• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mueller did EXACTLY what he should have done!

LowDown said:
Good try, but attorney-client privilege is attorney client privilege, and I look forward to seeing you sorry pieces of trash walk this back.

You people are destroying every good thing about our legal system just to get to a politician you don't like. That's all I have to say about this.
Click to expand...

Here you are wrong, there is a time when that privilege is not covered by the law. It is when If the attorney is a participant in the alleged crime. It would seem certain that that is the case as the judge allowed the warrants.
 
JackA said:
The raid has handled by the FBI, not the Attorney General, and it was made pursuant to a court ordered warrant, not a subpoena. In order to obtain the warrant, there would have had to have been a showing of probable cause that a crime(s) had been committed. The only chilling part of this is that the conduct at issue likely involves the President, chilling but unsurprising.
Click to expand...

When asked about the payment to Stormy, Trump said ask Mr. Cohen so apparently that is what was done possibly. If so, Trump threw his long time attorney who said he would take a bullet for Trump, under the bus.
 
jmotivator said:
Exactly. When I was young and naive I used to be puzzled by world history and how a free people could allow themselves to devolve in to a police state, and with every passing year I am given a new example of how it happens.
Click to expand...

When the attorney is criminal or is a participant in the crime there can not be such a privilege period.
 
jmotivator said:
I agree with you to an extent. This is how Mueller should have handled the Manafort money laundering as well, but he didn't. The chilling thing is what the actions of the NY AG do to the protections of attorney-client privilege.

It's even more chilling how eagerly many Americans jettison their support for legal protections when the abuse is against someone they don't like.
Click to expand...

You dont know very much about attorney- client privilege
 
Carleen said:
When asked about the payment to Stormy, Trump said ask Mr. Cohen so apparently that is what was done possibly. If so, Trump threw his long time attorney who said he would take a bullet for Trump, under the bus.
Click to expand...

Not only did trump say that reporters would have to ask Cohen about that but trump also said that he knew nothing about the payment and knew nothing about the source of the funds for the payment. That last part really tossed Cohen under the bus because Cohen cannot claim that he had been given a general fund from Trump for purposes of conducting his Fixer operations.

Trump has really closed off any opportunity for Cohen to save himself at the least from disbarment from what I can see and likely criminal indictment.

I don't know if Trump said it to save himself or limit the damage to himself or if it was yet another dizzyingly stupid thing to acknowledge publicly.
 
Cordelier said:
Attorney-Client privilege only comes into play if Trump was the target of this raid... but what about if it wasn't Trump at all? What about if it was Cohen?
Click to expand...

doesn't matter.
his correspondence to his clients regarding legal matters are still protected.

They can only investigate his actions or if things he did was illegal.
 
Cordelier said:
Attorney-Client privilege only comes into play if Trump was the target of this raid... but what about if it wasn't Trump at all? What about if it was Cohen?
Click to expand...

What about you go to law school, get a degree, pass the bar, get some experience and THEN act like you know what you are talking about.
 
LowDown said:
Good try, but attorney-client privilege is attorney client privilege, and I look forward to seeing you sorry pieces of trash walk this back.

You people are destroying every good thing about our legal system just to get to a politician you don't like. That's all I have to say about this.
Click to expand...

LOL! When you're whining about the exact opposite of what's actually happening, it's a sure sign that 'everything good' about our legal system being 'destroyed' isn't actually occuring.

There is no such privilege if it's in the furtherance of criminal acts.

I find knowing what one's talking about before talking to be a good thing.
 
independentusa said:
When the attorney is criminal or is a participant in the crime there can not be such a privilege period.
Click to expand...

For the attorney, sure. Now try using anything you find in that sweep against a client.

Upjohn Co. v United States issued a clear 9-0 decision protecting confidential communications between an attorney and their client. You can not bypass that protection by kicking down the lawyer's door. Were that the case then there is no attorney-client privilege.
 
ludin said:
doesn't matter.
his correspondence to his clients regarding legal matters are still protected.

They can only investigate his actions or if things he did was illegal.
Click to expand...

It depends on the nature of the correspondence. In Clark v. US (1933) (289 US 1, 15), the Supreme Court ruled "There is a privilege protecting communications between attorney and client. The privilege takes flight if the relation is abused. 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."

Do you seriously think this is the first time the FBI has ever raided the office of an attorney? They have special agents whose sole duty is to sort out exactly what is and what is not covered by attorney-client privilege.
 
Floridafan said:
You dont know very much about attorney- client privilege
Click to expand...

I know enough that it has been upheld in the Supreme Court, and to know that the legal work around to attorney-client privilege is not calling some goons to kick down the attorney's door.
 
ludin said:
doesn't matter.
his correspondence to his clients regarding legal matters are still protected.

They can only investigate his actions or if things he did was illegal.
Click to expand...

Well, if they could use fruit of the poison tree to direct investigations then there would be no protection.
 
Cordelier said:
It depends on the nature of the correspondence. In Clark v. US (1933) (289 US 1, 15), the Supreme Court ruled "There is a privilege protecting communications between attorney and client. The privilege takes flight if the relation is abused. 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."

Do you seriously think this is the first time the FBI has ever raided the office of an attorney? They have special agents whose sole duty is to sort out exactly what is and what is not covered by attorney-client privilege.
Click to expand...

Such intricate subtleties are lost on the True Believers, I fear.
 
Cordelier said:
Attorney-Client privilege only comes into play if Trump was the target of this raid... but what about if it wasn't Trump at all? What about if it was Cohen?
Click to expand...

I have no doubt that the target was Cohen. The problem is that the communications between Trump and Cohen are still protected.
 
The thing about this that bothers me is this:

1. By the accounts I read, the FBI wasn't all that careful about what they walked away with. Seems they just took everything, probably to sort it out elsewhere.

2. I'm sure many of the documents and such that they seized have nothing to do with the actual warrant they used.

3. So...what happens to that unrelated stuff? Who has access to it? Will Mueller have access?

If he does, then I think this would be an underhanded...possibly illegal...tactic to get information he would have normally been unable to get. If he tries to use such information, the defense will have a field day.

In any case, let's just wait and see if this whole thing amounts to anything more than a nothingburger.
 
jmotivator said:
I have no doubt that the target was Cohen. The problem is that the communications between Trump and Cohen are still protected.
Click to expand...

If the communications were made for the purpose of committing a crime, they are excluded from privilege. That's a fact.

To get the warrant they would need to:
demonstrate to a federal magistrate both probable cause and the need for a warrant instead of a subpoena (such as a concern that Cohen might destroy evidence),

To serve a search warrant on a practicing attorney, federal prosecutors are required to obtain approval from top Justice Department officials.

It's in their work manual how to conduct this properly.
There will also be a "taint team" to examine everything before it is handed over to prosecutors to make sure that those conducting the case never see any material that might be "tainted" by attorney-client privilege.

The only way the prosecution would be permitted to examine any material that might otherwise fall under the attorney-client umbrella is if it is determined to be part of a crime jointly undertaken by the attorney and the client. But for the privilege to be nullified, Litman said the taint team would have to get the approval of the court to present the material to the prosecution.
Click to expand...

If there were no exceptions, you'd have a point. There are exceptions, you have no point.
If there are exceptions, there must be a way for DOJ to secure and examine if they meet the exception. Which there are, and which are detailed above and can be goolged by anyone interested in reality.

If there was no way to secure such evidence, it would mean there is defacto no exception. Which would be stupid to claim.
 
Carleen said:
When asked about the payment to Stormy, Trump said ask Mr. Cohen so apparently that is what was done possibly. If so, Trump threw his long time attorney who said he would take a bullet for Trump, under the bus.
Click to expand...

Trump is already securely under the bus himself. Stormy put him there and her lawyer, in running circles around Trump's incompetents, is keeping him there.
 
Cordelier said:
It depends on the nature of the correspondence. In Clark v. US (1933) (289 US 1, 15), the Supreme Court ruled "There is a privilege protecting communications between attorney and client. The privilege takes flight if the relation is abused. 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."

Do you seriously think this is the first time the FBI has ever raided the office of an attorney? They have special agents whose sole duty is to sort out exactly what is and what is not covered by attorney-client privilege.
Click to expand...

Where did i say any of that?
why can you people not stay on topic and bring up irrelevant information on a consistent basis.

Their agents opinion is irrelevant to an actual court of law. i see multiple law suits coming from
this. they would have a good case on their hands as well.

they can take what they want however they cannot use any of it unless they can prove their case.
that would take a court order to override that privilege.
 
Mycroft said:
The thing about this that bothers me is this:
1. By the accounts I read, the FBI wasn't all that careful about what they walked away with. Seems they just took everything, probably to sort it out elsewhere.
Click to expand...
Common practice.
2. I'm sure many of the documents and such that they seized have nothing to do with the actual warrant they used.
Click to expand...
How will they identify what is relevant, if they already knew what was relevant before taking it? That's illogical.

3. So...what happens to that unrelated stuff? Who has access to it? Will Mueller have access?
Click to expand...
No. Better still, even the FBI team investigating Cohen WILL NOT HAVE ACCESS TO IT.
They assign a separate team (not an individual like say...just Trey Gowdy) of career professionals called a "taint team" apparently. These people are told what specific crimes they are authorized to look for, who they suspect communicated, etc. They then use that information to investigate the communications, and only those that meet those criteria, as approved by the team to be excluded from attorney client privilege (either it doesn't apply or it's a crime-fraud exception), can that information be handed to the investigators.

Since Mueller's team is not conducting this, I do not think he will have access to any of it, it would remain with the FBI investigators assigned to this case. If they do not find evidence sufficient to indict, it will be locked up/returned, and no one can release/discuss it (routine practice).
 
Mach said:
If the communications were made for the purpose of committing a crime, they are excluded from privilege. That's a fact.

To get the warrant they would need to:
demonstrate to a federal magistrate both probable cause and the need for a warrant instead of a subpoena (such as a concern that Cohen might destroy evidence),

To serve a search warrant on a practicing attorney, federal prosecutors are required to obtain approval from top Justice Department officials.

It's in their work manual how to conduct this properly.


If there were no exceptions, you'd have a point. There are exceptions, you have no point.
If there are exceptions, there must be a way for DOJ to secure and examine if they meet the exception. Which there are, and which are detailed above and can be goolged by anyone interested in reality.

If there was no way to secure such evidence, it would mean there is defacto no exception. Which would be stupid to claim.
Click to expand...

Correction the warrant was due to cohen actions nothing to do with trump.
his messages are protected.

to view or use any of those messages or anyone else's they would have to get a court order deeming
that they violated the law. only a court can remove attorney client privilege.

until that happens those messages are protected.
 
LowDown said:
Yes, they know good and well that this is illegal and improper.
Click to expand...

If this wasn't linked to the Trump name somehow, they all would screech in protest about illegal searches and all that they can spin. Nothing but partisan bs.
 
jmotivator said:
Well, if they could use fruit of the poison tree to direct investigations then there would be no protection.
Click to expand...

exactly they can't just rummage through all of that and go gotcha.
they have to have existing evidence that would actually prove to a court that the privilege can be broken.

they can't just sweep up everything and go on a dumpster dive.
 
The irony in all this is that Republican lawyers relied on by Trump to protect him - in his twisted view that appointed representatives of the law are like any other political being, are the people causing him grief. First Comey, then Sessions, then Rosenstein, and now the head of the New York FBI office, handpicked by Trump and a former law partner of Rudy Giuliani no less. Poor, abused Donald.
 
Cordelier said:
Attorney-Client privilege only comes into play if Trump was the target of this raid... but what about if it wasn't Trump at all? What about if it was Cohen?
Click to expand...

Why would you think the privilege would be waved if Trump was or was not the target?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom