Trump wants judge to stop review of material seized in Michael Cohen raids

Via:  vic-eldred  •  8 months ago  •  105 comments

Trump wants judge to stop review of material seized in Michael Cohen raids

President Trump's lawyers have filed a letter in the Michael Cohen case asking a federal judge to stop the review of materials seized in last week's raids of Cohen's office, CBS News' Paula Reid reports.  

The presidents' lawyers argue prosecutors shouldn't be able to use material seized from Cohen, Mr. Trump's personal attorney, until he and Cohen have determined what in that material should be excluded because of the attorney-client privilege. 

The letter, submitted late Sunday to Judge Kimba Wood in a Manhattan court, says, "The president objects to the government's proposal to use a 'taint team' of prosecutors from the very office that is investigating this matter to conduct the privilege review of documents seized from his own lawyer's office."


What is a "taint team?"

First, some background: The attorney-client privilege allows communications between attorney and client to remain secret. And Mr. Trump has implied that he has this privilege with Cohen, evident in his tweet after the raid of Cohen's office. "Attorney-client privilege is dead!" he tweeted Tuesday.

A taint team is supposed to make sure that privileged material isn't seen by prosecutors. It's supposed to prevent "privileged" information from being used against the client. 

So, why is it called a taint team? Former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who is himself a former U.S. attorney, explained the concept in an interview on "Good Morning America" on ABC. "There's going to be a taint team. They call it a taint team because you don't want to taint the prosecutors who are actually investigating it by seeing potentially privileged information that they have no right to see," he said Tuesday. He explained the team would separate the material "into stuff that's privileged and stuff that isn't." 

Who's on the taint team? It's supposed to be made up of agents and lawyers who aren't involved in the underlying investigation. But the president's lawyers are suggesting the taint team proposed by prosecutors might be compromised.

"The question now before the Court is, who should perform the initial review of the seized materials to assess whether they are, or are not, subject to a valid claim of privilege: a taint team consisting of colleagues of the prosecutors assigned to this investigation, or the President, who is the holder of the privilege, and as such, has a unique interest in assuring that every privileged item is fully protected from improper disclosure," the president's lawyers said in their letter.

Mr. Trump's attorneys assert that the president is the holder of privilege, and that his privilege is in jeopardy. 

Cohen has been ordered to appear Monday in federal court in New York for arguments over last week's raid. Prosecutors say they are investigating Cohen's personal business activities, but haven't said what law they think he's broken.

The FBI raided Cohen's Manhattan office on Monday, seizing records on topics including a $130,000 payment made to porn actress Stormy Daniels. Agents sought information on a $130,000 payment made to porn actress Stormy Daniels, who alleges she had sex with Mr. Trump in 2006.

Mr. Trump, who in the last month has escalated his attacks on Robert Mueller's Russia investigation, said it was a "disgrace" that the FBI "broke into" his lawyer's office. He called Mueller's investigation "an attack on our country."

Mr. Trump tweeted Sunday that all lawyers are now "deflated and concerned" by the FBI raid on his Cohen's home and office. He wrote "I have many (too many!) lawyers and they are probably wondering when their offices, and even homes, are going to be raided with everything, including their phones and computers, taken. All lawyers are deflated and concerned!"

CBS News' Paula Reid contributed to this report.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-wants-judge-to-stop-review-of-material-seized-in-michael-cohen-raids/




UPDATE


Judge Kimba Wood denied Hendon's application for a temporary restraining order that would block federal investigators from examining the seized material for their criminal investigation. Instead, she instructed prosecutors to assemble and index the seized records and give copies to all parties in the case.

The judge asked the opposing attorneys to submit a joint proposal with four names for a potential special master, whom the judge said "could have some role" in sorting through the seized documents and determining what was privileged.

Wood also authorized prosecutors to conduct electronic reviews of the seized material to determine such things as how often certain names, businesses and events appear in the records. Denying an objection by Hendon, the judge ruled federal investigators could obtain the statistical data without examining the underlying content.

http://www.wgrz.com/article/news/nation-now/federal-judge-denies-trumps-bid-to-review-records-seized-in-fbi-raid/465-a2ba982b-ff44-4c4a-8761-509e4564fb34

 

Article is Locked

Vic Eldred
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    8 months ago

I say the President wins this one

 
 
Tessylo
1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    8 months ago

They don't want the feds to look at anything until Donald has a chance to see it?

 
 
Ozzwald
1.1.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Tessylo @1.1    8 months ago
They don't want the feds to look at anything until Donald has a chance to see it?

In Trump-World, all suspects are allowed to go through the evidence and exclude any that they don't like prior to law enforcement.

 
 
KDMichigan
1.1.2  KDMichigan  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.1    8 months ago
In Trump-World, all suspects are allowed to go through the evidence and exclude any that they don't like prior to law enforcement.

This is Hillaryious. You mean he wants to like wipe it with a rag? laughing dude

 
 
Ozzwald
1.1.3  Ozzwald  replied to  KDMichigan @1.1.2    8 months ago
This is Hillaryious. You mean he wants to like wipe it with a rag?

Actually Trump will do what he thought Hillary did and pour bleach on it.

 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.4  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.3    8 months ago

As I recall Hillary only released what she decided was work related

 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.5  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @1.1    8 months ago

The Feds already leaked who Cohen's other clients were. Therefore they cannot be trusted to go through the information to see what is pertinent or not.

 
 
Spikegary
1.1.6  Spikegary  replied to  Tessylo @1.1    8 months ago

Attorney-Client Privilege is a right everyone has, even if you don't like them.

 
 
KDMichigan
1.1.7  KDMichigan  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.3    8 months ago
he thought Hillary did

Even Hillaryious Hillary doesn't know what they did. I'm sure someone was told to wipe this damn thing clean before you suicide yourself. 

 
 
SteevieGee
1.2  SteevieGee  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    8 months ago

I say the President's getting scared.

 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  SteevieGee @1.2    8 months ago

I say civil rights are being violated

 
 
Spikegary
1.2.2  Spikegary  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.1    8 months ago

Exactly, anyone who doesn't see this a.  doesn't understand American system of laws and B. doesn't mind shifting around the values they hold dear to try to charge/convict someone they don't like

 
 
epistte
1.2.3  epistte  replied to  Spikegary @1.2.2    8 months ago
doesn't understand American system of laws and B. doesn't mind shifting around the values they hold dear to try to charge/convict someone they don't like

His 4th Amendment rights are not in any way being violated.

But we also believe in the rule of law as an essential foundation for civil liberties and civil rights. And perhaps the first principle of the rule of law is that no one — not even the president, let alone his lawyer — is above the law.  And no one, not even the president, can exploit the attorney-client privilege to engage in crime or fraud. 

The attorney-client privilege has always included a “crime-fraud exception,” which provides that if you are using the attorney-client relationship to perpetrate a crime, there is no privilege. You have a right to talk in confidence with your attorney about criminal activity, but you can’t use your attorney to accomplish a crime. A mobster suspected of engaging in bribery can consult his attorney about the facts of his alleged bribery without fear that the attorney will disclose those communications. But he has no right to have the lawyer deliver the bribe for him.    

The ACLU has long recognized this exception. In fact, the ACLU cited the crime-fraud exception in our efforts to stop the government from concealing evidence of illegal torture by citing the attorney-client privilege.

While the crime-fraud exception is well-established, it is also narrow. And searches of lawyers’ offices should be tightly restricted. The Justice Department’s own guidelines recognize that searching an attorney’s office is not to be done lightly. Unlike ordinary searches, searches of attorney offices require extraordinary approvals from high-level officials — in this instance, from Trump appointees in the Justice Department. 

THis is a partial version of the ACLU statement on the matter.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/executive-branch/crime-fraud-exception-michael-cohen-case

 
 
cjcold
1.3  cjcold  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    8 months ago

Pretty damn sure that Trump is going down in flames. Couldn't happen to a more evil/deserving person.

 
 
JohnRussell
1.3.1  JohnRussell  replied to  cjcold @1.3    8 months ago

For those who don't know yet, Trump and Cohen lost in court today. 

 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
1.3.2  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  JohnRussell @1.3.1    8 months ago

laughing dude

 
 
Texan1211
1.3.3  Texan1211  replied to  cjcold @1.3    8 months ago

Are you as sure of that as some people were sure that Trump couldn't possibly win?

 
 
cjcold
1.3.4  cjcold  replied to  JohnRussell @1.3.1    8 months ago

Good thing I bought all of that Boy Scout popcorn. Looks to be a long running impeachment show.

 
 
Vic Eldred
1.3.5  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.3.1    8 months ago
For those who don't know yet, Trump and Cohen lost in court today.

Not totally. Although they don't get to decide on what files are pertinent, the Judge may just have someone who is totally independent review them:

The judge asked the opposing attorneys to submit a joint proposal with four names for a potential special master, whom the judge said "could have some role" in sorting through the seized documents and determining what was privileged.

Long as it's not the FBI or the prosecutors

 
 
luther28
2  luther28    8 months ago

Mr. Trump, who in the last month has escalated his attacks on Robert Mueller's Russia investigation, said it was a "disgrace" that the FBI "broke into" his lawyer's office. He called Mueller's investigation "an attack on our country."

If I am not mistaken, they had a search warrant issued by a Trump appointee.

 
 
Greg Jones
2.1  Greg Jones  replied to  luther28 @2    8 months ago

There remains that sticky little problem of attorney/client privilege. It's best to have a judge decide what the prosecutors should see.

 
 
Ozzwald
2.1.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Greg Jones @2.1    8 months ago
There remains that sticky little problem of attorney/client privilege.

No problem there.  There are policies and protections in place for dealing with attorney/client privilege.  It's not like this is the 1st time a lawyer has ever had his offices searched.

 
 
MrFrost
2.1.2  MrFrost  replied to  Greg Jones @2.1    8 months ago

It doesn't apply if it's used to cover up a crime. 

 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.3  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.1    8 months ago
There are policies and protections in place for dealing with attorney/client privilege.

Then they have been violated - other clients of Michael Cohen have been leaked.

 
 
cjcold
2.1.4  cjcold  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.1    8 months ago

Especially not a white collar (orange haired) criminal that will likely serve time for obstruction of justice and money laundering. Trump is so fucked that his ass is chewing holes out of his fat-man silk underwear.

 
 
Tessylo
2.2  Tessylo  replied to  luther28 @2    8 months ago

How is it a disgrace against the country for them to have a  no knock warrant on this slimeball?

 
 
Greg Jones
2.2.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Tessylo @2.2    8 months ago

You have no idea if he is a slimeball or not. We know Comey is though, fer shure.

 
 
Tessylo
2.2.2  Tessylo  replied to  Greg Jones @2.2.1    8 months ago

If he represents Donald Rump - he's a slimeball.  He's not that bright either.  

 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
2.2.3  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Greg Jones @2.2.1    8 months ago

The only thing he does is set up "hush payments" for Trumps peccadillo's. this doesn't make him a lawyer.

 
 
Rmando
2.2.4  Rmando  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @2.2.3    8 months ago

Good movie, bad analogy. Maybe I could use a clip from Momento to describe Hillarys lawyers since they never can recall anything.

 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
 
Galen Marvin Ross
2.2.6  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @2.2.5    8 months ago

 
 
cjcold
2.2.7  cjcold  replied to  Greg Jones @2.2.1    8 months ago

Everybody on either side of the San Andreas ridge fault knows that Trump owns the most corrupt lawyer on the face of the planet.

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''is as guilty of malfeasance.

 
 
Vic Eldred
2.3  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  luther28 @2    8 months ago
If I am not mistaken, they had a search warrant issued by a Trump appointee.

You are - The Trump appointee recused himself

 
 
JBB
2.3.1  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.3    8 months ago

Trump appointed Rod Rosenstein to be Deputy Attorney General. So, you are either mistaken or misleading...

 
 
Vic Eldred
2.3.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @2.3.1    8 months ago

Yes, but my take on what you said was that Geoffrey Berman, (a Trump appointee) the interim United States attorney in New York signed the warrant. It had been erroneously reported that he did. He is the one who recused himself.
With this kind of warrant, the AG or deputy AG, FBI director as well as the United States Attorney in New York all would have to sign off on it. Although Berman recused himself, I can't seem to find a report on who else actually did sign on.

 
 
JBB
2.3.3  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.3.2    8 months ago

Apparently getting the warrant required numerous signatures and reviews as is required in such things so it was got legally. The FBI is and always has been the most conservative reliably Republican department of our government. Its culture has been that way from the start usually to the concern of the liberal groups most likely to have had their rights offended by the FBI. In any case Mueller and Rosenstein and all the rest are lifelong staunch Big R Republicans. The are also sworn law enforcement officers who have a lifetime of experience determining what is and what is not legal after seeing the evidence. So far no matter their previous political stances all those government lawyers and judges and FBI men and women and the Grand Juries who have seen the evidence we all have not have reluctantly or not signed off on advancing the case and the investigation and we can only presume based on evidence. Rod Rosenstein knew damn well that he was putting his career on the line signing that warrant and he would not have done so unless it was legally impossible for him not to. That ought to tell you enough but I doubt it...

 
 
Vic Eldred
2.3.4  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @2.3.3    8 months ago
The FBI is and always has been the most conservative reliably Republican department of our government. Its culture has been that way from the start usually to the concern of the liberal groups most likely to have had their rights offended by the FBI.

That statement by itself is basically true, especially when it comes to the rank and file. However, Mr Trump is a populist and many Republicans dislike him. As far as the FBI goes, James Comey clearly wanted to remain as FBI director. Do you doubt that? Did you know that Comey's wife & daughter were actually Hillary supporters and were part of the protest on inauguration day?  Did Comey not leak information upon being fired in order to get an Independent Counsel investigation. Did he not admit that?  Did he or did he not lie to Congress when he said he made his decision on HRC after she was interviewed?
Have you listened to what Comey recently said - that Trump was morally unfit to be President. You still say he's not biased?
How about MCCabe? Wasn't his wife another big HRC supporter? Shouldn't he have recused himself from all investigations involving Clinton or Trump? Did he not use the Steele Dossier to get warrants? Didn't he lie & leak?
What about Peter Strozk, the lead investigator in both the Clinton & Trump investigations. Didn't he get removed & reassigned for his notorious hatred for Donald Trump?
Those are the fact's, so don't tell us because some are registered Republicans it's all ok.

You also mention the traditional concern of liberals when it comes to the FBI.  Well certainly not now! Now liberals are lovin the FBI. We are told that we should put all our faith in the agency.

Rod Rosenstein knew damn well that he was putting his career on the line signing that warrant and he would not have done so unless it was legally impossible for him not to. That ought to tell you enough but I doubt it...

Rod Rosenstein seems to have but one concern - the approval of democrats.

 
 
Rmando
3  Rmando    8 months ago

The judge should let Trump do what Hillary did: have his own people filter through it all and decide for themselves what is and isn't covered, just like Hillary got to decide what was personal and wasn't.

 
 
SteevieGee
3.1  SteevieGee  replied to  Rmando @3    8 months ago

But... But... Benghazi!

 
 
Rmando
3.1.1  Rmando  replied to  SteevieGee @3.1    8 months ago

But... But... But Russia/ Bush/ Reagan/ Comey/ Trump!!!!

 
 
Ozzwald
3.2  Ozzwald  replied to  Rmando @3    8 months ago
The judge should let Trump do what Hillary did: have his own people filter through it all and decide for themselves what is and isn't covered, just like Hillary got to decide what was personal and wasn't.

You mean like how Trump is asking to be allowed to?  Also, can you remind me, what is the Judge's name that signed off on the Hillary search warrant?

 
 
Greg Jones
3.2.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Ozzwald @3.2    8 months ago

I'm too lazy to look it up, who was that judge?

 
 
Rmando
3.2.2  Rmando  replied to  Greg Jones @3.2.1    8 months ago

I couldn't find the judges name even after I tried to look it up. All I found was this guy:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmet_G._Sullivan

Must be part of some left wing conspiracy theory going around.

 
 
Vic Eldred
3.2.3  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ozzwald @3.2    8 months ago
Also, can you remind me, what is the Judge's name that signed off on the Hillary search warrant?

Ya, Please give us his name

 
 
Spikegary
3.2.4  Spikegary  replied to  Ozzwald @3.2    8 months ago

Except Hillary's people didn't ask a judge, they just did it and Comey accepted it.

 
 
Sean Treacy
3.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  Rmando @3    8 months ago

Yeah. You don't even have to bother reading the emails. Just put a filter on for the specific word "collusion," and then bleach bit every other piece of electronic evidence.

The DOJ is apparently okay with that..

 
 
Sunshine
3.4  Sunshine  replied to  Rmando @3    8 months ago
The judge should let Trump do what Hillary did:

maybe the FBI could help him out too and let his aides destroy laptops and evidence like they did for Crooked Hillary.

 
 
DocPhil
4  DocPhil    8 months ago

This one has no chance.......the President doesn't know whether there are charges filed in this case.....Cohen doesn't know if there are charges that will be filed.......The courts have already ruled that the President is not above the law.....There is a real question as to whether Cohen and Trump have attorney/client privilege since there does not appear to be actions that Cohen has provided that are that of an attorney. He acts as Trump's private fixer....In Cohen's own words, he does not take a retainer or salary or contingency fee from Trump. I don't think an attorney for the President, especially a rich president, does pro bono work.  I think that Trump is changing into brown underwear, because this one isn't going to go his way.

 
 
Capt. Cave Man
4.1  Capt. Cave Man  replied to  DocPhil @4    8 months ago
the President doesn't know whether there are charges filed in this case

ROFL!  Think about what you just said, then edit that nonsense.

 
 
Paula Bartholomew
4.2  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  DocPhil @4    8 months ago
..The courts have already ruled that the President is not above the law.

I don't think that Trump got that memo.

 
 
Ozzwald
4.2.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @4.2    8 months ago
I don't think that Trump got that memo.

That's because FoxNews hasn't read the memo to him yet.

 
 
magnoliaave
4.2.2  magnoliaave  replied to  Ozzwald @4.2.1    8 months ago

F....Fox news!  Don't you have something better 'cause this is getting old.

 
 
Thrawn 31
4.2.3  Thrawn 31  replied to  magnoliaave @4.2.2    8 months ago
F....Fox news!  Don't you have something better 'cause this is getting old.

Then tell fat fuck to stop watching it all the damn time. The guy seriously live tweets Fox, its fucking sad. 

 
 
DocPhil
4.2.4  DocPhil  replied to  magnoliaave @4.2.2    8 months ago

Unfortunately Mags, Fox is now into this up to their necks. With Hannity becoming the newest focus of the Cohen investigation, there is a Fox imprinteur all over this now. This time, I guess I'm right.

 
 
Paula Bartholomew
4.2.5  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Ozzwald @4.2.1    8 months ago

They misplaced their sock puppets.

 
 
Vic Eldred
4.3  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  DocPhil @4    8 months ago

That's kind of a twisted logic. This matter seems to involve Cohen. it was referred to the Southern District of new York, however the FBI will have a look at all of Trump's business and they can't be trusted with deciding what the pertinent documents are. We have proof of that, do we not?  Both Comey & McCabe lied and leaked. Investigator Strozk proved to be so biased, he had to be removed from the case by Mueller. All of whom despise Trump.

And we have just learned that other clients of Cohen have been leaked.

Trump wins.

They need somebody independent to look at the files. Maybe Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz?

 
 
DocPhil
4.3.1  DocPhil  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.3    8 months ago

I guess the judge agreed more with my analysis than that you're putting forth. The best that the president is going to get is a special master, appointed by the judge who issued the original search warrant, to supervise the review.

 
 
Vic Eldred
4.3.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  DocPhil @4.3.1    8 months ago

That's what he is supposed to get. 

 
 
Peter Loves the Real Tea Party.
5  Peter Loves the Real Tea Party.    8 months ago

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-wants-review-some-materials-seized-cohen-fbi-raid-n866226?cid=eml_nbn_20180416

Fox News host Sean Hannity revealed as Michael Cohen's mystery client

In an earlier court filing, Donald Trump's personal attorney had sought to shield the identity of his client from becoming public.

 
 
Kavika
5.1  Kavika   replied to  Peter Loves the Real Tea Party. @5    8 months ago

Ooops, Sean Hannity of Fox News, that Sean Hannity...

He's been after Mueller for months now...LOL, seems old Sean boy might have a little something to hide...

 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Kavika @5.1    8 months ago

That's right, that's what the left is good at

 
 
Raven Wing
5.1.2  Raven Wing  replied to  Kavika @5.1    8 months ago

Really?  ??   Mr. Clean and Honest! Wonder why he was being so protected? What does he have to hide?

 
 
Kavika
5.1.3  Kavika   replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.1    8 months ago

As good as the right is looking for a Kenyan birth certificate for Obama...

Enjoy the ride Vic, it could get interesting.

Wasn't it Cohen that stated that Hannity was a client?

 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1.4  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Kavika @5.1.3    8 months ago
As good as the right is looking for a Kenyan birth certificate for Obama..

Oh it's the right that asked that?  BTW Goldwater, McCain and Cruz were all asked the same thing, so you can put it away.

 
 
Kavika
5.1.5  Kavika   replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.4    8 months ago

Oh please Vic, not even close to being the same as the witch hunt that Trump and the right have been on for years..

What ever happened to the ''investigators'' that Trump sent to Hawaii to find the ''truth''....Did they go native.

 
 
magnoliaave
5.1.6  magnoliaave  replied to  Kavika @5.1    8 months ago

Why?  Because he has an attorney?  I have one....don't you?

 
 
JohnRussell
5.1.7  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.4    8 months ago
Oh it's the right that asked that?  BTW Goldwater, McCain and Cruz were all asked the same thing, so you can put it away.

Ridiculous. 

 
 
Kavika
5.1.8  Kavika   replied to  magnoliaave @5.1.6    8 months ago

Do you understand that Hannity name wasn't ''leaked''...The judge in the case ordered Cohen's attorney to name his clients which Cohen said that Hannity was one of his clients...

So much for it being leaked.

 
 
magnoliaave
5.1.9  magnoliaave  replied to  Kavika @5.1.8    8 months ago

Leaked or whatever......there is no reason this judge needs to know this when the entire investigation is getting the goods on Trump.  Were ALL the names of Cohen's clients given to this judge?  Was mine in there......was yours?  What other US citizens were included? 

When I am not under investigation where does it stop? 

This is wrong and you know it.  This is overstepping and stomping on our rights. 

 
 
Peter Loves the Real Tea Party.
5.1.10  Peter Loves the Real Tea Party.  replied to  magnoliaave @5.1.9    8 months ago

Sort of depends on whether they are tied together or not. Three clients, all high profile, all are friends, two out of the three (so far) had Cohen pay off somebody after an affair to suppress that info in the press. Who knows what else those three clients share in common? Plus, a lawyer with only three clients is probably providing the exact same service to all three, especially when they are all connected in myriad ways. I can see why a judge and others would like to know. Plus, Hannity doesn't actually qualify for lawyer client privilege, so that even makes this more interesting.

 
 
magnoliaave
5.1.11  magnoliaave  replied to  Kavika @5.1.3    8 months ago

Why wouldn't they ask about Barack Hussein Obama's birth certificate?  Seems ok to me.  Dad from Kenya politically involved.....married in Hawaii, etc etc.  But, once it was proven that he is a US citizens it should have stopped.  Just like this should have stopped. 

 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1.12  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.7    8 months ago
Ridiculous.

Where were you during the recent GOP primaries? Don't you recall Trump asking about Cruz being born in the US?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-raises-questions-cruz-u-s-citizenship-article-1.2487139

As for the others:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/07/there-was-a-very-real-birther-debate-about-john-mccain/?utm_term=.ee86d97c8759

http://www.theprogressiveprofessor.com/?p=26390

 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1.13  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Kavika @5.1.5    8 months ago
not even close

Why cause Obama was special?

 
 
magnoliaave
5.1.14  magnoliaave  replied to  Peter Loves the Real Tea Party. @5.1.10    8 months ago

So, what is unusual about a man paying off a woman he had an affair with?  Is that illegal?  I don't think so. 

 
 
Peter Loves the Real Tea Party.
5.1.15  Peter Loves the Real Tea Party.  replied to  magnoliaave @5.1.14    8 months ago

Is that all you got from my statement?

Anyway, you being a believer, I'm a little surprised you aren't offended by Hannity/Trump/etc... regardless.

I could be wrong, but IIRC, Christian Rules 7 and 10 read as follows: 

"Thou shalt not commit adultery"

and

"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s."

I find it interesting to witness how quickly many Christians abandon their most basic of teachings in favor of supporting a political party.

I do find the possessive in rule 10 to be pretty funny as well. How does it feel, as a woman, to be a mans property under God's laws?

 
 
Kavika
5.1.16  Kavika   replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.13    8 months ago
Why cause Obama was special?

No, I'm sure that you know the difference but can't admit that you are tilting at windmills. 

Oh, BTW Sheriff Joe is going to prove that Obama birth certificate is phony if he is elected...Keep on keepin on Vic.

http://www.newsweek.com/joe-arpaio-obama-birth-certificate-862002

 
 
Kavika
5.1.17  Kavika   replied to  magnoliaave @5.1.9    8 months ago
Were ALL the names of Cohen's clients given to this judge?

All three of his clients were. 

 
 
Raven Wing
5.1.18  Raven Wing  replied to  Kavika @5.1.17    8 months ago

And it gets even funnier;

"Hannity said of the media. “They're assuming — because I guess he did some type of work for some Republican guy — they're figuring, 'Oh, he must've done a big settlement case for Hannity.' That's not — no, that's not what happened. Ever.”

"Not one of any issue I ever dealt with Michael Cohen on ever — ever — involved a matter between me and any third party,” Hannity added.

Hannity's denial is a bit confusing. Hannity sought Cohen's legal counsel only on matters involving Hannity and himself?" 

Source:  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/the-gaping-hole-in-sean-hannity%E2%80%99s-story-about-being-michael-cohen%E2%80%99s-client/ar-AAvXmtq?li=BBnb7Kz

"Hannity made further comments that appear to be somewhat inconsistent with the statement he issued through Fox News. He said that he might have paid Cohen a small fee, after all, and said he did not merely assume that their conversations were privileged but rather sought assurances.

“I might have handed him 10 bucks [and said,] 'I definitely want your attorney-client privilege on this,' ” Hannity said on the radio. “Something like that. I requested that privilege with him when I would ask him: 'Well, this just came up. What do you think about this? What do you think about that?' ”

Really? Handed him just 10.00 bucks for being his legal attorney-client consultant?  good one

 
 
magnoliaave
5.1.19  magnoliaave  replied to  Peter Loves the Real Tea Party. @5.1.15    8 months ago

It's life and the Lord knows we aren't perfect. 

We are talking legalities here.

 
 
DocPhil
5.1.20  DocPhil  replied to  magnoliaave @5.1.14    8 months ago

It is if it turns out to be an illegal campaign contribution......Trump says he didn't make the payment...If that is true, then Cohen had to report it as a campaign contribution. If Trump did make the payment, he lied on the legal documents that were drawn up or at least suborned the lie. If he gave Cohen the money under the table and instructed him to lie, both he and Cohen committed a crime and are libel under state law.  Personally, I don't give a darn what Trump and any of his women did {as long as it was consentual}. That is between Trump and Melania. It's like Clinton....it ain't the crime, it's the cover-up.

 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1.21  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Kavika @5.1.16    8 months ago
No, I'm sure that you know the difference but can't admit that you are tilting at windmills.

It's you that are using the very difference that proves you wrong....If 3 white guys get called on the same thing, it's not racism, so keep beating that drum.

 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1.22  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  magnoliaave @5.1.9    8 months ago

On his national radio show later, Hannity acknowledged he had sought advice from Cohen but said he never engaged him as an attorney. Cohen never billed him and never represented him in any matter involving a third party, Hannity said. 

Hannity said his discussions with Cohen "dealt almost exclusively about real estate."

"I have occasionally had brief conversations with him about legal questions about which I wanted his input and perspective, and I assumed that those conversations were confidential," he said.

 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1.23  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  DocPhil @5.1.20    8 months ago

Right, you want to get him on violating campaign finance law, that's what your'e down to. And that lawyer supposedly representing Daniels (whom I'd like to meet in a dark alley) is the front man for just that.

 
 
Kavika
5.1.24  Kavika   replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.21    8 months ago
It's you that are using the very difference that proves you wrong....If 3 white guys get called on the same thing, it's not racism, so keep beating that drum.

LMAO, come on Vic...Facts are facts and I don't know what 3 white guys have to do with the comments...Sounds like a strawman on your part. 

Have a enlightened evening Vic.

 
 
lennylynx
5.1.25  lennylynx  replied to  Kavika @5.1.16    8 months ago

Lol!  Sadly, birtherism is probably still a good way to bring out the right wing dingbats on election day.

 
 
Paula Bartholomew
5.1.26  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  magnoliaave @5.1.6    8 months ago

Why do you have one?  They are like a second dick, only useful if you are dating twins.

 
 
Vic Eldred
5.1.27  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Kavika @5.1.24    8 months ago

Of course you don't understand it. It's called fair and equal treatment. 

 
 
Spikegary
5.2  Spikegary  replied to  Peter Loves the Real Tea Party. @5    8 months ago

Ohmigod, Hannity hired.....shudder.....a Lawyer!

And no one sees this as a witch hunt?  Really?

 
 
Thrawn 31
5.2.1  Thrawn 31  replied to  Spikegary @5.2    8 months ago

Not at all, they seem to just be going where the evidence leads. If anyone involved was acting in a criminal fashion then fuck them, I hope the FBI nails them all. Of course law and order are important to me. 

 
 
Peter Loves the Real Tea Party.
5.2.2  Peter Loves the Real Tea Party.  replied to  Spikegary @5.2    8 months ago

I see a trail that leads where it leads.

 
 
Vic Eldred
5.2.3  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Thrawn 31 @5.2.1    8 months ago
Not at all, they seem to just be going where the evidence leads.

Obviously it dosen't lead to Collusion. We are now down to campaign finance laws

 
 
magnoliaave
6  magnoliaave    8 months ago

It is sickingly disgusting.  Now, the FBI knows that Sean Hannity is his client.  Where does it end?  It should not have been made public that Hannity is his client.  They can now go through all of his files.  The FBI/aka Hillary's patsies can now go through it all and her fat ass is laughing at it all. 

They have to hide what any citizen of the U.S. has to hide.....their privacy.  This is not N.K. nor Russia nor Syria nor Iran nor Iraq.  This is the USA and we have rights.  The FBI needs to keep quiet whatever they find until the appropriate time. 

These are dark days for the US. 

 
 
Vic Eldred
6.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  magnoliaave @6    8 months ago

Hannity was the name that Cohen withheld. within no time it was leaked and all the haters on the left were giving each other high fives

 
 
magnoliaave
6.1.1  magnoliaave  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1    8 months ago

I hope Hannity gets them where it hurts worse......between their friggin legs.

 
 
Vic Eldred
6.1.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  magnoliaave @6.1.1    8 months ago

I got a feelin there ain't much between their legs. My favorite redhead used to kick that kind right out the door!

 
 
Kavika
6.1.3  Kavika   replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1    8 months ago

You might want to check out the ''leaked'' part.

Seems that isn't true.  The judge ordered that the name be released...'

BTW, Hannity has stated that he never hired Cohen as an attorney.....

 
 
Vic Eldred
6.1.4  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Kavika @6.1.3    8 months ago
The judge ordered that the name be released...

Could I have a link?

BTW, Hannity has stated that he never hired Cohen as an attorney.

It's possible he got "pro bono" advice from Cohen, is it not?

 
 
Kavika
6.1.5  Kavika   replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.4    8 months ago

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/16/politics/michael-cohen-hearing/index.html

Of course it possible that Hannity received some pro bono advice. But as things progress we'll see what it's all about.

 
 
Vic Eldred
6.1.6  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Kavika @6.1.5    8 months ago

So now we are into Hannity's business and what allows you to take away his rights, MR liberal?

 
 
Thrawn 31
6.2  Thrawn 31  replied to  magnoliaave @6    8 months ago

You all are just getting pathetic now. The FBI has done nothing illegal, and apparently what Mueller passed off was serious enough to warrant the raid. If Cohen was acting illegally (REALLY looks like he has been), then fuck him. If Trump is implicated as well, then fuck him to. No one is above the law. 

 
 
Thrawn 31
7  Thrawn 31    8 months ago
until he and Cohen have determined what in that material should be excluded because of the attorney-client privilege. 

Bullshit. 

 
 
magnoliaave
7.1  magnoliaave  replied to  Thrawn 31 @7    8 months ago

Bullshit on what?

 
 
Vic Eldred
7.1.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  magnoliaave @7.1    8 months ago

I guess, the whole Mueller investigation!  I agree it's Bullshit!

 
 
Vic Eldred
9  seeder  Vic Eldred    8 months ago

So Cohen didn't get what he wanted, but neither did the prosecutors. I happen to agree with the Judge on this. Somebody independent of the FBI will sort through the seized documents and decide what is privileged.

Thank you all

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

CB
Kathleen
Dismayed Patriot
Jack_TX
cjcold
MrFrost
epistte
Jim Greene
Mark in Wyoming
charger 383


Ed-NavDoc
bugsy
Texan1211
arkpdx
WallyW


67 visitors