Cohen's lawyer says he's flipped, will give evidence that Trump colluded w/Russia[W:116 238]

TU Curmudgeon said:

Why would they bother?

All the evidence available in any criminal case would be available to it in any civil case, and the standard of proof in a criminal case is so much higher than that involved in a civil case that the FEC would be practically handed a conviction in any civil case - without having to spend a dime investigating.

Not only that, but the Judge's "Instructions to the Jury" in the criminal case might well mean that issue estoppel would preclude the defence from challenging some of the allegations in the civil case.

FYI - "Issue estoppel" means that some point of law/evidence involving the same matter and defendant had already been judicially determined in another case. For example, if a Judge rules that a cheque (which is tendered in evidence) that was purportedly stolen (while blank) and then forged by the defendant in one trial (in which the defendant is NOT charged with forging the cheque [but only charged with theft of multiple items, one of which was alleged to be the cheque tendered]) was NOT forged, then the defendant cannot later be convicted of forging the cheque. I know this from (amongst other things) the fact that I personally ticked off a very seniour Prosecutor when I advised them that my client was going to raise issue estoppel if the charges against him (for forging the cheque which he had previously been found "Not Guilty" of stealing) were to be proceeded with. Realizing that one of the essential elements required to obtain a conviction on a charge of forgery was proving that the item had actually been forged, and having it already been judicially determined that the cheque had NOT been forged (which is NOT to say that, in reality, it might not have been forged) meaning that it was impossible to prove an essential element of the offence, the Prosecutor (with extremely bad grace) stayed the charges.​

PS - My job, as defence counsel is to ensure that no conviction is obtained unless the prosecution has proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt AND using only legally admissible evidence. In short, the job of defence counsel is to "Keep The State Honest". This, of course, sometimes means that someone who "did the deed" doesn't get convicted, but much more often than that means that someone who "DID NOT do the deed" does NOT get convicted because "The State" simply "bends the rules".

If you agree that it is more important to "Keep The State Honest" than it is to secure an unbroken string of convictions based on false/weak evidence and/or improper practices by the prosecution/police, they you see this as "Upholding The Basis of the Law".

If you don't, they you see this as "Taking Advantage of Loopholes".​

Click to expand...

Anyone that thinks they need to use air quotes throughout to indicate they are using technical terms that are more common knowledge knows they are posting a losing proposition.

Examining the way evidence was obtained throughout the Cohen case is a string of broken 4th amendment conditions done for the express purpose of advancing a political case that was created whole cloth from an opposition political document.

If this is how Democrats want to conduct the courts, they should be vary wary of what environment they are creating. Breaking attorney client privilege, arbitrary search and seizure, wire taps predicated on national security through fabricated evidence, its amazing the lengths being used to prove collusion when it would have been published world wide if there was any by now.

OpportunityCost said:

Anyone that thinks they need to use air quotes throughout to indicate they are using technical terms that are more common knowledge knows they are posting a losing proposition.

Click to expand...

My BAD!

I plead guilty to being the victim of a classical education and a (wonderfully) misspent youth.

That I actually write grammatically correct English is a sin for which I shall have to atone.

OpportunityCost said:

Examining the way evidence was obtained throughout the Cohen case is a string of broken 4th amendment conditions done for the express purpose of advancing a political case that was created whole cloth from an opposition political document.

Click to expand...

Since the 4th Amendment (to the Constitution of the United States of America [there being other documents which have been amended four or more times]) states (in [the relevant] part)


I must admit that I am shocked - SHOCKED I say - to learn that no warrants were obtained (or if there were warrants obtained that they were not issued "upon probable cause" [or if they WERE obtained "upon probable cause" that they were not "supported by Oath or affirmation" {or if they were "supported by Oath or affirmation" that they did NOT "particularly (describe) the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized}])."

OpportunityCost said:

If this is how Democrats want to conduct the courts, they should be vary wary of what environment they are creating.

Click to expand...

Quite right. After all, all things are true of the empty set.

OpportunityCost said:

Breaking attorney client privilege, ...

Click to expand...

Which, of course, is why all of the documents were vetted PRIOR to Mr. Mueller's team being allowed to see them and why Mr. Mueller's team was NOT allowed to see any which would have "breached Solicitor/Client privilege".

OpportunityCost said:

... arbitrary search and seizure,...

Click to expand...

Quite right. The searches were conducted in a completely arbitrary manner and absolutely no warrants were obtained as required by law.

OpportunityCost said:

... wire taps predicated on national security through fabricated evidence, ...

Click to expand...

Oh sure.

OpportunityCost said:

...its amazing the lengths being used to prove collusion ...

Click to expand...

Actually no efforts whatsoever are being made to "prove collusion", what is happening is an investigation of the conduct of a wide variety of people in response to allegations made against them - which allegations may (or may not) be substantiated.

This is slightly different than simply tossing people in jail on the grounds of bogus accusations (which Mr. Bush [GW] did).

OpportunityCost said:

... when it would have been published world wide if there was any by now.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily.

It's always possible that the people doing the investigating want to gather all of the evidence potentially available BEFORE letting the cat out of the bag. This might be because they don't make a whole lot of money out of increasing the circulation (read as "increasing the advertising revenue") of media outlets.

TU Curmudgeon said:

My BAD!

I plead guilty to being the victim of a classical education and a (wonderfully) misspent youth.

That I actually write grammatically correct English is a sin for which I shall have to atone.



Since the 4th Amendment (to the Constitution of the United States of America [there being other documents which have been amended four or more times]) states (in [the relevant] part)

"...no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
​

I must admit that I am shocked - SHOCKED I say - to learn that no warrants were obtained (or if there were warrants obtained that they were not issued "upon probable cause" [or if they WERE obtained "upon probable cause" that they were not "supported by Oath or affirmation" {or if they were "supported by Oath or affirmation" that they did NOT "particularly (describe) the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized}])."



Quite right. After all, all things are true of the empty set.



Which, of course, is why all of the documents were vetted PRIOR to Mr. Mueller's team being allowed to see them and why Mr. Mueller's team was NOT allowed to see any which would have "breached Solicitor/Client privilege".



Quite right. The searches were conducted in a completely arbitrary manner and absolutely no warrants were obtained as required by law.



Oh sure.



Actually no efforts whatsoever are being made to "prove collusion", what is happening is an investigation of the conduct of a wide variety of people in response to allegations made against them - which allegations may (or may not) be substantiated.

This is slightly different than simply tossing people in jail on the grounds of bogus accusations (which Mr. Bush [GW] did).



Not necessarily.

It's always possible that the people doing the investigating want to gather all of the evidence potentially available BEFORE letting the cat out of the bag. This might be because they don't make a whole lot of money out of increasing the circulation (read as "increasing the advertising revenue") of media outlets.

Click to expand...

Shocked by a fishing expedition. Sure you are.

Mach said:

I suppose you'll now show me the evidence to back your claim?
- evidence that FEC must start any/all campaign finance investigations before DOJ can pursue.
- evidence that they did not.

Yawn.

Click to expand...

Nope. The DOJ can jump in first with both barrels firing. It can jump in after the FEC has done its investigation and receives a referral from that body for criminal investigation. It can also jump in if the FEC says they uncovered no violation.

The point of the comnent is that DOJ chose not to criminally prosecute the Obama campaign even though their violations were far greater.
It can also be pointed out that the FEC and DOJ do not always see eye to eye (see the Edwards prosecution) as to whether the law was violated.

OpportunityCost said:

Shocked by a fishing expedition. Sure you are.

Click to expand...

No that doesn't shock me at all - you see, I happen to know that "a fishing expedition" is what people who don't want something looked into call "an investigation".

What shocks me is your implication that no warrants were obtained (or if there were warrants obtained that they were not issued "upon probable cause" [or if they WERE obtained "upon probable cause" that they were not "supported by Oath or affirmation" {or if they were "supported by Oath or affirmation" that they did NOT "particularly (describe) the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"}]) when you were complaining about "violation" of 4th Amendment rights.