ADVERTISEMENT

Trump lawyer raided by FBI

What was he raided for? I would think privilege would be attached to any info related to Trump.

ETA: It looks like it's possibly due to bank fraud and wire fraud related to the Stormy payment. Seems like a stretch based on public info, not sure what they have behind the scenes.
 
Last edited:
What was he raided for? I would think privilege would be attached to any info related to Trump.

ETA: It looks like it's possibly due to bank fraud and wire fraud related to the Stormy payment. Seems like a stretch based on public info, not sure what they have behind the scenes.

Fun part is, it doesn't matter what they were looking for. They now have his lawyer's records from the past few decades working with Trump, and any evidence of a crime can be used to prosecute that crime, regardless of whether or not it is related to the original investigation.

There is a lot of talk about FEC violations related to the Stormy payment, similar to what ended John Edward's political career.
 
Fun part is, it doesn't matter what they were looking for. They now have his lawyer's records from the past few decades working with Trump, and any evidence of a crime can be used to prosecute that crime, regardless of whether or not it is related to the original investigation.
That's 100% incorrect. It absolutely matters what they were looking for. If it wasn't on the warrant, then it can't be used. Doesn't matter what they find. The rules for breaking privilege are extremely strict.
 
  • Like
Reactions: heelbent
No attorney-client privilege when there is evidence of possible crimes, what criminal acts no one knows of yet. The FBI agents that raided Cohen's office and residence in Trump tower were there for several hours, snatched up his phone, computers and boxes of records and tapes.

Mueller passed this errand off to the Southern District of NY for a couple reasons most likely, old Bobby 3 Sticks is being shrewd and tactical in his moves as he furthers this investigation. The Stormy Daniels saga has given him an open door to 45's personal attorney . . and with it all of those dark hidden secrets that 45 had to think would always be safe from reach . . . ya got that wrong Dotard.

Some stuff (the true atty/client privilege) will be kept away from the other investigators, but, Oh Lordy, there has to be some real treasures in this raid . . . and I'm loving this turn of events. Schweeeeet Jesus, this is a major step for the good of all of America and a true signal that no one is above the law.

A judge had to sign off on the warrants, so there had to be strong evidence of at least one crime connecting Cohen and there could be so many. Speaking of Cohen, he's not one of the elite lawyers in the USA that he believes he is, but, more of a personal strongman that Dotard fell in love with when he won a case for 45 several years back. Cohen specializes in intimidation of any that threaten his close friend 45, but, Bobby 3 Sticks isn't intimidated by neither him or POStus.

Cohen has already done some things that may get him disbarred in the state of NY, and that law firm he was attached to fired him yesterday . .

It just keeps going doesn't it . . ?

tick-tock . . . tick tock . . ticky, tick tock.
 
Mueller passed this errand off to the Southern District of NY for a couple reasons most likely, old Bobby 3 Sticks is being shrewd and tactical in his moves as he furthers this investigation.
Technically speaking, he didn't make the decision to pass it off. He has no power to do that. Rosenstein made that decision.

Oh Lordy, there has to be some real treasures in this raid
That's possible, but unless it's proof of a crime related to Daniels, it can't be used (assuming the reports are correct and that was the reason for the warrant). If protocol is followed, the people investigating it won't even see the records that don't involve the investigation. Breaking privilege is a really hard thing to do and is always narrowly interpreted. It will be interesting to see what they find out and if the court will allow it.
 
Fun part is, it doesn't matter what they were looking for. They now have his lawyer's records from the past few decades working with Trump, and any evidence of a crime can be used to prosecute that crime, regardless of whether or not it is related to the original investigation

Perfect. So we're finally going to get a conclusive ending here. Either A) Trump is impeached or B) We can finally have everyone calling for him to be prosecuted and impeached STFU.

No more, oh Trump's hiding this, or that. No "if Mueller can only get a little more information on X". He either gets impeached or everyone calling for his impeachment needs to shut up and eat some crow. What do we put as a timeline for this... a year?
 
That's 100% incorrect. It absolutely matters what they were looking for. If it wasn't on the warrant, then it can't be used. Doesn't matter what they find. The rules for breaking privilege are extremely strict.

Plain view doctrine. He can't just look for anything he wants, but if in the course of looking for what's on the warrant, he stumbles on to other damning evidence, then that would still be admissible.

I don't know enough the laws pertaining to breaking privilege to really comment on that, but I've heard legal experts argue that if there's evidence a crime has been committed, then those privileges go out the window.
 
Perfect. So we're finally going to get a conclusive ending here. Either A) Trump is impeached or B) We can finally have everyone calling for him to be prosecuted and impeached STFU.

No more, oh Trump's hiding this, or that. No "if Mueller can only get a little more information on X". He either gets impeached or everyone calling for his impeachment needs to shut up and eat some crow. What do we put as a timeline for this... a year?

Yeah I'm sure we'll all be eating crow real soon. That definitely seems like the most plausible outcome, especially after we learned all about Don Jr's stupidity. :rolleyes:

Him being impeached is a political outcome. The investigation could be perfectly damning, and republicans could still choose not to impeach him if they control the house. Intelligent people will base their view on the preponderance of evidence from the investigation. Not what politicians choose to do with that evidence. This question almost entirely hinges on the midterms in November.
 
Technically speaking, he didn't make the decision to pass it off. He has no power to do that. Rosenstein made that decision.

Which is what RM III did . . technically.

Even better . . because Rod Rosenstein is a 45 appointee. :)

Perfect. So we're finally going to get a conclusive ending here. Either A) Trump is impeached or B) We can finally have everyone calling for him to be prosecuted and impeached STFU.

No more, oh Trump's hiding this, or that. No "if Mueller can only get a little more information on X". He either gets impeached or everyone calling for his impeachment needs to shut up and eat some crow. What do we put as a timeline for this... a year?

Why is a timeline needed . . ? Fvck that, let Bobby 3 sticks do a thorough and complete investigation, even if it goes past the mid-term elections, which I personally hope it does.

If 45 isn't dirty, so be it . . that doesn't mean he isn't a POS.
 
Plain view doctrine. He can't just look for anything he wants, but if in the course of looking for what's on the warrant, he stumbles on to other damning evidence, then that would still be admissible.
Actively looking through documents doesn't count as plain view. I suppose if during the course of seizing the records, they saw a bloody knife on the desk that would constitute plain view, but I doubt that happened.

I don't know enough the laws pertaining to breaking privilege to really comment on that, but I've heard legal experts argue that if there's evidence a crime has been committed, then those privileges go out the window.
That's sort of true as long as the evidence pertains to the potential crime on the warrant. The real world is different than TV.

republicans could still choose not to impeach him if they control the house
They don't necessary have to have control. All they need is one third +1 since you need two thirds to impeach.
 
Yeah I'm sure we'll all be eating crow real soon. That definitely seems like the most plausible outcome, especially after we learned all about Don Jr's stupidity. :rolleyes:

Him being impeached is a political outcome. The investigation could be perfectly damning, and republicans could still choose not to impeach him if they control the house. Intelligent people will base their view on the preponderance of evidence from the investigation. Not what politicians choose to do with that evidence. This question almost entirely hinges on the midterms in November.

All I'm saying is one side will be eating crow. It'll either be the "Go Trump Go, he can't do anything wrong!" crowd, or the "Tick Tock Tick Tock he's getting impeached any day now" crowd. It doesn't much matter to me, I'd just like to see this thing settled once and for all.

Impeachment is the proper barometer to use here though. Because otherwise, we'll just be hearing "That nasty Trump, clearly guilty of treason, tax fraud, and of course pedophilia - but his cronies had his back!!!!1!1!".

This is a binary outcome. He was as bad as everyone said he was - and he gets impeached... or he wasn't bad enough to get impeached.
 
Tgaev7m.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: Heels Noir
Why is a timeline needed . . ?

Because otherwise we're gonna be listening to "just wait another couple days until Mueller gets X" for the rest of our lives.

If 45 isn't dirty, so be it . . that doesn't mean he isn't a POS.

Agreed. He definitely is a POS. But you've been the one beating the dirty drum, so if he comes out un-impeached... that'd be a little embarrassing, no?
 
LMFAO . . . Impeachment will never come with a Republican held Congress . . . for the pubbies it's always been Party before Country, you can go ask Devin Nunes that . .
 
Agreed. He definitely is a POS. But you've been the one beating the dirty drum, so if he comes out un-impeached... that'd be a little embarrassing, no?

I'm not going to be embarrassed one bit . . it's my opinion, if I'm wrong, so fvcking what.
 
All I'm saying is one side will be eating crow. It'll either be the "Go Trump Go, he can't do anything wrong!" crowd, or the "Tick Tock Tick Tock he's getting impeached any day now" crowd. It doesn't much matter to me, I'd just like to see this thing settled once and for all.

Impeachment is the proper barometer to use here though. Because otherwise, we'll just be hearing "That nasty Trump, clearly guilty of treason, tax fraud, and of course pedophilia - but his cronies had his back!!!!1!1!".

This is a binary outcome. He was as bad as everyone said he was - and he gets impeached... or he wasn't bad enough to get impeached.

What constitutes him being bad enough to be impeached still depends on the congress though. Obviously a republican congress would be less likely to impeach a republican president than a democratic president. And vice versa.
 
What constitutes him being bad enough to be impeached still depends on the congress though. Obviously a republican congress would be less likely to impeach a republican president than a democratic president. And vice versa.

True. But ultimately I want a conclusion to people saying he is/has committed treason, tax fraud, and whatever else they come up with. At some point, if he's not found guilty of it - people need to shut up about it.

Otherwise people could just go off and say Obama was born in Kenya, and it's only because of his cronies and Congress that he was allowed to get away with it. Which also gets old after awhile if you can't prove it.
 
True. But ultimately I want a conclusion to people saying he is/has committed treason, tax fraud, and whatever else they come up with. At some point, if he's not found guilty of it - people need to shut up about it.

Otherwise people could just go off and say Obama was born in Kenya, and it's only because of his cronies and Congress that he was allowed to get away with it. Which also gets old after awhile if you can't prove it.

That’s all fine, except it being proven by an investigation does not necessarily mean he will be impeached. If it’s proven he is guilty and doesn’t get impeached then people will really need to raise hell about it.
 
So it looks like Syria is at it again (I'm not going to start another political thread).
 
How 'bout that Ryan dude that won't be running again . . ? The 3rd most powerful man in DC and he's bailing out of the mess that 45 has created.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cletusnow
How 'bout that Ryan dude that won't be running again . . ? The 3rd most powerful man in DC and he's bailing out of the mess that 45 has created.
Good riddance, wish we had term limits so all would get the hell out. I'm glad crying shumer and dumbass pelosi are hanging around right now though, it's great for the good guys for those two idiots to remain in office.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BillyL
Furious Koch Brothers Sell Paul Ryan on eBay
Furious Koch Brothers Sell Paul Ryan on eBay

By Andy Borowitz 11:28 A.M.

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—In a fit of pique, David and Charles Koch have unceremoniously listed House Speaker Paul Ryan for sale on the auction site eBay.

The Kochs, who reportedly had purchased Ryan for a sum estimated in the tens of millions, now seem likely to lose their entire investment.

According to Ryan’s listing on the auction site, the Kochs set a five-hundred-dollar asking price for the used congressman, a figure that, in light of the tepid bidding for him, seems optimistic.

“Granted, owning Paul Ryan doesn’t have the benefits that it’s had for David and Charles for all of these years, but the status of owning a former Speaker of the House has to be worth something,” one Koch associate said. “Certainly more than the current high bid of seventeen dollars.”

The eBay listing suggested several possible uses for the former House Speaker, including as a Halloween ornament or garden gnome.
 
They don't necessary have to have control. All they need is one third +1 since you need two thirds to impeach.
Incorrect. A simple majority of those present and voting in the House is required for impeachment. The Senate requires a two-thirds majority to convict.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BillyL
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT