Comey and Mueller

You painted the narrative that Cohen was fully cooperating (assume honesty?) thus the US Attorney overstepped their bounds by raiding his office, home and hotel. Is that not correct? You used Cohen's lawyer statement to justify your position. Has Cohen publicly lied in the past?

Why would he recuse himself? Sorry, I haven't been following the conservative blogsphere closely enough.

 

Garmel,

Do keep in mind that Mueller isn't seeking the materials in Cohen's office. The Justice Department is. Cohen is the subject of the investigation, not Trump. The judge bought crime-fraud exception to the attorney - client privilege likely because he feared and likely had reason to believe that Cohen might start destroying documents if the documents were subpoenaed rather than seized. As for how the FBI safeguards privileged material, I'd defer to whatever NJLonghorn might say on the matter. He would know this much better than I would because his range of experience is broader and because, frankly, he's smarter than I am.

But also, keep in mind that even if they get privileged information in this process, that doesn't make it admissible in court. The Privilege is a rule of discovery as well as a rule of evidence.

Of course, I know what you're thinking. Why did the FBI throw the book at Cohen but give Hillary Clinton the benefit of the doubt in the e-mail investigation? Well, politics. That's why there should have been a special prosecutor in that case. However, that's not relevant to the merits of Cohen's matter.

 

Sorry, I've had enough of your snark, jackass. Goodbye.

 

I know this isn't on Trump. So, the FBI can say it's afraid of a client destroying material and commence with destroying the attorney-client privilege with no evidence of this occurring? Just get a judge and that's it? I'm not really worried about the privileged information showing up in court. However, I am afraid of these mysterious leaks that we've seen will happen in order to embarrass the president. However, I do find it funny that these clowns are now asking more from Cohn. Sounds like they didn't get what they wanted.

 

That was an honest question. I haven't seen any calls for Rosenstien's recusal thus I assumed it was being proffered in the conservative media. A google search of "Rosenstein recusal" showed a host of sights (Conservative, Liberal and Neutral) talking about it in June of 2017. I missed the conversation.

 

My apologies then. I thought you were trying to be an *** again.

 

He doesn't have to try. It comes quite naturally.

 

The American Bar Association would be condemning this as well, especially with a democrat president.

 

Of course, we had a somewhat similar issue come up in1998. Bill Clinton claimed attorney-client privilege to keep deputy White House counsel Bruce Lindsey from being questioned by prosecutors in the Lewinsky matter. The DC Circuit pretty much said that the privilege isn't going to apply to government attorneys being called to testify about possible criminal activity by government officials (like Bill Clinton). I don't remember the American Bar Association getting tangled up in the issue much, but I definitely remember the ACLU being vocal about it. And of course, the media was generally sympathetic to Clinton on the matter - talked about the attorney-client privilege being "under assault," etc.

 

What is lost here is that Rosenstein, Mueller, the US Attorney there and the judge are all GOP appointees.

 

I don't think anyone has lost that point. However, I do wonder if liberals will ever admit that they were nothing more than a mess of petty, juvenile, slandering ****-flingers when they were badmouthing Jeff Sessions when he was first appointed to be Attorney General.

It has pissed off Trump and his biggest supporters, but Sessions has acted with great professionalism and character in this. He could shut this down. He could have avoided recusal. He could have fought the appointment of a special prosecutor. Instead, he did what was right rather than what was easy at every step. In other words, he has been the complete opposite of Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch.

 

I'm not sure if I'd go so far as the last statement but Jeff Sessions has been professional throughout this saga, much moreso than his boss. Other than his missteps in the confirmation hearings, Sessions has displayed lots of integrity and deserves accolades for doing so.

 

I'm not sure how a point can be lost when it's basically the lead of every comment in every opinion piece ever written.

 

This is why you hear so many rumblings in some Republicans about sessions and about how Trump should fire Mueller. They sat through eight years of Eric Holder who proudly claimed to be Obama's wingman while quashing or slow-walking any and all investigations from conservatives, and Loretta Lynch who blatantly told Holder to use Dem Party terminology when talking about the Clinton "matter." They figure "the Dems don't care about propriety, why should we?"

So far Sessions has resisted, and maybe even gone overboard in resisting. It's irritating that Trump continues to use him as a punching bag, but that's just what Trump does about everyone.

What's really been funny is to watch the media insist so strongly what Trump is going to do and how awful it will be WHEN he does it. Trump has been about to fire Mueller for six months now, and I'm almost convinced that if it goes on another six months, some democrats will call for impeachment based on what Trump clearly WANTS to do.

 

It won't just be Democrats but Republicans. Did you see Grassley's comment this week? For all the screams of "Fake News" the reports about staffing decisions have been pretty accurate despite Trump/Sanders claims. The leaks in this White House have been unparalleled in modern administrations.

 

I am amazed that people will defend the overt violations of the constitution we have witnessed during the Obama years continuing into the Trump years. I could care less whether the perpetrators are GOP or DNC. The abuses by the executive and judicial branches are dangerous especially given the incompetence of the legislative branch. I’m surprised more of the lawyers on this board are not equally concerned.

 

Yep. That's where we are.

 

To a non-legal scholar outsider, this would appear to be an attempt to catch Cohen (illegally?) "fixing" all Trump's dirty deeds during the election. They then have leverage over him for other items. Remember when Cohen was named in the infamous dossier as having a rendezvous with the Russians in Eastern Europe? Cohen denied it, of course.

 

The Senate Judiciary Committee (chaired by Grassley) is moving forward with legislation to protect Mueller.

 

I have no doubt that's what it's about.

 

How is it that when a criminal is on trial, the questions he can and can't be asked under oath is strictly limited by regulations. Special Prosecutors on the other hand, don't seem to be fetter by any limitation whatsoever. Mueller seems to have gone way off the path and is out in the weeds trying to dig up any kind of dirt on Trump. Seems like the Russian Collusion thing was just a ruse to look into Trump's business and personal affairs (no pun).

 

I thought George Clooney did a better Michael Clayton than Michael Cohen did.

 

Boy, they are getting desperate. I still haven't seen any evidence that makes this raid legal. Hopefully, it will come.

 

I get the idea that if the attorney and the client are talking about committing criminal activity, then that information is not protected. But basically are we saying that any time we suspect someone of committing a crime, we can now get a warrant to raid the attorney, take all his stuff, read through it and have someone decide what is and is not privileged?

Cops are going to love that.

 

Yep, it's BS. Like what Deez and I said that if this was a democrat president the ACLU and the American Bar Association would be having a fit.

 

That assumption in that statement is that information and activities on Trump was the target. So far, media reports have all centered on Cohen's activities in the Stormy Daniels and now Access Hollywood storylines. Where does Attorney-Client privilege come into play? Cohen has publicly stated he paid Stormy out of his own funds unbeknownst to Trump.

 

It's not a special prosecutor issue. The DOJ is going after Cohen, not Mueller. As for your question, a criminal on trial can't be compelled to testify against himself because of the 5th Amendment. Cohen is not on trial yet.

 

One thing I've figured out in this is that Michael Cohen is a crappy lawyer, and I suspect that he's more of a "fixer" than a lawyer. His job isn't to represent Trump in legal matters or even to give him legal advice but to make problems go away - whatever that means.

I've thought about this Stormy Daniels debacle, and it's just a mountain of idiocy. Obviously, it was dumb for Trump to nail some filthy, trashy porn star. But when it came to handling it, where was his brain, and where was his so-called lawyer's brain? Personally, I think Trump paid her. He may have given the money to his lawyer who may have paid her, but the money came from Trump. I just don't believe that Cohen took it in the shorts for $130K to shut Stormy Daniels up.

By the way, there's nothing illegal about Trump paying off Daniels to shut up. It's sleazy, but it's not illegal. When asked about it, Trump could have deflected to Cohen, who could have just refused to comment. What lawyer doesn't know the answer "no comment?"

But instead, Cohen makes up some lie about paying it himself and taking out a home equity loan to do so. Well, that triggers the campaign contribution angle, and it invites scrutiny of his loan application. In other words, it creates or potentially creates a MUCH bigger story and potential scandal. Did he actually tell his bank that he was taking out the loan to finance hush money to a porn star Donald Trump was banging? I doubt it. But of course, if this was actually true, that's worse than if it's all a lie. He could be getting Trump in trouble for the contribution, and he could be putting himself in the slammer for bank fraud.

Did Cohen think this stuff through? Did he ponder the consequences of this course of events? If so, did he tell Trump? Lawyers are paid to know this stuff and to think out the causes and effects of saying and doing this. Cohen clearly didn't.

 

Does the bank have to press charges against Cohen for bank fraud to happen in this case?