Mueller did EXACTLY what he should have done!

[Mycroft]

Thing is, the information that he "normally wouldn't be able to get" is mostly stuff that is now turned over to the NY state AG's office.
If he "normally wouldn't be able to get" that information, it would most likely be because it is not germaine to HIS investigation, although now having been made aware of it, he has done "exactly what he was supposed to do".

I disagree.

I think the reason he normally wouldn't be able to get the information is because he doesn't have any justification for seizing the info on his own. In other words, he didn't have the ability...on his own...to get a warrant to take the info.

The fear seems to be that he will now be able to get his hands on a lot of information he shouldn't be able to get.

 

[Mycroft]

Yes, it did...



Like I said, Mueller is not "going after" or "using this situation to get access to Cohen's information"...the US District Attorney of South New York...is.

Got it?

sigh...

Go back and read what I've posted since my first comment in this thread. You don't have the slightest clue what I've been talking about.

 

[Mycroft]

Do you have any evidence or even rumor that Mueller is likely to do that?

In point of fact isn't it true that Mueller has a stellar reputation both as an attorney and a Republican? And that the Trump gang has been truing to undermine his credibility for months?

Those are true. Him cutting corners ah, lets see evidence

I'm only speculating...not accusing. However, I'm not the only one speculating.

You'll notice I use the word "if". In fact, I even underlined it so my speculation would be clear. (must have gone over your head)

 

[Mycroft]

I'm not sure what that means. We don't know what really occurred here, or will occur. If it's all legal, and if Rosenstein is the one that has ultimate responsibility, I'm not sure what your beef would be, or why it would be with Mueller. Which law would you want to change? We don't even know what occurred.

I think I've been very clear about my concern.

But fundamentally, I think this kind of tactic...if it is, in fact, being used by Mueller...is wrong. If Mueller is doing this, then I have to agree with Rand Paul

https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/9...179264/video/1

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I disagree.

I think the reason he normally wouldn't be able to get the information is because he doesn't have any justification for seizing the info on his own. In other words, he didn't have the ability...on his own...to get a warrant to take the info.

The fear seems to be that he will now be able to get his hands on a lot of information he shouldn't be able to get.

Tell that to the judge or judges who granted him the warrants.
Also see Page 17 of this right here:

Mueller - RESPONSE TO MOTION (PDF)
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4429556/Response-to-motion.pdf

Better yet, scan through the whole magilla.

Ohhhhh SNAP!!!

 

[Irwin Corey]

Democrates hate America

Well, we love it enough not to support the shenanigans of the CON-MAN-Duh-N-Cheat you people elected.

 

[Mach]

I think I've been very clear about my concern.

Link don't work. Why can you not put it in your own words or copy/paste?

 

[Mycroft]

Tell that to the judge or judges who granted him the warrants.
Also see Page 17 of this right here:

Mueller - RESPONSE TO MOTION (PDF)
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4429556/Response-to-motion.pdf

Better yet, scan through the whole magilla.

Ohhhhh SNAP!!!

What does a warrant for Manafort have to do with the raid on Cohen's office?

You DO know what we are talking about in this thread, right?

 

[Mycroft]

Link don't work. Why can you not put it in your own words or copy/paste?

It's a video.

Try this: https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/983704421015179264/video/1

 

[Mach]

It's a video.
Try this: https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/983704421015179264/video/1

Then like Rand, you offer no substance to back your allegations.
Rand: What does this have to do with Russia? If Rand doesn't know something, why is this relevant? We all know Muellers charge includes a wider scope than just Russia, and that his scope is specifically controlled and approved by the Attorney General. He has nothing here.

Rand: Opposes all special prosecutors - Great, and water is wet.

Rand: Claims he abuses his authority. - Offers zero evidence.

He then rambled on about how the power is not reigned in, despite it clearly being fully under the authority of the AG, which has always had that power anyway. .

Rand is not here to debate, he'd be flushed down the toilet in seconds if he brought that rambling, un-evidenced mess here.

He's using the typical "they are coming for you average Americans with their abuse of government power!" populist nonsense. With no evidence or real analysis...and you bought that? I don't think you seriously believe him -based on essentially "nothing".

 

[Mycroft]

Then like Rand, you offer no substance to back your allegations.
Rand: What does this have to do with Russia? If Rand doesn't know something, why is this relevant? We all know Muellers charge includes a wider scope than just Russia, and that his scope is specifically controlled and approved by the Attorney General. He has nothing here.

Rand: Opposes all special prosecutors - Great, and water is wet.

Rand: Claims he abuses his authority. - Offers zero evidence.

He then rambled on about how the power is not reigned in, despite it clearly being fully under the authority of the AG, which has always had that power anyway. .

Rand is not here to debate, he'd be flushed down the toilet in seconds if he brought that rambling, un-evidenced mess here.

He's using the typical "they are coming for you average Americans with their abuse of government power!" populist nonsense. With no evidence or real analysis...and you bought that? I don't think you seriously believe him -based on essentially "nothing".

I've made no allegations.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

What does a warrant for Manafort have to do with the raid on Cohen's office?

You DO know what we are talking about in this thread, right?

I understand that the thread is about Manafort however you may wish to pay attention to this statement by Rosenstein, as it is still germaine to the larger scope of recent events, at least in my humble opinion, but I could be wrong

The Acting Attorney General explained that, while the public Appointment Order describes the general contours of the investigation,
“the specific matters are not identified in that order,” id. at 29, consistent with the Department’s general
practice of maintaining confidentiality about the subjects of an investigation, see id. at 30. To
provide the Special Counsel with a more detailed understanding of the scope of his jurisdiction,
the Acting Attorney General “discussed [specific matters] with [the Special Counsel] when he
started” and has continued to have “ongoing discussion about exactly what is within the scope of
his investigation.” Id. at 29. If the Special Counsel were to encounter unanticipated criminal
activity by a subject of the current investigation, the Acting Attorney General has made clear that
the decision on how to allocate responsibility for further investigation is “worked out with[in] the
[D]epartment.” Id. at 40.
The Acting Attorney General has affirmed that he is “accountable” and “responsible for”
the scope of the Special Counsel’s investigation, and “know what [the Special Counsel] is
investigating.” Id. at 30-31. He testified that he is “properly exercising [his] oversight
responsibilities” and could confirm that “the pecial [C]ounsel is conducting himself consistently
with [the Department’s] understanding about the scope of his investigation,” id. at 28.

 

[Fearandloathing]

I'm only speculating...not accusing. However, I'm not the only one speculating.

You'll notice I use the word "if". In fact, I even underlined it so my speculation would be clear. (must have gone over your head)

Yeah, that's it, call it speculating. The only people "speculating" or more appropriately seeding rumors. I asked if there was any evidence, you haven't supplied it, so its empty speculation at best.

It appears the White House is down to one defense, destroy the reputations of their critics.

I loved how Trump used the office of the president to harass Amazon in a personal vendetta.

That' draining the swamp all right. From the way this prick has attacked everyone from mothers of dead soldiers to the Boy Scouts to the handicapped, anything that come out of this is handily deserved.

****ing ignorant bully

 

[Mycroft]

I understand that the thread is about Manafort however you may wish to pay attention to this statement by Rosenstein, as it is still germaine to the larger scope of recent events, at least in my humble opinion, but I could be wrong

Maybe you didn't read the OP's post. Here it is:

Mueller uncovered something that he felt may not have been under his jurisdiction so he passed on the information to the agency legally empowered to determine if it was substantive or not. Obviously it was substantive, or subpoenas would not have been granted.

This, in no way, has anything to do with Manafort.

You are dismissed.

 

[Mycroft]

Yeah, that's it, call it speculating. The only people "speculating" or more appropriately seeding rumors. I asked if there was any evidence, you haven't supplied it, so its empty speculation at best.

It appears the White House is down to one defense, destroy the reputations of their critics.

I loved how Trump used the office of the president to harass Amazon in a personal vendetta.

That' draining the swamp all right. From the way this prick has attacked everyone from mothers of dead soldiers to the Boy Scouts to the handicapped, anything that come out of this is handily deserved.

****ing ignorant bully

You are free to make up your own definition of "speculating". However, I'm not obligated to abide by whatever you dream up.

 

[Fearandloathing]

You are free to make up your own definition of "speculating". However, I'm not obligated to abide by whatever you dream up.

You would like it if it were only dreams. The fact is this is underhanded back stabbing at members of your own party. There IS NO evidence, you've had two chances to offer something and run away both times.

Trump and company must be terrified.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

The scuttlebutt on the street is that Trump will replace Sessions with a bootlicker who'll then replace Rosenstein and fire Mueller, and that it will happen during the regular Friday Afternoon Chaos Tornado Dump.

 

[Mach]

I've made no allegations.

vs

I think I've been very clear about my concern.

So you have been "clear" about concerns, but you can't clarify them because you haven't actually alleged any concerns?
That's a contradictory mess. You were doing so well, then you fell off the wagon.

If you'd like to clarify why specifically you have a "beef" with the special counsel following the law, I'd still be interested in hearing about it. If it's just imaginary and just an emotional hatred of all things anti-trump, then I cannot help you there.

 

[Mycroft]

vs


So you have been "clear" about concerns, but you can't clarify them because you haven't actually alleged any concerns?
That's a contradictory mess. You were doing so well, then you fell off the wagon.

If you'd like to clarify why specifically you have a "beef" with the special counsel following the law, I'd still be interested in hearing about it. If it's just imaginary and just an emotional hatred of all things anti-trump, then I cannot help you there.

I've expressed my concerns. I haven't alleged anybody did anything.

Any "beef" I've spoken about is dependent upon Mueller actually doing what I've speculated about and I think I've been very clear why I WOULD have a beef.

 

[Cordelier]

Such intricate subtleties are lost on the True Believers, I fear.

As the President once said, he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and his believers would still support him. I get the impression that for the true believers, they could be the one shot on Fifth Avenue.

 

[Cordelier]

I have no doubt that the target was Cohen. The problem is that the communications between Trump and Cohen are still protected.

True... provided that Cohen wasn't counseling him on how to break the law - any such communications would fall outside the protection of attorney-client privilege.

 

[Cordelier]

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.

My response to you seems completely relevant to me - I merely pointed out that there is a crime-fraud exception to Attorney-Client privilege. Whether that exception applies in the case remains to be determined.

I'm not quite sure what lawsuits you see coming from this... for a Federal Judge to sign a search warrant on an attorney's office, the prosecutor would have had to demonstrate an extremely high level of probable cause that the crime-fraud exception applied. It's not too often that the FBI raids an attorney's office... but when they do, they usually end up in jail because the standard of proof for obtaining a warrant in such cases is so high.

 

[ludin]

My response to you seems completely relevant to me - I merely pointed out that there is a crime-fraud exception to Attorney-Client privilege. Whether that exception applies in the case remains to be determined.

No one has argued otherwise.

I'm not quite sure what lawsuits you see coming from this... for a Federal Judge to sign a search warrant on an attorney's office, the prosecutor would have had to demonstrate an extremely high level of probable cause that the crime-fraud exception applied. It's not too often that the FBI raids an attorney's office... but when they do, they usually end up in jail because the standard of proof for obtaining a warrant in such cases is so high.

If I am john brown and have files there and know they are sifting through privilege information you bet I am filing a law suit.
They have 0 right to do that.

He can sign a warrant on the attorneys action but that cannot bleed over to client cases.
I.e. The Feds can't go on a fishing expedition and start looking at every file for every client.

They are only allowed to look at information pertaining to the warrant.

To be able to use that eh would have to go to court to get the privilege revoked.

 

[Cordelier]

Why would you think the privilege would be waved if Trump was or was not the target?

When I first heard of the raid, my first thought was it was a tax fraud thing... Cohen has acknowledged he paid off Daniels - what about if he claimed the expense on his taxes? Paying hush money to porn stars isn't exactly a legitimate business expense. But if that were the case, wouldn't it have been the IRS raiding his office?

So that puzzled me... and then I remembered Herb Kalmbach. He was Richard Nixon's personal lawyer back during Watergate. He also ran Nixon's secret slush fund that was used to finance all manner of underhanded deeds - including paying hush money to buy the plumbers' silence. Nixon figured Attorney-Client privilege could keep Kalmbach from being the target of any investigations. He was mistaken.

If Trump could use Cohen to pay off his sexual trysts... would it not be unreasonable to expect that he might also use him as a conduit to pay people to keep quiet about other things as well?

The longer I keep spinning around this burning ball of gas at the middle of the solar system, the more it seems that the only thing that ever changes are the names.

 

[Mycroft]

When I first heard of the raid, my first thought was it was a tax fraud thing... Cohen has acknowledged he paid off Daniels - what about if he claimed the expense on his taxes? Paying hush money to porn stars isn't exactly a legitimate business expense. But if that were the case, wouldn't it have been the IRS raiding his office?

So that puzzled me... and then I remembered Herb Kalmbach. He was Richard Nixon's personal lawyer back during Watergate. He also ran Nixon's secret slush fund that was used to finance all manner of underhanded deeds - including paying hush money to buy the plumbers' silence. Nixon figured Attorney-Client privilege could keep Kalmbach from being the target of any investigations. He was mistaken.

If Trump could use Cohen to pay off his sexual trysts... would it not be unreasonable to expect that he might also use him as a conduit to pay people to keep quiet about other things as well?

The longer I keep spinning around this burning ball of gas at the middle of the solar system, the more it seems that the only thing that ever changes are the names.

This isn't any way to run an investigation.