President Trump Files in Court to Intervene in Michael Cohen FBI Raid Case

Um, you both pretty much said the same thing but your arrogance makes you miss it:

Cohen: “The government argued that since Cohen doesn’t have ‘a lot’ of clients there should be no privilege."

"Prosecutors argued that Cohen’s limited number of clients suggests that many of the records seized Monday, including information from a safe-deposit box, are unlikely to contain attorney-client communications."

This is a very heavy-handed argument by the Prosecution, it's also a dictatorial one. The number of clients an attorney has should not dictate whether or not communications are protected by attorney-client communications. If that precedent is set, it'll be difficult for newcomers to the field because if you have a small number of clients I don't want to put myself in that situation.

However, the argument by Cohen's attorneys is the wrong one to make. I'd argue on whether or not the prosecution bothered with the` 'least intrusive means'(IE: Did they ASK for the documents?) Or did they assume(like they've made a huge assumption here) that if the files they're asking for have criminal information, that it wouldn't be turned over to them.

That assumption is also dangerous. That means there's no reason to ever subponea everybody, just no-knock them all. The NY prosecution is really flaunting the law here with some of these assumptions.

 

I can't figure out what you're babbling about. You appear to be raving mindlessly.

I understand. TheParty is in a panic. They don't see any way out of this. Thus, they've told the faithful to run cover in any way they can. If it doesn't make any sense, that's fine, as the purpose is just to make noise.

 

Completely incoherent, but thank you for posting!

 

That's nice. However, it's not the prosecution's argument. It's what your side is claiming is the argument, but that's a wild strawman.

Be aware that you're only preaching to the choir with those strawmen. That way, you won't be disappointed when nobody else, especially the legal system, pays any attention to them. It's not a conspiracy when people don't take your delusions seriously.

 

Your article LITERALLY states that it's the prosecution's argument. That's why they want to know the number/who are the clients in the first place. Read your OWN article. You posted a snipplet of it that I quoted from, for crying out loud.

And it's an absurd legal argument IMO. The Judge happens to side with it, and that's the brutality of America's so called "justice system".

 

a criminal history?

 

No, it doesn't. And it won't, no matter how many times you make the claim.

 

Like Comey/HSBC type money laundering?

 

I freaking quoted it! I copied and PASTED from your own post. The word-choices are different, but the meaning is absolutely positively the same. The idea that because Cohen may not have a lot of clients, means that many of his communications wouldn't fall under attorney-client privileges. That idea, is grossly wrong. It's unethical.

And it'd be nice if you can stop lying to this forum and at least hold yourself to account.

 

I'm reminded of Nancy Pelosi's "We have to pass it, to find out what's in it." They don't know what's protected by attorney-client privileges, or what's not. They just abruptly grabbed anything, it wasn't even a 'targeted' search. On those grounds alone, I'd argue that the raid is invalidated. They only should've obtained what the warrant permitted them to obtain.

 

Ahh, I see now.
The DOJ is not after anyone represented by Cohen. They are after Cohen.
No client involved.

 

To seize any records concerning him.

We're talking law enforce, search and seizure and attorney/client privilege. So you agree any records concerning Hannity should be returned immediately? And what does the DNC server have to do with an attorney/client privilege. Talk about a strawman.

 

Not really. If Cohen was talking to Hannity about laws the he (Cohen) was breaking they are free game.

 

1. No decision has been made and she may allow Cohen's attorney's a first look. A special master as not been ruled out. The depth of the grab is still being looked at.

2. It was originated by a referral by Mueller.

3. Yes someone who has publicly stated his hatred for Trump.

4. No they aren't and no grounds for firing. This is not about Hannity.

5. Whether one pays an attorney is of no matter. If he asked a lawyer about a specific matter and got advice that advice can come under the protection.

So why do you think you have a right to dig into Hannity's private matters? Are you willing to give up your 4th and 5th amendment rights because you think you can get a gotcha on someone you don't like?

 

ROFLMAO how far out on that limb are you willing to go here?

If's, maybe's, possible's, kinda, sorta........................just more baseless conjecture and supposition as we have been seeing for over a year.

 

If Hannity isn’t part of their probe then yes they should return any docs relating to him.
And the dnc server has to do with your distrust of the fbi. You trust them to handle sensitive dnc data but not Hannitys?

 

The FBI is looking at Cohen's personal business dealings, not into his legal work for clients. Cohen is in the taxi business with some Ukrainians, including his father in law, in New York and Chicago. There are questionable loans involved. Cohen taxi company also owes NY more than $80,000 in taxes.

Cohen's team is the one that brought forward attorney-client privilege issues. The FBI already had plans on how to deal with privilege issues, but Cohen wanted it done differently. The judge will determine whether to use the FBI's plan or to go in another direction. One thing was made certain yesterday, the judge is not going to allow Cohen to take documents away from the FBI, but will allow Cohen's legal team to have a copy of all the FBI seized.

The reason client names came up is because Cohen declared that possibly millions of the documents would be considered privileged communication with clients. The judge asked how many clients Cohen had, and his lawyers couldn't answer. Cohen was out smoking cigars with Russians and wasn't in court, so the judge gave his lawyers until yesterday to give her a list of client names. She would have accepted a list and kept it confidential, but Cohen decided to produce no list. Then the judge demanded the names, and Cohen's lawyer complied. Without client names, sorting through the documents to eliminate those with privilege would be very difficult. Client names are not privileged information.

To get a warrant on a lawyer is a big deal. To get a warrant on the President's lawyer is an even bigger deal. The world is watching everything having to do with this investigation and where the evidence leads. To think this is all "heavy handed prosecution" and to overlook the massive amounts of evidence the FBI had to produce to get a no-knock search warrant on the President's lawyer seems to indicate partisan bias. If they didn't have the goods on Cohen, they would not have gotten the search warrant. I don't know of a single case, where an attorney's office was raided like this, where the attorney wasn't found guilty. Do you?

 

I am on the side that we have the 4th and 5th amendments, what side are you on?

 

Just answering your claim that any Hannity records should be returned.

 

Yes they did not subponea it for their investigation into Russian meddling in the election why not since that is where it is claimed they medled?

 

Was he listed in the search warrant? NO.

 

Because they already confirmed it through Intel and didn’t want to burden the victims of the crime.

 

Admittedly, probably not. But we came out of a situation where a footnote was used to justify a warrant that they still haven't legally fulfilled. So I'm very suspicious of secret courts with judges and no defense to be represented. Hey, HRC touted criminal justice reform and with these incidents, the Left will get the right to join along for criminal justice reform. A stinking system shouldn't stink.

 

And precisely what part applies to your argument, as it relates to Cohen and Trump, since the lawyer himself is under criminal investigation?

 

As it applies to Hannity in particular but for an attorney/client privilege too. Where do you think attorney/client derives from?