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

Sorry you don't like it. It's another one of those things that our legal system has set up to deal with such things. Take it up with your congress person.
How would you do it?

 

He may well have or at least tried to exaggerate it.

As far as Hannity if he gave him some legal advice it could be consider such I guess. Hannity has nothing to do with this surely you think any communications or records of ANY legal substance concerning him should be returned immediately.

You may not like Hannity but as a private citizens he a constitutional expectation of privacy concerning ANY discuss with an attorney about any legal issue he might face, even if he hasn't paid the attorney money. It's part of your 4th Amendment protections. The judge had NO business allowing his name to be disclosed in the public courtroom, she could have done it in camera. She could have asked the prosecutor if Mr. Hannity had ANYTHING to do with a criminal investigation and with the reply no, ordered anything in the documents now under the control of his office be returned and no need to disclose any private legal relationship.

 

It's your circus, he's your clown!

 

If his stuff is outside the warrant. Yes they should go back.

 

Cheryl Mills would beg to differ.

 

And the judges solution here, from what I was listening to is that Cohen's attorney's and the Trump's attorney's get to review the files and if they think something should be excluded they show it to the prosecutor to see if he agrees.

WHAT

 

He is denying he was a "client" and I have no reason to believe Hannity would not be railing against the Mueller raid had he never heard Cohen's name.

 

When it involves espionage

 

I almost missed what you added to your post. Normally it is polite to make that as (Edit)
I don't think the judge was under any obligation to keep Cohen's clients secret, but she may have been more inclined if he hadn't tried to play cute with her.
It's pretty hard to be fair with a filter team if you don't know who the clients are.

 

Well good on her.

 

Well, one of them is lying. Which one you think?

 

I think Cohen may have been engaged in embellishment. Bottom line is Hannity has a constitutional expectations his affairs with Cohen are protected and if any records exist they should be immediately returned.

 

So that equal treatment thingy..........

 

That's they only time? Federal Civil Rights law is OK? And what espionage? The only one who endangered national secrets was Clinton.

 

I'm sorry. Your diversions from the topic are annoying so I tend to ignore them.
If you want to talk about some Clinton flunky start a thread.

 

Yep that’s the only time. Civil rights laws? Someone indicted a president? Good to know!! Lol

 

Lolol.. Oh you guys...

 

Unless they are part of a criminal investigation. A bad talk show doesn’t protect you from criminal liability any more than a law degree does.

 

What get me is those files was on Cohen desk top computers and laptops with no repeat no known protections.

Over years of time anyone could had stolen a laptop when he was traveling or break into his office and find mountains of information to blackmail Trump with an that even more so after Trump became president.

Hell there are rock solid encrypt programs and even hard drives with build in encrypting hardware and yet all the feds needed to do is boot his computers to have complete access to those files that Trump is so concern about.

 

Ever heard of Dick Nixon? He was in the process of being impeached for obstruction of justice when he resigned.

Comey did not say that there was no obstruction of justice. What he actually said was that it would be up to Mueller to see if the evidence warranted obstruction of justice.

We the People have your BLOTUS's own words as evidence.

 

Only the ones that pertain to Cohen's criminal activities. None of the rest will make it through the taint team scrutiny.

 

Now that makes sense as to why Cohen would want that kept under attorney-client privilege. The question is does acting as a conduit for political talking points fall under that definition? I only ask because as soon as Hannity mentioned the talking point on air it becomes public knowledge and all that is "privileged" is who asked him to talk about it?

 

Fatuous misdirection response did not refute the opinion of the SC regarding obstruction of justice.

 

But apparently there ARE tapes!

Oh, lordy indeed!

 

Why not? Hillary set the president with her server turning over only eMails her attorney thought were Government business.