The Robert Mueller Investigation

[jimmyjazz 47133]

The difference is that SHS is now floating the idea.  That's not random.

[retread 2951]

Yep, it's going to happen soon

[SubliminalHorn 7008]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

The difference is that SHS is now floating the idea.  That's not random.

Yep he’s gonna try. May even happen this week. Hold on tight, folks. 

[wildcat09 29578]

30 minutes ago, Jhawk said:

I appreciate the response.

So where we sit is that the DA or taint team or whatever is going to hit control "F" on the inbox and files of Cohen and search "Russia" and anything they find in there that might incriminate anyone will be released.  If that is the case then there doesn't even need to be courts anymore.  Just get the tapes of the convos between client and attorney and either burn the witches or let them go.  No need for dog and pony shows.

I really don't understand how this can happen in our system.  IF YOU ASSUME that Mueller is trying to nab trump, isn't this the equivilent of Mueller saying "I couldn't find anything on you so let's just look at your communication with your attorney and see if you have talked at all about my investigation or evidence I might have missed or even maybe a recorded conversation where you say "yeah we had the help with russia, but Mueller will never find out how."  Under the assumption that mueller's job is to chop off the head of the dragon then it's hard to see how this is anything but "get trump at all costs" move.

It is impossible that you are this stupid.

[yaqdum 182]

one question i've had is how sensitive the info has been at cohen's places.  i think i know now.

[Jhawk 1075]

According to Fox it was about the daniels payoff and taxi medallions in NYC.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/04/10/feds-request-documents-from-trump-organization-related-to-michael-cohens-payment-to-stormy-daniels.html

A new question, what the hell does daniels get out of all of this besides attention?  She is trying to have trump deposed?  For what?  If she took consideration that was legally tendered for her confidentiality then isn't she breaking her contract just by acknowledging the affair happened?  This has to either be funds from the trump foundation or campaign funds right?

Edited April 10, 2018 by Jhawk

[Pescado_Rojo 19583]

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

It is impossible that you are this stupid.

He's not...he's Sheeeit level trolling.

[Jhawk 1075]

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

It is impossible that you are this stupid.

Why don't you shed some light on stuff instead of just cloak room the shit out of the thread?

[wildcat09 29578]

Just now, Pescado_Rojo said:

He's not...he's Sheeeit level trolling.

Yeah, that's my take as well.

[otisdog 365]

1 hour ago, RPM said:

 The only thing stopping them would be making Pence the president. 

Pence is going down no matter his current title. Too many rubles in his pockets....

[jimmyjazz 47133]

5 minutes ago, Jhawk said:

Why don't you shed some light on stuff instead of just cloak room the shit out of the thread?

Physician, heal thyself.

[Kyrie Eleison 9312]

1 hour ago, hayden_horn said:

i taint teamed your mother

[High Plains Drifter 11186]

4 minutes ago, otisdog said:

Pence is going down no matter his current title. Too many rubles in his pockets....

Madame President Pelosi, anybody?

 

Remember Republicans, when Pelosi moves into the WH and your head explodes, you voted for this Orange DOTUS. You brought this on yourselves.

[troph 25204]

We watched this last night to see how long it took for fox to cover. They had a discussion about “men saying they feel like women” so they could cheat and in the Boston marathon discussion right before sex crazed pandas. That network is all kinds of fubard

[atomheartbevo 90638]

16 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

The difference is that SHS is now floating the idea.  That's not random.

No, but again, nothing changed this week. If they thought they could get away with it, they would have already done it. 

Plus, Trump’s ego still thinks Mueller will ultimately exonerate him and somehow wrap up Hillary instead. 

[Ghost of LL 15699]

18 minutes ago, Jhawk said:

I appreciate the response.

So where we sit is that the DA or taint team or whatever is going to hit control "F" on the inbox and files of Cohen and search "Russia" and anything they find in there that might incriminate anyone will be released.  If that is the case then there doesn't even need to be courts anymore.  Just get the tapes of the convos between client and attorney and either burn the witches or let them go.  No need for dog and pony shows.

I really don't understand how this can happen in our system.  IF YOU ASSUME that Mueller is trying to nab trump, isn't this the equivilent of Mueller saying "I couldn't find anything on you so let's just look at your communication with your attorney and see if you have talked at all about my investigation or evidence I might have missed or even maybe a recorded conversation where you say "yeah we had the help with russia, but Mueller will never find out how."  Under the assumption that mueller's job is to chop off the head of the dragon then it's hard to see how this is anything but "get trump at all costs" move.

That's not how any of this works.

In order to get a warrant, you need to demonstrate to a judge that you have probable cause to believe that the search will reveal admissible evidence of a crime.  That requires an evidentiary showing sufficient to convince a judge that there is probable cause that a crime has been committed.

The burden to get a warrant to search an attorney's files is much higher.  You need to have some specific indication that the attorney's files will contain non-privileged documents that evidence a crime.  Mere probable cause isn't going to cut it.

Once the search is carried out, the investigators cannot see any privileged material--hence the need for taint team to be kept completely separate from the investigatory team.  If the investigatory team does see any privileged material, than not only that material but any other evidence that comes out of the investigation following up on the leads provided by that privileged material will be inadmissible.  And the question of admissibility is determined by a judge (and reviewed by a court of appeals).

So no--federal investigators can't just go on a fishing expedition through privileged materials.  That's wrong on three levels.  First, they can't go on a fishing expedition; they have to get pre-approval from a judge who is going to prevent fishing expeditions.  Second, they can't review privileged material.  Third, if they do review privileged material, a judge will exclude not only the privileged material, but anything that results from their review, which would jeopardize the entire prosecution.

So your concern of a Mueller run amok is really, really unfounded.

[hobbes2702 13450]

8 minutes ago, Jhawk said:

Why don't you shed some light on stuff instead of just cloak room the shit out of the thread?

Because people constantly answer you questions and you just continue with your bullshit

[retread 2951]

Concern trolling

[Anastasis 23717]

Privileged: 

Email from Cohen to Trump dated whatever: "Donald, I think it makes strategic sense to respond favorably to Class Counsel's offer of settlement in the Trump University matter as their offer is in the same ballpark as actual damages.  We should go to mediation soon and determine if we can get this deal done."

 

Not Privileged:

Email from Cohen to Trump dated whatever: "Donald, I talked to Felix Sater today and Aras Agalarov and they confirmed that per your request, they will talk to Putin about you easing sanctions after the election if he loosened his grip on the St. Petersburg development this week."

It has no bearing on your description, but just gonna point out that trump reportedly does not use email. Tweets are his primary form of electronic communication.

[Pescado_Rojo 19583]

1 minute ago, retread said:

Concern trolling

just asking questions...

[retread 2951]

I'm interested in learning more...

[TornACL 7792]

Maybe we should have a separate forum where jhawk and smokey just ask each other questions, back and forth, into eternity while never exhibiting any shred of actual intellectual curiosity?

[jimmyjazz 47133]

6 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

The burden to get a warrant to search an attorney's files is much higher.  You need to have some specific indication that the attorney's files will contain non-privileged documents that evidence a crime.  Mere probable cause isn't going to cut it.

Can we get a clear explanation of what type of evidence might be damning yet inadmissible?  Could it be something as simple as "yeah, I robbed the bank but I'm going to plead not guilty"?

[Kyrie Eleison 9312]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

Can we get a clear explanation of what type of evidence might be damning yet inadmissible?  Could it be something as simple as "yeah, I robbed the bank but I'm going to plead not guilty"?

"Hey Mike, I fucked a slut last week.  Lol."

[Ghost of LL 15699]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

Can we get a clear explanation of what type of evidence might be damning yet inadmissible?  Could it be something as simple as "yeah, I robbed the bank but I'm going to plead not guilty"?

With respect to the privilege, I think you've got it right.  If, for example, Cohen emails his secretary saying "can you please grab Title 18 of the United States Code and bring it to my office?  I need to know the elements of fraud against the United States after my discussion with Mr. Trump," that would be pretty damning, but would be completely inadmissible.  Or if, for example, after reading through Title 18, Cohen writes a memorandum to the file outlining the elements, concluding that Trump probably committed wire fraud, but identifying some possible defenses (e.g., insanity), that would be really really damning, but also completely inadmissible.

[Dutchrudder 11241]

Probably just a bunch of locker room talk. 

[wildcat09 29578]

15 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

That's not how any of this works.

In order to get a warrant, you need to demonstrate to a judge that you have probable cause to believe that the search will reveal admissible evidence of a crime.  That requires an evidentiary showing sufficient to convince a judge that there is probable cause that a crime has been committed.

The burden to get a warrant to search an attorney's files is much higher.  You need to have some specific indication that the attorney's files will contain non-privileged documents that evidence a crime.  Mere probable cause isn't going to cut it.

Once the search is carried out, the investigators cannot see any privileged material--hence the need for taint team to be kept completely separate from the investigatory team.  If the investigatory team does see any privileged material, than not only that material but any other evidence that comes out of the investigation following up on the leads provided by that privileged material will be inadmissible.  And the question of admissibility is determined by a judge (and reviewed by a court of appeals).

So no--federal investigators can't just go on a fishing expedition through privileged materials.  That's wrong on three levels.  First, they can't go on a fishing expedition; they have to get pre-approval from a judge who is going to prevent fishing expeditions.  Second, they can't review privileged material.  Third, if they do review privileged material, a judge will exclude not only the privileged material, but anything that results from their review, which would jeopardize the entire prosecution.

So your concern of a Mueller run amok is really, really unfounded.

Jhawk was also "concerned" that Rod Rosenstein was part of a long-game Deep State conspiracy against Trump because he signed off on an application to extend FISA surveillance of Carter Page.

Edited April 10, 2018 by wildcat09

[Jhawk 1075]

2 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

With respect to the privilege, I think you've got it right.  If, for example, Cohen emails his secretary saying "can you please grab Title 18 of the United States Code and bring it to my office?  I need to know the elements of fraud against the United States after my discussion with Mr. Trump," that would be pretty damning, but would be completely inadmissible.  Or if, for example, after reading through Title 18, Cohen writes a memorandum to the file outlining the elements, concluding that Trump probably committed wire fraud, but identifying some possible defenses (e.g., insanity), that would be really really damning, but also completely inadmissible.

This is what we really need.  I appreciate the post.

[Ghost of LL 15699]

Just now, Kyrie Eleison said:

"Hey Mike, I fucked a slut last week.  Lol."

I would say that's not privileged, because it is not for the purpose of the rendering of legal advice.  

But that's where we get into some grey area.  If there is an implied "what are the legal ramifications of that," then it probably is privileged.  And that necessarily requires a determination of the relationship between Cohen and Trump.  If Trump only ever talks to Cohen about legal matters, then the legal question is probably implied and it is probably privileged.  But if they have the type of relationship in which they routinely talk about the sluts they fuck without any consideration of any ancillary legal questions, then I would say it's not privileged.

And that's what the taint team does--consider those questions.  And in considering those questions, they know that a federal judge is one day going to check their work.  And if they reach the wrong conclusion, they've fucked the entire prosecution.  So they're going to be super-conservative in their decisionmaking.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3871]

7 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Can we get a clear explanation of what type of evidence might be damning yet inadmissible?  Could it be something as simple as "yeah, I robbed the bank but I'm going to plead not guilty"?

Here it has to be that the lawyer was part of the crime.  Not just serving as a lawyer.

 

“Mike, I committed fraud.” Privileged. 

“Mike, let’s go commit fraud.” “Sounds great!” Not privileged.  

[SmokeyTheBear 5569]

8 minutes ago, TornACL said:

Maybe we should have a separate forum where jhawk and smokey just ask each other questions, back and forth, into eternity while never exhibiting any shred of actual intellectual curiosity?

[jimmyjazz 47133]

1 minute ago, Ghost of LL said:

I would say that's not privileged, because it is not for the purpose of the rendering of legal advice.  

But that's where we get into some grey area.  If there is an implied "what are the legal ramifications of that," then it probably is privileged.  And that necessarily requires a determination of the relationship between Cohen and Trump.  If Trump only ever talks to Cohen about legal matters, then the legal question is probably implied and it is probably privileged.  But if they have the type of relationship in which they routinely talk about the sluts they fuck without any consideration of any ancillary legal questions, then I would say it's not privileged.

And that's what the taint team does--consider those questions.  And in considering those questions, they know that a federal judge is one day going to check their work.  And if they reach the wrong conclusion, they've fucked the entire prosecution.  So they're going to be super-conservative in their decisionmaking.

Good stuff.  So what kind of conversation might pierce the attorney-client privilege and lead to admissible evidence?  "Don, I think you'll be immune to prosecution if you have Jared sign off on this deal?"

(I'm winging it here.  Looking for clarity.)

[wildcat09 29578]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

Good stuff.  So what kind of conversation might pierce the attorney-client privilege and lead to admissible evidence?  "Don, I think you'll be immune to prosecution if you have Jared sign off on this deal?"

(I'm winging it here.  Looking for clarity.)

Here's a pretty good Lawfare explainer: https://www.lawfareblog.com/michael-cohen-attorney-client-privilege-and-crime-fraud-exception

Quote

That question brings us to something known as the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege. It is, if you will, an exception to an exception that allows the goverment to read, review, compel production of and compel testimony of an attorney and his or her records. It arises if, and only if, the client uses the attorney’s services to commit a crime. (So, to be clear, it does not apply retrospectively, as when I tell you about a crime I have already committed.) An example of this—an easy one—would be if I use an attorney to help me draft an affidavit that I am going to submit to a court, and the affidavit is false. I have used the attorney’s help to commit a crime. The lawyer may not (indeed usually does not—since, notwithstanding the public derision, most attorneys would not knowingly assist a client in committing a crime) know that the crime is afoot—he may be completely ignorant. But if the government can show a court that there is a basis for thinking that the crime has occurred (here, in my example, that the affidavit is a lie) then the attorney can be and will be required to testify as to the nature of his interaction with the client. “What did the client tell you?” is a completely impermissible question generally—but it is a lawful question when there is reason to think that the answer is “X happened,” and the lawyer took that answer and put it in an affidavit that was submitted to a court and it turns out that the statement that “X happened” is a bald-faced lie.

You can readily imagine other examples of when and how a lawyer’s services might be used to commit a crime. The lawyer helps set up a shell corporation (perfectly legal generally) and the corporation is used to foster a Ponzi scheme. The lawyer is asked about how to secure insurance, but the insurance is then used to collect on an insurance fraud. And so on. In other words, the crime-fraud exception applies when an attorney’s advice is used to futher the crime. Or, as the Supreme Court put it in Clark v. United States, 289 U.S. 1 (1933), “A client who consults an attorney for advice that will serve him in the commission of a fraud will have no help from the law. He must let the truth be told.”

 

[lemonlime 5503]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

Good stuff.  So what kind of conversation might pierce the attorney-client privilege and lead to admissible evidence?  "Don, I think you'll be immune to prosecution if you have Jared sign off on this deal?"

(I'm winging it here.  Looking for clarity.)

Anything in which the lawyer is helping the client commit a fraud.  So, Mikey, how do I hide the money I'm laundering from Russia?  That's admissible. 

Mike, how do I transfer money legally?  Or, Mikey, I'm worried I inadvertently broke the law in some prior transactions, what should I do to minimize my legal exposure?  Those conversations are inadmissible.

Also, keep in mind that it's only conversations within the attorney client relationship that are inadmissible.  Just because Cohen has an "Esq." next to his name doesn't mean that any conversation with him is protected.  For instance, if Cohen was acting in a pure business capacity, that wouldn't be protected by any privilege.  Best example I can think of off hand for this is with respect to Stormy Daniels.  Both Trump and Cohen have said Trump didn't know about the payoff.  If that's true, Cohen wasn't acting as Trump's lawyer.  Nothing about that would be privileged.

[jimmyjazz 47133]

Great example, thanks wildcat.

[Grandioso 2592]

Some people are still defending Trump. You couldn't pay me to do that shit.

I stand by my Shaggy post from 1/29/2017:

Quote

The next 4 years are going to be far more exhausting for Trump apologists than opponents. His supporters are the ones that will be straining reason and credulity in order to defend the baffling delusions and whims of the most capricious president in recent memory. And when his presidency ends in some ignominious fashion with a consensus that this country made a grave mistake, you will do the same you did with Bush when his last term ended: quietly pretend that your unyielding and vocal support for him never existed and/or blame liberals.

 

[Ghost of LL 15699]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

Good stuff.  So what kind of conversation might pierce the attorney-client privilege and lead to admissible evidence?  "Don, I think you'll be immune to prosecution if you have Jared sign off on this deal?"

(I'm winging it here.  Looking for clarity.)

That's another grey area.

Under the crime/fraud exception, communications between a lawyer and a client are not privileged if "there is a reasonable basis to suspect (1) that the [lawyer or client] was committing or intending to commit a crime or fraud, and (2) that the . . . attorney work product was used in furtherance of the alleged crime or fraud."  See in re Grand Jury Matter No. 3, 847 F.3d 157, 165 (3d Cir. 2017).  So it's really a narrow exception.  

What you're spelling out is probably subject to the exception--an email thread whereby Cohen gives advice as to how to structure a criminal enterprise so as to shield Trump from prosecution.  

But if it's something where Cohen is opining that something is not illegal if done this way (but would be illegal if done another way), I don't think that's subject to the exception.  That's just ordinary legal advice.

Again--those are the questions the taint team needs to consider, and which will ultimately be reviewed by a federal judge in determining admissiblity.

[wildcat09 29578]

3 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

Also, keep in mind that it's only conversations within the attorney client relationship that are inadmissible.  Just because Cohen has an "Esq." next to his name doesn't mean that any conversation with him is protected.  For instance, if Cohen was acting in a pure business capacity, that wouldn't be protected by any privilege.  Best example I can think of off hand for this is with respect to Stormy Daniels.  Both Trump and Cohen have said Trump didn't know about the payoff.  If that's true, Cohen wasn't acting as Trump's lawyer.  Nothing about that would be privileged.

Cohen also has a history of acting in more of a business capacity for the Trump Organization as well. If he's in Moscow leading negotiations on a Trump Tower deal, rather than providing legal counsel to someone else who is responsible for handling negotiations, then he isn't acting as a lawyer either.

[Chad Fuck 18134]

6 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Cohen also has a history of acting in more of a business capacity for the Trump Organization as well. If he's in Moscow leading negotiations on a Trump Tower deal, rather than providing legal counsel to someone else who is responsible for handling negotiations, then he isn't acting as a lawyer either.

He fancies himself Tom Hagen.  

 

[wildcat09 29578]

It really is hilarious that the entire Trump family seems to genuinely believe that they're totally protected so long as an attorney is in the room or on the phone whenever they're planning crime stuff. It was awhile ago now, but that was Don Jr.'s excuse during his congressional testimony for not talking about their AF1 session planning the response after the Trump Tower meeting story broke.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3871]

He’s not a wartime consigliere.  

[Chad Fuck 18134]

 

7 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

It really is hilarious that the entire Trump family seems to genuinely believe that they're totally protected so long as an attorney is in the room or on the phone whenever they're planning crime stuff. It was awhile ago now, but that was Don Jr.'s excuse during his congressional testimony for not talking about their AF1 session planning the response after the Trump Tower meeting story broke.

They're TV show characters, who have a TV show level understanding of the world.

[TornACL 7792]

5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

It really is hilarious that the entire Trump family seems to genuinely believe that they're totally protected so long as an attorney is in the room or on the phone whenever they're planning crime stuff. It was awhile ago now, but that was Don Jr.'s excuse during his congressional testimony for not talking about their AF1 session planning the response after the Trump Tower meeting story broke.

I have always felt that this entire thing will come crumbling down due to the family's pure incompetence rather than cold-blooded, calculated manipulation. Even if there is outright, blatant collusion with Russia, I could see a scenario where these bumblefucks simply thought that this was the kind of the wheeling and dealing that international parties do with one another prior to elections.

 

 

[Chad Fuck 18134]

Just now, TornACL said:

I have always felt that this entire thing will come crumbling down due to the family's pure incompetence rather than cold-blooded, calculated manipulation. Even if there is outright, blatant collusion with Russia, I could see a scenario where these bumblefucks simply thought that this was the kind of the wheeling and dealing that international parties do with one another prior to elections.

 

 

100%.  

[Pescado_Rojo 19583]

1 minute ago, TornACL said:

I have always felt that this entire thing will come crumbling down due to the family's pure incompetence rather than cold-blooded, calculated manipulation. Even if there is outright, blatant collusion with Russia, I could see a scenario where these bumblefucks simply thought that this was the kind of the wheeling and dealing that international parties do with one another prior to elections.

 

 

"weaponized stupidity"

[Ghost of LL 15699]

3 minutes ago, TornACL said:

I have always felt that this entire thing will come crumbling down due to the family's pure incompetence rather than cold-blooded, calculated manipulation. Even if there is outright, blatant collusion with Russia, I could see a scenario where these bumblefucks simply thought that this was the kind of the wheeling and dealing that international parties do with one another prior to elections.

 

 

I don't disagree with that at all.  It was more Fredo than Benedict Arnold.

The result, however, is the same.

[jimmyjazz 47133]

I don't disagree, but it's important to point out that INTENT is still completely consistent with that level of incompetence.

[wildcat09 29578]

3 minutes ago, TornACL said:

I have always felt that this entire thing will come crumbling down due to the family's pure incompetence rather than cold-blooded, calculated manipulation. Even if there is outright, blatant collusion with Russia, I could see a scenario where these bumblefucks simply thought that this was the kind of the wheeling and dealing that international parties do with one another prior to elections.

 

 

Yeah, all of Don Jr.'s relevant public statements are wholly consistent with this. I'm sure they really believed they were just doing the same shit all politicians do. But, like LL said, even if they're all Fredos the result is the same.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3871]

12 minutes ago, TornACL said:

I have always felt that this entire thing will come crumbling down due to the family's pure incompetence rather than cold-blooded, calculated manipulation. Even if there is outright, blatant collusion with Russia, I could see a scenario where these bumblefucks simply thought that this was the kind of the wheeling and dealing that international parties do with one another prior to elections.

 

 

You are already seeing it.  Bills are being found unconstitutional / illegal based on admissions of racist Intent in tweets. He keeps worsening the investigation based on unforced errors. Even R senators seem invested in Mueller. People quitting / firing / forced to resign because he can’t hire right, can’t enforce protocols.  His platform has largely been ignored this year.  His incompetence has been stripping away his power when Rs own House, Senate, SCOTUS, Governorships, Executive.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Trump has certainly been his own worst enemy in this whole process.  He’s probably not as guilty of the underlying conspiracy crimes as he’s made out to be but his constant efforts to obstruct justice and being so myopic in thinking the investigation is all about him will be his undoing.