to challenge the validity, essentially turning the tables.
And if those NDAs go down, then a lot of people who were scared of coming forward in the past will suddenly come forward. And if Trump thinks that the leaks are bad right now, you haven't seen anything yet.
A gentle reminder that there is no attorney-client privilege for Cohen if, as he claims, he never discussed the Stormy Daniels payoff with Trump
It is always amazing to see dumb criminals hoisted by their own petard
This is the kind of shit that works fine if you are consistently doing small-time shit or are always operating from a position of relative strength. Because even if you're wrong or lying, the other side has no recourse other than to prove it, which is not always a viable option.
It's exactly the kind of shit that blows up in your face when the shit hits the fan, though.
It's a double-edged sword that it turns out Cohen just decided to fall upon with no outside prompting
Either he was telling the truth and he isn't protected by attorney-client privilege, which, oops, means he can't hide behind that shield if he was doing something illegal
or
He did tell Trump about the illegal thing he was doing, which is an entirely different can of worms to be opening, one that isn't great for either of them, and also isn't protected by attorney-client privilege, because of the crime-fraud exception (something which Cohen is likely keenly aware of and Trump seems to have no clue about)
The takeaway is this: a judge that Trump appointed decided that there was enough evidence of criminal activity to issue a warrant on the lawyer of the sitting US President, and there's no reading on the situation where at the least Cohen isn't turbofucked, and there are some potential outcomes that could legally implicate the sitting US President as well
Well, nobody could say we don't live in interesting times
One thing to keep in mind about the Stormy Daniels NDA is that it's not an anomaly. Trump has a history of trying to force people to sign unlawful NDAs rather indiscriminately. i.e., he tried to get his campaign workers to sign NDAs, and he tried to get his White House Staff (who don't actually work for him) to sign NDAs.
Cohen has played a large role in pushing these NDAs through. They would never hold up in court, which is why Cohen relies on intimidation tactics to prevent people from challenging him. According to Stormy, he's not above using death threats. Those tactics will work when you're dealing with a nobody, but they won't work against a judge.
If Cohen goes down and gets disbarred, then it's going to be open season on these NDAs. We've seen news reports of Trump having a hard time finding a lawyer willing to defend him on Mueller. Good luck trying to find a lawyer willing to defend a bunch of unenforceable contracts. Heck, Trump has issued so many NDAs over the years that the people who were forced to sign them can pretty much bury Trump in lawsuits where they attempt to challenge the validity, essentially turning the tables.
And if those NDAs go down, then a lot of people who were scared of coming forward in the past will suddenly come forward. And if Trump thinks that the leaks are bad right now, you haven't seen anything yet.
And, essentially, what Daniels et al are waiting for is an official ruling that the NDA is invalid.
We can presume that they are based on how stupid both Trump and Cohen are, but you still need that ruling to be sure.
People have mentioned before that the payouts to Stormy Daniels probably broke the law. Unfortunately, I don't really see how campaign finance laws would be enough to justify seizing evidence from a lawyer. Especially since this is being handled at the state level.
But something I haven't considered before: What if there's evidence that Cohen did extremely shady shit in order to acquire the $130,000 in the first place? Of course, the fact that Cohen would be willing to do something highly illegal is nothing new. But the prosecutors would have to present hard evidence of this being the case.
I still don't understand why stormy danials is acting as if there is an NDA. Trump got on tv and proclaimed he knew nothing of the sort. If he wasn't party to the NDA, than there is no NDA.
Doesn't mean Trump can't ruin her financially with lawsuits
lawsuits for what? violating an NDA that he's publicly stated doesn't exist?
It's not whether he'll win, it's how long he can tie her up in court with all those legal fees.
ok but there is no case to be tied up. he's already killed it.
edit: what would the case even look like?
trump: "your honor, I've never asked the plaintiff to sign an NDA, but she's not allowed to talk anyway."
judge: "ummm no. dismissed."
He would contradict his public statements when under oath, and that is not perjury.
We sure about that? As a private citizen sure but public officials can be held to a different standard.
Also, if he contradicts his public statements under oath that will hurt him in his current and likely future defamation lawsuits.
A gentle reminder that there is no attorney-client privilege for Cohen if, as he claims, he never discussed the Stormy Daniels payoff with Trump
It is always amazing to see dumb criminals hoisted by their own petard
This is the kind of shit that works fine if you are consistently doing small-time shit or are always operating from a position of relative strength. Because even if you're wrong or lying, the other side has no recourse other than to prove it, which is not always a viable option.
It's exactly the kind of shit that blows up in your face when the shit hits the fan, though.
It's a double-edged sword that it turns out Cohen just decided to fall upon with no outside prompting
Either he was telling the truth and he isn't protected by attorney-client privilege, which, oops, means he can't hide behind that shield if he was doing something illegal
or
He did tell Trump about the illegal thing he was doing, which is an entirely different can of worms to be opening, one that isn't great for either of them, and also isn't protected by attorney-client privilege, because of the crime-fraud exception (something which Cohen is likely keenly aware of and Trump seems to have no clue about)
The takeaway is this: a judge that Trump appointed decided that there was enough evidence of criminal activity to issue a warrant on the lawyer of the sitting US President, and there's no reading on the situation where at the least Cohen isn't turbofucked, and there are some potential outcomes that could legally implicate the sitting US President as well
Well, nobody could say we don't live in interesting times
Which judge Trump appointed? Berman is a US Attorney I thought.
+3
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
A gentle reminder that there is no attorney-client privilege for Cohen if, as he claims, he never discussed the Stormy Daniels payoff with Trump
It is always amazing to see dumb criminals hoisted by their own petard
This is the kind of shit that works fine if you are consistently doing small-time shit or are always operating from a position of relative strength. Because even if you're wrong or lying, the other side has no recourse other than to prove it, which is not always a viable option.
It's exactly the kind of shit that blows up in your face when the shit hits the fan, though.
It's a double-edged sword that it turns out Cohen just decided to fall upon with no outside prompting
Either he was telling the truth and he isn't protected by attorney-client privilege, which, oops, means he can't hide behind that shield if he was doing something illegal
or
He did tell Trump about the illegal thing he was doing, which is an entirely different can of worms to be opening, one that isn't great for either of them, and also isn't protected by attorney-client privilege, because of the crime-fraud exception (something which Cohen is likely keenly aware of and Trump seems to have no clue about)
The takeaway is this: a judge that Trump appointed decided that there was enough evidence of criminal activity to issue a warrant on the lawyer of the sitting US President, and there's no reading on the situation where at the least Cohen isn't turbofucked, and there are some potential outcomes that could legally implicate the sitting US President as well
Well, nobody could say we don't live in interesting times
I've seen this in the thread a couple times and I believe this is a mistaken conflation of the figures involved here. We do not know the name of magistrate judge that had to approve and issue the warrant. There is no indication the judge was appointed by Trump.
I think you are confusing the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York Geoffrey S. Berman, who was appointed by Trump to serve in an interim capacity as US Attorney, with the judge. It was initially believed that Mr. Berman had to approve of the request for a warrant, but more recent reporting indicates he recused himself from any matters relating to Michael Cohen (perhaps due to Berman's prior political donations to Trump? No reasoning has been given for the recusal), so he was actually not involved in any raid approval at all. Instead it was approved by Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein, who ranks above him.
It is always amazing to see dumb criminals hoisted by their own petard
You know, I always thought that this meant "being hung up by your pants in a foolish way" turns out it actually means "Having your own bomb blow up in your face and sailing though the air in a graceful arc." which is a much funnier image. Thanks Shakespeare!
Colbert is in rare form here, but also pertinent is the "taint team", which I did not know about. Basically it takes out any of the gathered information from the warrant that actually is protected by attorney-client privilege
So basically any argument that ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE IS DEAD is beyond farce
An official Statement by the President of the United States directing the Department of Justice to ignore Attorney-Client Privilege and effectively leave it as a dead letter in ongoing investigations is a rather bold move for Trump following his personal attorney having a search warrant executed against him...
Let's take it to court, and see what those conservative strict constitionalists who like to read the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law have to say about it...
Colbert is in rare form here, but also pertinent is the "taint team", which I did not know about. Basically it takes out any of the gathered information from the warrant that actually is protected by attorney-client privilege
So basically any argument that ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE IS DEAD is beyond farce
Next you'll tell me the Trump Administration lies about things they don't need to lie about.
Hey, I have a few questions about Attorny-Client priviledge and more specifically what the "taint team" would and would not be able to forward to investigations. From what I understand (Let's make a fake investation.
Paul is under investigation for murder, and Doug is his attorney in for the trial of this murder.
1. If Paul tells Doug he committed the murder, that's protected
2. If Paul admits to destroying the body, which would be destruction of evidence, would that be protected if Paul hadn't been charged with that crime? Or would that be instead a new crime? What burden is placed on Doug in regards to handling that information?
3. If Paul asks Doug to go to where the body is hidden and destroy it, that would definitely not be kosher, but would Doug have to report it? Or would he just have to step down as Paul's attorney and not specify why?
4. If Doug actually did it, not only is that not protected, Doug would also be up shit creek without a paddle.
Now, if I understand correctly, the taint team would absolutely not be able to forward 1 to an investigation, and would be required to forward 4 to an investigation. What about 2 and 3?
Pretty sure the test for the exemptions are future vs past crimes. If you are admitting something that has already been done it is protected. If you are admitting something you are about to do, then it's no longer protected and the lawyer has some responsibility to do the right thing (i.e. turn you in).
edit - That isn't to say that you can't get in trouble for crimes that were committed in the past. Just that you had to have told the attorney before you committed them. So if you killed someone yesterday, but told your attorney that you were going to do it the day before yesterday, even though everything is now in the past, that communication is not protected.
Jebus314 on
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
Client is a murderer, has a public defender, tells public defender where the body is. Public defender goes and sees the body, prosecutor finds this out, public defender won't reveal where the body is. Everything about it is kosher except the public defender mentions he locked the door behind him when he left where the body was, leading to him being charged as an accessory because he "actively" helped cover up the crime.
3 would only be passed on if there was proof the attorney did something to enable the crime to continue to be covered up.
Hey, I have a few questions about Attorny-Client priviledge and more specifically what the "taint team" would and would not be able to forward to investigations. From what I understand (Let's make a fake investation.
Paul is under investigation for murder, and Doug is his attorney in for the trial of this murder.
1. If Paul tells Doug he committed the murder, that's protected
2. If Paul admits to destroying the body, which would be destruction of evidence, would that be protected if Paul hadn't been charged with that crime? Or would that be instead a new crime? What burden is placed on Doug in regards to handling that information?
3. If Paul asks Doug to go to where the body is hidden and destroy it, that would definitely not be kosher, but would Doug have to report it? Or would he just have to step down as Paul's attorney and not specify why?
4. If Doug actually did it, not only is that not protected, Doug would also be up shit creek without a paddle.
Now, if I understand correctly, the taint team would absolutely not be able to forward 1 to an investigation, and would be required to forward 4 to an investigation. What about 2 and 3?
If you confess to your lawyer they do not have the right to disclose that I don't believe.
I also believe they are under obligation to no longer protest your innocence to the court as well.
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
As a side not though, once attorney-client privilege is broken, how do investigators deal with information that should be protected?
Say the fbi find evidence of wrong doing by trump, but it doesn't fit the exemptions for attorney-client privilege. Are they even allowed to share the information? If they are, it almost certainly can't be used as evidence, but is evidence obtained based on information gathered there also off limits?
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
0
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
Elie Mystal at Above the Law (a legal industry gossip blog that is often a thorn in many a BigLaw firm side) has a succinct take on how Trump might have fucked himself over by interviewing Geoffrey Berman before appointing him to the US Attorney position in SDNY
But Berman likely didn’t recuse himself just because Trump appointed him as Bharara’s replacement. Berman likely felt the ethical squeeze because Trump took the extraordinary step of interviewing Berman personally for the job.
People don’t usually do that, you know, just in case the U.S. Attorney has to investigate the president or people close to him. A personal interview would make that investigation look… shady. Berman has been forced into this recusal by Trump’s own reckless behavior.
3DS: 2165 - 6538 - 3417
NNID: Hakkekage
+56
NEO|PhyteThey follow the stars, bound together.Strands in a braid till the end.Registered Userregular
As a side not though, once attorney-client privilege is broken, how do investigators deal with information that should be protected?
Say the fbi find evidence of wrong doing by trump, but it doesn't fit the exemptions for attorney-client privilege. Are they even allowed to share the information? If they are, it almost certainly can't be used as evidence, but is evidence obtained based on information gathered there also off limits?
This is exactly why there is a dedicated 'taint team' to dig through the attorney's stuff. They aren't allowed to touch anything else in the investigation because they are tainted by knowledge of inadmissible evidence. All they can do is pass on the kosher bits to the rest of the team.
It was that somehow, from within the derelict-horror, they had learned a way to see inside an ugly, broken thing... And take away its pain.
Warframe/Steam: NFyt
Elie Mystal at Above the Law (a legal industry gossip blog that is often a thorn in many a BigLaw firm side) has a succinct take on how Trump might have fucked himself over by interviewing Geoffrey Berman before appointing him to the US Attorney position in SDNY
But Berman likely didn’t recuse himself just because Trump appointed him as Bharara’s replacement. Berman likely felt the ethical squeeze because Trump took the extraordinary step of interviewing Berman personally for the job.
People don’t usually do that, you know, just in case the U.S. Attorney has to investigate the president or people close to him. A personal interview would make that investigation look… shady. Berman has been forced into this recusal by Trump’s own reckless behavior.
I don't know what's more surprising that Trump probably fucked himself with his hands on bullshit, or that someone he would appoint to a position had ethics?
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
As a side not though, once attorney-client privilege is broken, how do investigators deal with information that should be protected?
Say the fbi find evidence of wrong doing by trump, but it doesn't fit the exemptions for attorney-client privilege. Are they even allowed to share the information? If they are, it almost certainly can't be used as evidence, but is evidence obtained based on information gathered there also off limits?
This is exactly why there is a dedicated 'taint team' to dig through the attorney's stuff. They aren't allowed to touch anything else in the investigation because they are tainted by knowledge of inadmissible evidence. All they can do is pass on the kosher bits to the rest of the team.
It’s basic compartmentalization and anyone that works on secret stuff for the government long term values being trusted to do it over any short term gain barring extraordinary circumstances.
+15
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Elie Mystal at Above the Law (a legal industry gossip blog that is often a thorn in many a BigLaw firm side) has a succinct take on how Trump might have fucked himself over by interviewing Geoffrey Berman before appointing him to the US Attorney position in SDNY
But Berman likely didn’t recuse himself just because Trump appointed him as Bharara’s replacement. Berman likely felt the ethical squeeze because Trump took the extraordinary step of interviewing Berman personally for the job.
People don’t usually do that, you know, just in case the U.S. Attorney has to investigate the president or people close to him. A personal interview would make that investigation look… shady. Berman has been forced into this recusal by Trump’s own reckless behavior.
I don't know what's more surprising that Trump probably fucked himself with his hands on bullshit, or that someone he would appoint to a position had ethics?
Whether he's especially ethical or not, I don't know, but the Bar would not look kindly to that kind of thing.
Elie Mystal at Above the Law (a legal industry gossip blog that is often a thorn in many a BigLaw firm side) has a succinct take on how Trump might have fucked himself over by interviewing Geoffrey Berman before appointing him to the US Attorney position in SDNY
But Berman likely didn’t recuse himself just because Trump appointed him as Bharara’s replacement. Berman likely felt the ethical squeeze because Trump took the extraordinary step of interviewing Berman personally for the job.
People don’t usually do that, you know, just in case the U.S. Attorney has to investigate the president or people close to him. A personal interview would make that investigation look… shady. Berman has been forced into this recusal by Trump’s own reckless behavior.
I don't know what's more surprising that Trump probably fucked himself with his hands on bullshit, or that someone he would appoint to a position had ethics?
People have started catching convictions already and this guy got to the dance late. May be motivation to stay in his lane.
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Posts
Harder to do in treason prison, I'd imagine. Though that would be in a brighter timeline.
Yes, but we’ve already discussed that any evidence of additional crimes uncovered during the warrant still count.
So, hypothetically, they could uncover evidence from the raid related to the Mueller investigation (which I assume is likely), hand it over to Mueller after the “taint” thing, then Mueller uses it to flip Cohen, along with whatever charges he’ll face with the original raid.
Also, any other crimes uncovered.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
It is always amazing to see dumb criminals hoisted by their own petard
Public statements do not override legal documents.
This is how not to post a tweet.
You need to explain more than this if you're gonna just basically post a couple links in a tweet and say "he's the husband". Come on now. What are the links? What do they say? Why is it significant? (I realize this has been posted about further down the thread but just giving examples of what information should have been included in the original post)
After his current lawyer just had FBI raids seize everything, including confidential documents like conversations with clients...
Well, if I were a lawyer, I would be afraid of being seen in the same city as Trump, much less being his personal lawyer.
Stephanie Clifford's (Stormy Daniels) lawyer, as mentioned above.
I dunno how much stock to put in this given he doesn't mention where the request came from, but seems to be strongly hinting that the person in question is relevant; maybe named in some documents?
Idly and speculatively leaning towards this particular angle being a recurring thing for Cohen and possibly a major component of the raid.
An official Statement by the President of the United States directing the Department of Justice to ignore Attorney-Client Privilege and effectively leave it as a dead letter in ongoing investigations is a rather bold move for Trump following his personal attorney having a search warrant executed against him...
Well she did go through with the 60 Minutes interview
He would contradict his public statements when under oath, and that is not perjury.
This is the kind of shit that works fine if you are consistently doing small-time shit or are always operating from a position of relative strength. Because even if you're wrong or lying, the other side has no recourse other than to prove it, which is not always a viable option.
It's exactly the kind of shit that blows up in your face when the shit hits the fan, though.
Trump lawyer - " Your honor, we would like to request a full review of all documents from sub section B of the criminal enforcement code pertaining to NDAs. We'd like to submit into evidence for review the entire body of work by Miss Daniels, and request a search and seizure warrant for NDA related material we believe she is storing in her home. We'd like to request a change of venue to Hawaii, no wait, Alaska. No, Hawaii again. Your honor, we'd like to file a motion for production of the one ring to rule them all. Your honor, we would like to file this document with the court. Oh wait, we forgot it, we'll bring it in next week. We demand to see Stormy Daniels long form birth certificate. We believe that our client is an asylum seeker. We need time to review the words we just said with Jeff Sessions. Your honor, we must recuse ourselves from the case because our client has fired us. Wait, we've just been re-hired and must demand that the opening arguments be repeated."
Judge - "Err, yes to like 10% of that"
Trump Lawyer - "GREAT! See you in a month. In the meantime, we will file legal paperwork which requires review with Stormy related to the case every 10 minutes"
Cohen has played a large role in pushing these NDAs through. They would never hold up in court, which is why Cohen relies on intimidation tactics to prevent people from challenging him. According to Stormy, he's not above using death threats. Those tactics will work when you're dealing with a nobody, but they won't work against a judge.
If Cohen goes down and gets disbarred, then it's going to be open season on these NDAs. We've seen news reports of Trump having a hard time finding a lawyer willing to defend him on Mueller. Good luck trying to find a lawyer willing to defend a bunch of unenforceable contracts. Heck, Trump has issued so many NDAs over the years that the people who were forced to sign them can pretty much bury Trump in lawsuits where they attempt to challenge the validity, essentially turning the tables.
And if those NDAs go down, then a lot of people who were scared of coming forward in the past will suddenly come forward. And if Trump thinks that the leaks are bad right now, you haven't seen anything yet.
It's a double-edged sword that it turns out Cohen just decided to fall upon with no outside prompting
Either he was telling the truth and he isn't protected by attorney-client privilege, which, oops, means he can't hide behind that shield if he was doing something illegal
or
He did tell Trump about the illegal thing he was doing, which is an entirely different can of worms to be opening, one that isn't great for either of them, and also isn't protected by attorney-client privilege, because of the crime-fraud exception (something which Cohen is likely keenly aware of and Trump seems to have no clue about)
The takeaway is this: a judge that Trump appointed decided that there was enough evidence of criminal activity to issue a warrant on the lawyer of the sitting US President, and there's no reading on the situation where at the least Cohen isn't turbofucked, and there are some potential outcomes that could legally implicate the sitting US President as well
Well, nobody could say we don't live in interesting times
And, essentially, what Daniels et al are waiting for is an official ruling that the NDA is invalid.
We can presume that they are based on how stupid both Trump and Cohen are, but you still need that ruling to be sure.
It's literally why we have a right to remain silent, and why it's the one right you should always exercise to the absolute max.
We sure about that? As a private citizen sure but public officials can be held to a different standard.
Also, if he contradicts his public statements under oath that will hurt him in his current and likely future defamation lawsuits.
Which judge Trump appointed? Berman is a US Attorney I thought.
I've seen this in the thread a couple times and I believe this is a mistaken conflation of the figures involved here. We do not know the name of magistrate judge that had to approve and issue the warrant. There is no indication the judge was appointed by Trump.
I think you are confusing the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York Geoffrey S. Berman, who was appointed by Trump to serve in an interim capacity as US Attorney, with the judge. It was initially believed that Mr. Berman had to approve of the request for a warrant, but more recent reporting indicates he recused himself from any matters relating to Michael Cohen (perhaps due to Berman's prior political donations to Trump? No reasoning has been given for the recusal), so he was actually not involved in any raid approval at all. Instead it was approved by Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein, who ranks above him.
NNID: Hakkekage
My bad
You know, I always thought that this meant "being hung up by your pants in a foolish way" turns out it actually means "Having your own bomb blow up in your face and sailing though the air in a graceful arc." which is a much funnier image. Thanks Shakespeare!
Colbert is in rare form here, but also pertinent is the "taint team", which I did not know about. Basically it takes out any of the gathered information from the warrant that actually is protected by attorney-client privilege
So basically any argument that ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE IS DEAD is beyond farce
Let's take it to court, and see what those conservative strict constitionalists who like to read the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law have to say about it...
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Next you'll tell me the Trump Administration lies about things they don't need to lie about.
Paul is under investigation for murder, and Doug is his attorney in for the trial of this murder.
1. If Paul tells Doug he committed the murder, that's protected
2. If Paul admits to destroying the body, which would be destruction of evidence, would that be protected if Paul hadn't been charged with that crime? Or would that be instead a new crime? What burden is placed on Doug in regards to handling that information?
3. If Paul asks Doug to go to where the body is hidden and destroy it, that would definitely not be kosher, but would Doug have to report it? Or would he just have to step down as Paul's attorney and not specify why?
4. If Doug actually did it, not only is that not protected, Doug would also be up shit creek without a paddle.
Now, if I understand correctly, the taint team would absolutely not be able to forward 1 to an investigation, and would be required to forward 4 to an investigation. What about 2 and 3?
pleasepaypreacher.net
edit - That isn't to say that you can't get in trouble for crimes that were committed in the past. Just that you had to have told the attorney before you committed them. So if you killed someone yesterday, but told your attorney that you were going to do it the day before yesterday, even though everything is now in the past, that communication is not protected.
Client is a murderer, has a public defender, tells public defender where the body is. Public defender goes and sees the body, prosecutor finds this out, public defender won't reveal where the body is. Everything about it is kosher except the public defender mentions he locked the door behind him when he left where the body was, leading to him being charged as an accessory because he "actively" helped cover up the crime.
3 would only be passed on if there was proof the attorney did something to enable the crime to continue to be covered up.
If you confess to your lawyer they do not have the right to disclose that I don't believe.
I also believe they are under obligation to no longer protest your innocence to the court as well.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Say the fbi find evidence of wrong doing by trump, but it doesn't fit the exemptions for attorney-client privilege. Are they even allowed to share the information? If they are, it almost certainly can't be used as evidence, but is evidence obtained based on information gathered there also off limits?
https://abovethelaw.com/2018/04/id-like-to-think-that-somewhere-trump-is-fuming-as-another-hand-picked-lawyer-recuses-himself/
NNID: Hakkekage
Warframe/Steam: NFyt
I don't know what's more surprising that Trump probably fucked himself with his hands on bullshit, or that someone he would appoint to a position had ethics?
pleasepaypreacher.net
It’s basic compartmentalization and anyone that works on secret stuff for the government long term values being trusted to do it over any short term gain barring extraordinary circumstances.
Whether he's especially ethical or not, I don't know, but the Bar would not look kindly to that kind of thing.
People have started catching convictions already and this guy got to the dance late. May be motivation to stay in his lane.
Come Overwatch with meeeee