- Joined
- Apr 18, 2013
- Messages
- 93,583
- Reaction score
- 81,659
- Location
- Barsoom
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
What about attorney-client privilege? How the FBI can obtain a warrant for Cohen's office
Trump lawyer Michael Cohen ... the Middleman
So far, the Cohen action has not crossed any legal red lines.
1) The investigative team of Special Counsel Robert Mueller came across potentially criminal activity of Trump attorney Michael Cohen.
2) Mueller presented all relevant information to his supervisor, US Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
3) After reviewing all material(s), Rosenstein assigned the case to the US District Attorney for Southern New York.
4) The SDNY DA reviewed the material(s) and agreed that there existed probable cause for further action.
5) SDNY prosecutors drew up an affidavit and requests for search warrants on numerous locations.
6) SDNY prosecutors presented their documents to a Federal judge.
7) The judge agreed that probable cause existed and signed the search warrants.
8) Furthermore, the judge agreed that there existed a very real possibility that Cohen may attempt to hide or destroy evidence.
9) The FBI raided numerous locations without warning, confiscating Cohen computers, thumb drives, e-mails, fax's, phones, paper documents, and tax documents.
10) A team of FBI agents with no relation to either the Mueller investigation or the SDNY investigation will cull the confiscated materials and
separate what is pertinent to the affidavit from what is not. What is not pertinent will be returned to Mr. Cohen.
Trump lawyer Michael Cohen ... the Middleman
April 9, 2018
The news that the FBI raided the offices of President Trump's personal attorney Michael Cohen Monday caused many people to wonder how such a raid could be justified given the protections afforded under attorney-client privilege. "If by raiding the office of Donald Trump's attorney, the FBI violated Trump's attorney-client privilege, this is about to get really ugly," tweeted conservative Fox News host Laura Ingraham. Right-wing commentator Kurt Schlichter said "federal agents are stealing and reading communications between an attorney and his client" and radio host Buck Sexton said, "Attorney client privilege is apparently meaningless in this era of get Trump at all costs." But former U.S. attorney and deputy assistant attorney general Harry Litman said the way the FBI handled the raid actually showed the seriousness with which the Department of Justice treats material that might be protected by attorney-client privilege. "It’s very unusual for the Department of Justice to permit prosecutors to raid an attorney’s office and that’s because you want to be careful not to get privileged material," said Litman, who teaches at the UCLA School of Law and continues to practice at the law firm Constantine Cannon. In order to get the OK to raid Cohen's office, prosecutors would have had to get approval from high up — in this case from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein — and 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), Litman explained.
In addition, the probable cause would have to relate to a crime centered on Cohen, not Trump or someone else. "You can’t use it as end run around to get to the client," Litman said. 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. In order to fall under attorney-client protection, the documents just have to be related to Cohen dispensing legal advice or gathering information in order to give that advice, Litman said. But merely having an attorney involved does not guarantee the protection. "It can’t just be that somebody with the bar degree is in the general vicinity," Litman said. Based on his experience with cases involving issues of attorney-client privilege, Litman said is likely that the prosecution never sees 80% or more of the documents. Another reason raids on attorney's offices are rare is that they can easily come back to haunt the prosecution. "If you go to the attorney’s office and you look at attorney-client privileged material by mistake, you’re in a world of hurt," Litman said. "You’re going to get disqualified from the whole matter and the whole prosecution could go down the tubes."
So far, the Cohen action has not crossed any legal red lines.
1) The investigative team of Special Counsel Robert Mueller came across potentially criminal activity of Trump attorney Michael Cohen.
2) Mueller presented all relevant information to his supervisor, US Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
3) After reviewing all material(s), Rosenstein assigned the case to the US District Attorney for Southern New York.
4) The SDNY DA reviewed the material(s) and agreed that there existed probable cause for further action.
5) SDNY prosecutors drew up an affidavit and requests for search warrants on numerous locations.
6) SDNY prosecutors presented their documents to a Federal judge.
7) The judge agreed that probable cause existed and signed the search warrants.
8) Furthermore, the judge agreed that there existed a very real possibility that Cohen may attempt to hide or destroy evidence.
9) The FBI raided numerous locations without warning, confiscating Cohen computers, thumb drives, e-mails, fax's, phones, paper documents, and tax documents.
10) A team of FBI agents with no relation to either the Mueller investigation or the SDNY investigation will cull the confiscated materials and
separate what is pertinent to the affidavit from what is not. What is not pertinent will be returned to Mr. Cohen.