Author Topic: House Closes Investigation  (Read 2760 times)

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #50 on: April 10, 2018, 08:59:17 AM »
Looks like the investigations aren't ending just yet, but going to a boss level.

PC to seize Cohen's files must be significant, in my opinion, to be able to get that search warrant. More than that, it has added pure oxygen to the witch hunt fire. I don't think that step gets made unless there is something Big in the works. That action has lit a fuse that won't have a long life. It's not going to be Russian collusion on elections, but could very well involve some kind of shady financial connections to Russian oligarchs (my speculation, not supported by available facts). I haven't found any major media sources, but a random article raises some interesting questions.

Quote
The facts surrounding one of Cohen’s ventures in particular raised red flags for several experts interviewed by McClatchy.

In 2014, a mysterious buyer using a limited liability company that hid the purchaser’s identity paid $10 million in cash for a small apartment building on New York’s lower east side that Cohen had purchased just three years before for $2 million. The handsome appreciation came despite the fact that the assessed value of the property, at 172 Rivington St., hardly budged in these years, hovering around the price Cohen paid for it.

Three other properties Cohen bought and sold in roughly the same time frame followed a similar pattern. Each was purchased by a different LLC, but were tied together by the fact that a lawyer, Herbert Chaves, served as the LLCs’ manager.

“An all cash purchase by an LLC of an overvalued property in Manhattan is usually worth a closer look by federal investigators,” said Jaimie Nawaday, a former federal prosecutor and money laundering specialist who is now a partner with the New York law firm Kelley Drye & Warren. “There are perfectly good reasons to buy and sell through LLCs, but the combination of facts is one that tends to arouse interest.”

linky

I give this article low confidence, especially since cnn doesn't appear to have picked up the ball and run with it.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #51 on: April 10, 2018, 02:22:12 PM »
I find it very disturbing that the published accounts state they seized attorney client communications.  There shouldn't be any warrant that allows that to occur.  Honestly, plenty of people that have been convicted of crimes have been entitled to security in their privileged communications for our entire history.  I am very curious on what grounds this occurred.

It really bothers me that more people are not concerned about this issue.  Whether you are left or right, you should concerned about a search warrant being granted to seize privileged communications.

I'm hoping that this has been misreported.  If not, this materially prejudices any possible case - to the point where I think it would be thrown out.  If this is accurate, that  only leaves the possibility that these records were seized for political reasons or to use in an impeachment (which is not a legal process), but either of those would be a gross violation of rights.

scifibum

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #52 on: April 10, 2018, 02:33:54 PM »
There are some decent articles about it available. 

https://reason.com/archives/2018/04/09/what-we-know-about-the-search-trump-lawy/amp?__twitter_impression=true

DoJ has some rules in place to discourage this kind of search if less intrusive methods will (or ought to) work. What we can surmise from the fact that the search occurred is that the U.S. Attorney's office in question made an argument that less invasive methods were likely to:

Quote
...compromise the criminal investigation or prosecution, or could result in the obstruction or destruction of evidence, or would otherwise be ineffective.

This was then approved by the head of that office (who Trump appointed recently) after consultation with the Criminal Division of DoJ. 

Then that was approved by a magistrate.

To this point, it's not impossible that it was the wrong course of action, but it's pretty unlikely to clear ALL of those hurdles unless there was a compelling reason to use a search warrant instead of a subpoena.

There are also standards in place to avoid violating the attorney-client privilege when such material is seized. It's not going to be completely opened up to investigators for wholesale review.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #53 on: April 10, 2018, 02:42:28 PM »
What troubles me is that the privilege is generally absolute.  They can not be doing this to obtain privileged materials, nor can they justify it by reference to what they find or even use what they find if it's privileged. 

They either have to be investigating something about Cohen (in which case, anything they do find is completely off the table), or have evidence that the privilege shouldn't apply. 

scifibum

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #54 on: April 10, 2018, 02:47:13 PM »
Just to elaborate on this:
Quote
There shouldn't be any warrant that allows that to occur.

The warrant can allow this kind of thing to be seized but not necessarily reviewed by investigators.  There are screening procedures to separate privileged material from non-privileged material. 


Letting the target of an investigation do the screening isn't always feasible, for obvious reasons.  The goal is to preserve the attorney-client privilege, not violate it, but otherwise allow the search to succeed. There are rules and procedures and legal precedent already established for this kind of screening.

And as you know there's a crime-fraud exception to the privilege anyway.  Otherwise criminal conspiracies would be immune to prosecution by having the conspiracy involve an attorney.


We don't have all the details, but if you've gotten to the point that you can justify a search warrant of an attorney's office, you can't trust the attorney to help you identify which materials are subject to the privilege, can you?

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #55 on: April 10, 2018, 02:55:20 PM »
Quote
There shouldn't be any warrant that allows that to occur. 

Though rare, this isn't unprecedented. Such warrants are predicated on the idea that there is probable cause to assume that the communications in question refer to the planning or commission of a crime.

It is most commonly used against organized criminals. I'm holding my breath. If nothing happens, it means either that the warrant didn't clear the high bar for this sort of thing, the evidence used to obtain the warrant was either fabricated or grossly in error. In prior cases, as I understand it, such evidence almost always leads to conviction of the lawyer in question.

Any leak of information from whomever is designated to sort through the information (The DA can't just mill around in there) would be catastrophic in a number of ways.

Here's an interesting acccount that is unfolding concurrently.

Quote
The allegations against the prosecutors say email communications between Snyder, defense attorney Thomas Dogan, and Thomas Kirsch II, who was then the mayor's defense attorney before being appointed as U.S. attorney, were seized in 2015, according to court documents.

Kirsch has recused himself from Snyder's case, according to court documents, and U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Illinois would oversee and manage local prosecutors handling the case.

During the discovery process for Snyder's trial, Bennett said it was found that documents reviewed by the prosecutors contained confidential attorney-client material, according to court documents. Bennett said federal investigators used a "taint team" to review the email communication seized, according to court documents, but that review failed to shield all privileged communications from the trial team.

"We think they made a mistake and they don't want to acknowledge they made a mistake," Bennett said.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Jill Koster said, in court filings, investigators screened the emails using a three-stage process, which first started by flagging emails using a system at FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C.; then another team of FBI employees filtered any emails flagged by the system; and finally an assistant U.S. attorney not involved in the case reviewed to ensure no privileged communication survived the quarantine process.

In February 2018, an attorney from the Northern District of Illinois reviewed the contested emails and concluded they did not meet the legal standard for attorney-client privilege, according to Koster.

Though in that case, it was the client's email that was seized, not the lawyer's. The only thing this can mean is that Cohen is the immediate target, at least for justification, as you don't get that warrant to investigate a client (I believe).

You may enjoy a little google search "lawyer's office raided -cohen -trump"

Quote
FBI and IRS agents raided the law offices of Texas Sen. Carlos Uresti on Thursday morning, confiscating documents and other items

Federal law enforcement officers searched lawyer Stanley H. Needleman's offices this morning, the Sun's Justin Fenton reports. Calls to Needleman's home and office were not returned immediately. Needleman is a prominent local defense attorney who specializes in drug cases.

FBI Raid Local Offices Of Indiana Lawyer. ... FBI agents Tuesday raided the Chase Tower offices of Timothy S. Durham, taking records of businesses run by the high-profile Indianapolis financier.

The FBI and IRS on Feb. 17 conducted “court-authorized activity in connection with an ongoing federal investigation” at the Canton law office of Sen. Bryan Joyce, said Kristen Setera, a spokeswoman for the Boston office of the FBI.

California Department of Justice officials raided a Calabasas law firm as part of an investigation into alleged legal fraud that may have touched thousands of victims, the state attorney general said today. Nineteen DOJ agents and other state authorities seized computers, client files and 16 bank accounts

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #56 on: April 10, 2018, 02:55:50 PM »
Quote
What troubles me is that the privilege is generally absolute
This is incorrect.  The crime-fraud exception to the privilege has historical support dating back at least to 1743: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3029&context=nclr
Quote
They either have to be investigating something about Cohen (in which case, anything they do find is completely off the table)
Neither part of that statement is correct.  The privilege may be terminated even if the attorney is unaware of the alleged criminal activity that might have terminated the privilege.

As for being off the table - no.  If illegal activity (possible by Cohen, possibly by someone he represented where the privilege was forfeited) was uncovered while investigating Russian interference, then that falls under the purview of the special counsel.

scifibum

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #57 on: April 10, 2018, 02:58:32 PM »
Just as a reminder, Mueller already handed this off to the regional US Attorney's office.  The raid was not a part of the Mueller investigation.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #58 on: April 10, 2018, 02:58:47 PM »
Just to elaborate on this:
Quote
There shouldn't be any warrant that allows that to occur.

The warrant can allow this kind of thing to be seized but not necessarily reviewed by investigators.  There are screening procedures to separate privileged material from non-privileged material.

Except in this case, I'm willing to bet that the privileged materials are leaked.   

Quote
Letting the target of an investigation do the screening isn't always feasible, for obvious reasons.  The goal is to preserve the attorney-client privilege, not violate it, but otherwise allow the search to succeed. There are rules and procedures and legal precedent already established for this kind of screening.

The rules are designed to separate privileged materials out.  There is no rule that lets privileged materials be used.  The distinction is that certain rules eliminate the privilege.

Quote
And as you know there's a crime-fraud exception to the privilege anyway.  Otherwise criminal conspiracies would be immune to prosecution by having the conspiracy involve an attorney.

That's a very limited exception.  It doesn't apply just because a crime occurred.  It only applies, as I understand it, if the lawyer themselves is committing a crime and the privilege is being used to mask the crime.  An e-mail to your lawyer directing them to hire a hitman, for example is not privileged.  An e-mail to your lawyer about the hitman that you hired would be.

Quote
We don't have all the details, but if you've gotten to the point that you can justify a search warrant of an attorney's office, you can't trust the attorney to help you identify which materials are subject to the privilege, can you?

I agree.  But that was my point on the further response.  This either has to be about Cohen or they have to have specific evidence that the privilege doesn't apply.  Any other fact pattern and what ever they seized will taint any future charges.

scifibum

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #59 on: April 10, 2018, 02:59:52 PM »
It's about Cohen!  The warrant was predicated on suspected crimes that Cohen is being investigated for.

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #60 on: April 10, 2018, 03:24:43 PM »
Quote
It doesn't apply just because a crime occurred.  It only applies, as I understand it, if the lawyer themselves is committing a crime and the privilege is being used to mask the crime.
This is incorrect.
Quote
It also ends when the client takes advantage of legal counsel to plan a crime or fraud, perhaps by tailoring evidence or testimony to the requirements of law that the client has learned from his or her attorney. Thus the exception applies whether the client discloses an evil intention to the attorney (making the attorney and client partners), conceals such intention (making the attorney a dupe), or forms such intention only after obtaining legal counsel.3 Therefore, there may be no privilege even though the attorney is innocent of any
wrongdoing.
In the second and third cases, there is no requirement that the lawyer be complicit or even be aware of the client's disqualifying actions.

Mynnion

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #61 on: April 10, 2018, 04:03:11 PM »
Knowing the mass amount of political scrutiny that this search warrant has and will generate I am guessing there must have been pretty significant evidence presented to obtain it. 

Any bets on bombings occurring in Syria to divert attention from this?

In addition to the comments above I believe any item that is not deemed to be legal advice does not fall under Lawyer Client Privilege.


Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #62 on: April 10, 2018, 04:13:56 PM »
Quote
What troubles me is that the privilege is generally absolute
This is incorrect.  The crime-fraud exception to the privilege has historical support dating back at least to 1743: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3029&context=nclr

You should re-read what I wrote.  The privilege is absolute.  The crime-fraud "exception" applies because the original request was not legal advice, it was in furtherance of a crime.

Quote
Quote
They either have to be investigating something about Cohen (in which case, anything they do find is completely off the table)
Neither part of that statement is correct.  The privilege may be terminated even if the attorney is unaware of the alleged criminal activity that might have terminated the privilege.

I think you're mis-interpretting both my passage and the law review passage.  If they are investigating Cohen - but not his client - then there is no crime fraud exemption that can apply.  They could be investigating Cohen, for a direct crime that he committed, including defrauding his own clients.  Nothing in the client files could be used against him or his clients in that circumstance.   Hence it's off the table.

The law review article refers to a circumstance where the lawyer is unaware that their client is seeking to commit a crime with the lawyers assistance.  It still requires the it be the client that is seeking to commit a crime, and only applies to specific situations where the lawyer's aid is sought in facilitating the crime.  There's no way to break the privilege if the client committed a crime and is seeking the lawyers advice on how to resolve it in a legal manner.

Quote
As for being off the table - no.  If illegal activity (possible by Cohen, possibly by someone he represented where the privilege was forfeited) was uncovered while investigating Russian interference, then that falls under the purview of the special counsel.

First, this came out as a referral from the special prosecutor's office, which implies it is not in his purview.

Second, privilege can't be breached just because illegal conduct was discovered (or else there would be no such thing).  It has to directly involve Cohen for that exemption to apply.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #63 on: April 10, 2018, 04:19:57 PM »
Quote
It doesn't apply just because a crime occurred.  It only applies, as I understand it, if the lawyer themselves is committing a crime and the privilege is being used to mask the crime.
This is incorrect.

The first sentence was correct.  The second is not correct, that is only one circumstance in which it applies.  In all circumstances, the client has to be seeking to use the lawyer in furtherance of a criminal or fraudulent activity.

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #64 on: April 10, 2018, 04:39:28 PM »
Quote
First, this came out as a referral from the special prosecutor's office, which implies it is not in his purview.
It's not clear what you mean here.  I'll clarify what I meant: if during the special counsel investigation, possible crimes were uncovered that allegedly implicate either Cohen or Trump (or, heck, even me) and having nothing to do with Russia, then it is in the special counsel's purview to investigate those alleged crimes.

Whether attorney/client privilege has actually been put into jeopardy is another question, which may or may be the case here... which goes back to what scifibum was alluding to earlier.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #65 on: April 11, 2018, 10:12:05 AM »
I think this situation is really difficult to understand.  I note for instance that CNN has an article implying that the goal of acting against Cohen is to get him to "flip" because he "knows where the bodies are buried."  While that may actually be the case, if he knows where the bodies are buried in his role as a lawyer, then its going to be privileged material. Cohen can not legally waive his client's privilege, only they can, which means if he shares privileged material it will taint the entire investigation.  If any of that material, even inadvertently ends up with the investigatory teams the whole thing will become tainted.  It's a big risk if anyone but Cohen is a target.

That's probably why you see charges in such a situation against the lawyer so frequently, there's virtually no one they can "flip" on to cut a deal and no reason to try and pressure them to get privileged materials.

Again though, my concern in this case, is that entire point is to get privileged records with no intention of ever using them in a courtroom.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #66 on: April 11, 2018, 10:57:06 AM »
CNN is a dumpster fire. Their 'analysis' is worth exactly 0 points.

Goal would primarily be charging Cohen with something. Cynically, it might be to separate Trump from a close ally or to anger Trump into something rash. It could be to air out evidence against Cohen that could taint Trump or other people in Trump's organization. Obviously it could be about scooping up all kinds of stuff and leaking it, using it for blackmail, or other darker plots. I don't think I buy the warrant being issued unless they could plausibly present evidence of Cohen's wrongdoing, since otherwise all of it gets tossed on appeal. Which, maybe they don't care about if your point is to expose something rather than convict on it.

Also the target could be non-privileged documents that can be used. He might have a communication that talks about threatening Daniels. He might have had discussions with third parties that were not clients. As well, if there were any communication that cc'ed a third party not necessary to the legal matter - like Trump Jr, then that also waives privilege. In the case of the covfefe president, a Reply-All/CC doesn't seem farfetched.

Plus, I don't think anything in the Daniels case could be covered by privilege since Cohen denies acting on behalf of Trump, and Trump denies knowing anything about it? Now, I'm far from thinking that there was anything illegal that happened in that transaction, but then I don't know that much yet.

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #67 on: April 11, 2018, 11:02:45 AM »
Quote
While that may actually be the case, if he knows where the bodies are buried in his role as a lawyer, then its going to be privileged material.
Except Cohen did not interact with Trump exclusively in his role of lawyer, and much of their interactions did not relate to Trump obtaining, or to Cohen providing, legal counsel.

As one example, take Cohen's interactions with Stormy Daniels; since Trump was unaware of the agreement, Cohen was not acting in his role as Trump's attorney.  Yes, this particular instance does not unearth any Trump bodies, but it shows that Cohen at least once took actions related to Trump not related to his role as Trump's counsel. 

Cohen has also been described as the closest person to Trump's family not genetically related to the president, so I expect he and the president had many non-lawyer related interactions over the years.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #68 on: April 11, 2018, 11:08:37 AM »
As one example, take Cohen's interactions with Stormy Daniels; since Trump was unaware of the agreement, Cohen was not acting in his role as Trump's attorney.  Yes, this particular instance does not unearth any Trump bodies, but it shows that Cohen at least once took actions related to Trump not related to his role as Trump's counsel. 

How do you conclude that? Not knowing what a subordinate does has literally nothing to do with whether they were acting under your instructions or authority. Standing orders will usually involve actions not literally discussed between both parties. In fact, part of the standing orders could easily be "Deal with X situation in this way, and I don't want to know about it."

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #69 on: April 11, 2018, 11:38:05 AM »
Putting aside the basic misunderstanding, if that were the case, then Cohen would have paid, out of his own pocket, any number of other women who had not had, um, relations with Trump, but who were claiming that they had.  But we know that is not the case - or if it was, then he did a really poor job of it.  Not to mention that the existence of standing orders of this type ("whenever someone makes a false claim about me, pay them out of your own pocket to make them go away") are patently ridiculous.

However, Cohen himself stated that he did this of his own initiative, without any direction from Trump.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2018, 11:40:20 AM by DonaldD »

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #70 on: April 11, 2018, 11:50:37 AM »
Donald, I'm not saying that Cohen *actually was* acting under instructions. I'm just saying that ignorance of an action doesn't mean you didn't engineer it.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #71 on: April 11, 2018, 12:13:29 PM »
Also the target could be non-privileged documents that can be used. He might have a communication that talks about threatening Daniels. He might have had discussions with third parties that were not clients. As well, if there were any communication that cc'ed a third party not necessary to the legal matter - like Trump Jr, then that also waives privilege. In the case of the covfefe president, a Reply-All/CC doesn't seem farfetched.

All that is possible, though it's unlikely this is the most unobtrusive way in which such materials could be recovered.  In fact, there's zero legitimacy to using it recover a "reply all" situation as those records could have been recovered from any other person.  His discussions with non-clients may be privileged as well if they are in furtherance of his legal advice, that's one of the reasons Hillary's campaign always hired service providers through their lawyers.

Quote
Plus, I don't think anything in the Daniels case could be covered by privilege since Cohen denies acting on behalf of Trump, and Trump denies knowing anything about it? Now, I'm far from thinking that there was anything illegal that happened in that transaction, but then I don't know that much yet.

I think this is what prompted it, when Trump denied knowledge of the payment, the Fed's decided that meant they could seize the records as not attorney client communication.  Of course, that analysis is suspect, as Trump wasn't under any obligation to tell the truth when he made the statement.

Cohen has some explaining to do, that's been evident ever since he claimed he paid Daniels out of his own money.  Why would he do that?  Best case - for him - is that he was acting on some kind of misplaced loyalty.  Worse case, he was paying her off because he committed some kind of crime and he was trying to make sure it never come up.  In the latter case, he may have been trying to hide it from Trump as well (good for Trump) or doing so with Trump's guidance (bad for Trump).

You all should check out Dershowitz's latest opinion piece on Fox, may be available in other places too.  http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/04/11/alan-dershowitz-why-fbi-raid-on-trumps-lawyer-hurts-all-us.html  It's not legalese and he makes some fair points about how this is a bad idea.

I am struck by the precedent here, and how useful it will be if a prosecutor decides to seize law firm records of say, Hillary Clinton's lawyers, who may have been involved in a cover up or illegal destruction of government records.  I'm sure, it'll be totally fair to seize them first and let "un-involved" parts of the department sort out the privileged ones.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #72 on: April 11, 2018, 12:29:28 PM »
It all hinges on the judge that signed the warrant, or if the materials are mishandled despite the warrant being good. It's only a bad idea if it stretches how this gets done in a new way. I'm familiar with Dershowitz and his opinion, which I will summarizes as "this is scary and based on what I know it is a new precedent". I'm not sure I agree with that, because I don't know the evidence that supported the search warrant. If Clinton's lawyers had been searched, I'm pretty sure that I'd have the same feeling- they had better not be bluffing, fishing, or cheating, but I'll wait and see.

I already coughed up a half dozen examples of legal offices being seized, some involving government officials. I didn't hear Dershowitz opining on any of those instances, and searching is difficult.

LetterRip

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #73 on: April 11, 2018, 02:01:57 PM »
People seem to misunderstand how this works.  The confiscated materials don't go directly to the FBI investigators.  There is a team that reviews each piece of confiscated evidence, and only if it would not be privileged will it be passed onto investigators.  So privilege will not be broken.

Also while raids on attorney offices aren't common (most attorney's will never be raided) - they aren't particularly novel - they are common with organized crime and other conspiracy type cases; the only thing new about it is that the client of the attorney is so high profile.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2018, 02:06:33 PM by LetterRip »

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #74 on: April 11, 2018, 02:25:06 PM »
People seem to misunderstand how this works.  The confiscated materials don't go directly to the FBI investigators.

They go to a different "team" of FBI/DOJ investigators.  Who do you think would do the review?

Quote
There is a team that reviews each piece of confiscated evidence, and only if it would not be privileged will it be passed onto investigators.  So privilege will not be broken.

They will attempt not to break privilege, however, they can and do get it wrong, which is devastating on an actual case.

Quote
Also while raids on attorney offices aren't common (most attorney's will never be raided) - they aren't particularly novel - they are common with organized crime and other conspiracy type cases; the only thing new about it is that the client of the attorney is so high profile.

I think you are overstating how "common" this is.  Even in organized crime and conspiracy cases this in not common.

scifibum

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #75 on: April 11, 2018, 02:36:36 PM »
Apparently sometimes the review is contracted out to an independent law firm instead of a "dirty team". *shrug*

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #76 on: April 11, 2018, 06:04:08 PM »
They should have just grabbed everything with a National Security Letter. That would be far more common, and also Cohen would be barred from even telling anyone they showed up.  ;D

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #77 on: April 12, 2018, 10:31:07 AM »
one of the ideas for why this search warrant was legit is that Trump's appointee in the Southern District had to have approved it.  Now, though it appears that the appointee, Berman, was recused prior  to the search warrant being issued.  CNN says it was his choice and approved by Rosenstein's office, others say that there was  no voluntary recusal and that he was forced to recuse.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/10/politics/berman-cohen-fbi-search-warrant/index.html

Interesting wrinkle, unfortunately still fits both narratives (i.e., Rogue Rosenstein, and Criminal Trump).

scifibum

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #78 on: April 12, 2018, 12:44:43 PM »
The FBI and the US Attorney's office aren't saying this is Criminal Trump.  They are saying this is Criminal Cohen. 

But yeah, I had thought it was signed off by the Trump appointee at first, and I don't know anything about the politics or interests of those in his office who are acting in his place here.  Still, the process of getting the warrant tends to reassure me.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #79 on: April 13, 2018, 12:14:14 PM »
Quote
Lawyers representing Trump said at a U.S. District Court hearing Friday morning that they have "concern" about the use of an independent team of federal lawyers – known as a "taint team" – to determine what information from the raid is permissible for disclosure.

Failing to secure a first crack at the seized documents, Cohen's defense filing suggested the appointment of a "special master" to review the documents instead of the taint team.

Prosecutors pushed back on the notion, arguing that Trump's interest in attorney-client privilege is "no different" from anyone else.

Judge Kimba Wood adjourned the hearing until Monday afternoon to allow time for the parties involved to prepare for arguments. Prosecutors agreed not to use the seized materials until then. Cohen had filed a temporary restraining order in response to the warrant that authorized the searches.


velcro

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #80 on: April 15, 2018, 12:48:59 PM »
Seriati said
Quote
Pointed it out, what do you think?

You pointed out how you initially said "I suspect that this will allow Mueller's case to go forward", but that it "should literally end" it. "Should" is an ambiguous word that I interpreted differently than the way you intended it. That is a valid explanation, which is what my pleasant and fair request was for.  I accept the explanation.

I do not accept the arguments presented to support your opinion, but that is another story.

And I did not agree with you, as you claim.  You said that the investigation should end because the pretext used to continue was faulty, but would not end.  I said the investigation should continue because the justification was perfectly valid.  You pretended that those were both the same thing, distorting my words.

Quote
You could also ask for clarity, but seems not to be your preferred style.
  That is precisely what I did ask for.  You quoted that request.  But you seem to have neglected that fact in favor of a snarky comment about my "preferred style".

Seriati then went on to say
Quote
If these have been your pleasant and fair responses, I shudder to see where you're going next.

I think the unbiased reader will clearly see who has been fair, and who has been snarky, snide, and contemptuous.

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: House Closes Investigation
« Reply #81 on: April 28, 2018, 02:49:54 PM »
The House report is in, and--surprise!--“no evidence that the Trump campaign colluded, coordinated, or conspired with the Russian government.” :)

Except that Representative Schiff mentioned there was one more little thing the House didn't bother to investigate...

Quote
According to the Democratic response, right after Trump Jr. set up the specifics of the meeting, he had two calls with a number in Russia belonging to Emin Agalarov. Between those two calls, the Democratic response recounts, Trump Jr. received a third call from a blocked number. Who might it have been?

Democrats wanted to find out, but Republicans blocked it from happening, according to the Democrats’ response.

“We sought to determine whether that number belonged to the president, because we also ascertained that then-candidate Trump used a blocked number,” Schiff said during our interview. “That would tell us whether Don Jr. sought his father’s permission to take the meeting, and [whether] that was the purpose of that call.”

Of course, Donald said he knew nothing--NOTHING!--about the meeting with the Russians to discuss--ahem--"orphans" (with a lawyer who had absolutely no ties with the Russian government, except for the Russian Prosecutor General who is very close to Putin).  So obviously the call couldn't have possibly been to him.  The House committee certainly had no doubt.

So we'll never know, unless, of course, Mueller finds out.  But what are the chances of that? ;)