Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (66065)

4/11/2018 9:49:13 AM

From: koan

Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 358387

A 20 year prosecutor said he had only seen a handful of these raids of a lawyer authorized and in every instance the lawyer went to jail.

They already know Cohen is guilty, that is how they got the permission for the raid! And why attorney client privilege is nothing but a right wing talking point.

<<

>>There is no attorney client privilege if a crime has been committed.

Actually, you have no idea what you’re talking about, as usual.

Whether a crime was committed isn’t the issue. The question is whether the privileged communication was made in the commission of either a crime or a tort. They are almost certainly looking for evidence the lawyer paid the 130k and they are going to try to call it an in kind contribution, which could easily be shot down in a million dollar trial, which is what these assholes are after.

To: i-node who wrote (66065)

4/11/2018 9:56:30 AM

From: koan

Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 358387

A Confrontation Between Mueller and Trump Is Coming
Political Wire
by Taegan Goddard

Banjamin Wittes: “I will put this as bluntly as I know how: There is no way that the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York would have sought or executed a search warrant against the president’s lawyer without overpowering evidence to support the action. The legal standard for such a search requires only probable cause that criminal activity is taking place. Under normal circumstances, which these are not, the prudential and policy factors counseling against such an action would be powerful.”

“This is the kind of step that would predictably elicit a reaction. The Justice Department simply would not take such an action lightly or without evidence that emphatically supports it. Add these prudential, legal and policy factors together and they cumulatively suggest that the evidence supporting the warrant application likely exceeds—probably by far—what is legally required.”

“Put another way, Cohen’s situation, and thus Trump’s situation, is grave.”