FBI raids Trump lawyer's office

[Belsnickel]

(04-16-2018, 04:25 PM)GMDino Wrote: Also what does this say about Hannity's reporting on the raid?  Without acknowledging he too was a client?  Pretty shady....and maybe cracked th top three shady things he's ever done!  

That would be if he considered his show to be news/journalism. Which if you ask the producers at Fox News, they claim almost none of their shows are.

[GMDino]

(04-16-2018, 04:37 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That would be if he considered his show to be news/journalism. Which if you ask the producers at Fox News, they claim almost none of their shows are.

Even with that, just on the eye test if a talking head is attacking the raid because of the President (all the while he is also a client) it looks shady to me.

Not saying illegal.  Maybe unethical.  Misleading.

[*michaelsean*]

(04-16-2018, 03:39 PM)GMDino Wrote: If what I read earlier is accurate he'll have a hard time demanding attorney/client privilege if there is no client to demand the privilege.

I think I'm missing something here.  

[Belsnickel]

(04-16-2018, 04:42 PM)GMDino Wrote: Even with that, just on the eye test if a talking head is attacking the raid because of the President (all the while he is also a client) it looks shady to me.

Not saying illegal.  Maybe unethical.  Misleading.

As an ethicist, I can tell you that in any normal media organization this would merit immediate suspension pending a determination on firing. At Fox he will probably get a promotion. https://t.co/CXgjtpAb2S

— Norm Eisen (@NormEisen) April 16, 2018

[GMDino]

(04-16-2018, 05:28 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I think I'm missing something here.  

It was an article on what attorney-client privilege means.

Here is what they referenced:

https://jenner.com//system/assets/assets/10391/original/2017-Jenner%20and%20Block%20Attorney-Client%20Privilege%20Handbook.pdf

Quote:It is generally recognized that the privilege belongs to the client and that the client has the sole power to waive it. See In re Seagate Tech., L.L.C., 497 F.3d 1360, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (abrogated on other grounds); Douglas v. DynMcDermott Petroleum Operations, Co., 144 F.3d 364, 372 (5th Cir. 1998) (in-house counsel breached ethical duties by revealing client confidences during the course of an investigation into alleged Title VII violations). However, an attorney may assert the privilege on the client’s behalf. Haines v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 90 (3d Cir. 1992). But the attorney cannot assert the privilege against the client’s 72 wishes. See Sandra T.E. v. S. Berwyn Sch. Dist. 100, 600 F.3d 612, 618 (7th Cir. 2010) (noting that “[t]he privilege belongs to the client, although an attorney may assert the privilege on the client’s behalf”); Evan Law Grp. LLC v. Taylor, No. 09 C 4896, 2011 WL 72715, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 6, 2011) (lawyer may not assert the privilege for self-serving interests; rather, he may only assert the privilege to benefit the client). 

Quote:The party asserting the privilege bears the burden of establishing that a communication is privileged. In re Excel Innovations, Inc., 502 F.3d 1086, 1099 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Ordinarily, the party asserting attorney-client privilege has the burden of establishing all of the elements of the privilege.”); In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 415 F.3d 333, 338-39 (4th Cir. 2005) (“The burden is on the proponent of the attorney-client privilege to demonstrate its applicability.”); United States v. Bisanti, 414 F.3d 168, 170 (1st Cir. 2005) (same); United States v. BDO Seidman, 337 F.3d 802, 811 (7th Cir. 2003) (“The mere assertion of a privilege is not enough; instead, a party that seeks to invoke the attorney-client privilege has the burden of establishing all of its essential elements.”); von Bulow v. von Bulow, 811 F.2d 136, 144 (2d Cir. 1987) (same); United States v. Nat’l Ass’n of Realtors, 242 F.R.D. 491, 493-94 (N.D. Ill. 2007) (“The party claiming the privilege has the burden of proving all of its essential elements.”). Once the party asserting the existence of the privilege establishes a prima facie case that the privilege applies, the party seeking the production or other disclosure of the protected information bears the burden of establishing that an exception to the privilege applies. See, e.g., Mass. Eye & Ear Infirmary v. QLT Phototherapeutics, Inc., 412 F.3d 215, 225 (1st Cir. 2005). Inadmissible evidence may be considered by the court while determining whether the preliminary facts of the privilege have been demonstrated by the proponent of the privilege. FED. R. EVID. 104(a); see also United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 566-67 (1989) (allowing court to look at potentially privileged and therefore inadmissible documents to determine if privilege exists). 
Blanket objections are not sufficient. 

The article I read is from a liberal site but here is their explanation of the above legalese:

Quote:However, before Judge Wood reaches the question of the applicability of waivers or exceptions to communications between Mr. Cohen and his clients, Mr. Cohen faces even more basic problems invoking the privilege.


Judge Wood will doubtless be asking herself and the parties some version of this overarching question: Are Mr. Cohen's records at issue communications with clients who consulted him in his capacity as an attorney for legal advice?
To answer this question, it is important to understand, first, that the privilege belongs to the client, not the attorney, and the client alone has the power to waive it. The client decides whether to invoke the privilege or waive its protection. An attorney can't invoke the privilege over a client's objection or waiver.


So, at the threshold, Judge Wood will determine whether Cohen's communications and the records at issue are to and from - and for - a client. If the judge can't find a client for purportedly privileged materials, there is no client who may invoke the privilege.


This isn't a metaphysical question. For example, the search of Mr. Cohen's office and residence sought materials relating to the Stormy Daniels negotiations, contract, and payment in which Mr. Cohen was involved, presumably to determine whether bank-fraud or campaign-finance crimes occurred.


Mr. Cohen has claimed that he made the payment from his own funds. And Mr. Trump has never addressed whether he had an adulterous relationship with Ms. Daniels and has personally denied knowledge of any payment to her ensuing from any contract with Ms. Daniels.


If Mr. Cohen can't prove that Mr. Trump (or another person or entity) is his client for his communications and other records relating to Ms. Daniels, then he has no client who can invoke attorney-client privilege to protect them. More generally, if Mr. Cohen has other records for which he has no discernible client, those will not be afforded the protection of the privilege.


In short, no client, no attorney-client privilege.


Two additional problems cascade directly from the absence of a client. First, if Cohen has no client, he isn't communicating for the purpose of providing legal advice or assistance to a client to which the privilege might apply. Second, if he is not communicating to a person or entity in order to provide legal advice, then it is arguable that he is not acting in his capacity as an attorney.



In other words, Cohen's claim of privilege as to the Daniels materials could fail on at least three different grounds: (1) there is no client that can invoke the privilege; (2) there is no communication with a client for the purpose of providing legal advice; and, therefore, (3) Mr. Cohen did not communicate as an attorney with a client.

(All bold emphasis that of the author.)

[*michaelsean*]

(04-16-2018, 05:48 PM)GMDino Wrote: It was an article on what attorney-client privilege means.

Here is what they referenced:

https://jenner.com//system/assets/assets/10391/original/2017-Jenner%20and%20Block%20Attorney-Client%20Privilege%20Handbook.pdf



The article I read is from a liberal site but here is their explanation of the above legalese:


(All bold emphasis that of the author.)

I guess that helps, but I'm still a little cloudy like on the part where the client has to invoke privilege.  I get where the client has to waive it, but I don't have to go around telling any lawyer I've ever used not to talk about something.  I pretty much assumed it's invoked until I say otherwise.  

And in the Stormy Daniels situation, if there is no client, then what are they looking for?  As I understood it, they were looking for him illegally paying her off with his own money.  If they accept the premise that their is no client, then there is no potential crime.  

I'm not arguing, that's just where I'm fuzzy.

[ballsofsteel]

Drumph said the Cohen raid was an attack on the country. Will he order missiles be fired at the FBI?

[GMDino]

(04-16-2018, 06:19 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I guess that helps, but I'm still a little cloudy like on the part where the client has to invoke privilege.  I get where the client has to waive it, but I don't have to go around telling any lawyer I've ever used not to talk about something.  I pretty much assumed it's invoked until I say otherwise.  

And in the Stormy Daniels situation, if there is no client, then what are they looking for?  As I understood it, they were looking for him illegally paying her off with his own money.  If they accept the premise that their is no client, then there is no potential crime.  

I'm not arguing, that's just where I'm fuzzy.

What I don't understand about the Daniels situation is if the POTUS has no idea who she is and has nothing to do with it why is he telling is lawyer to fight to keep the NDA?  And why did his spokesperson (Sanders) say it was a "win" for the President when it was upheld the first time?

There's a LOT of fuzzy in that story.

As to the rest I don't claim to have full understanding of it either...just sharing what I had read.

[GMDino]

I thought I heard earlier that the judge ordered the materials sent back for review...apparently I heard wrong.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/383428-judge-rules-cohen-can-see-seized-documents-before-prosecutors

Quote:A federal judge dealt a blow to Michael Cohen, the president’s embattled personal lawyer, in a closely watched court decision on Monday afternoon.

Judge Kimba Wood of federal District Court in Manhattan denied an attempt by Cohen and President Trump to stop prosecutors from reviewing the materials that the FBI seized from his office, home and hotel room last week, according to multiple reports.

Cohen's legal team had asked for a temporary restraining order so that they could review the files and then turn over to prosecutors those that were "responsive, non-privileged items" — a request the government called unprecedented.

But in a victory for Cohen, Wood did order the government to create a database of what was taken from Cohen and share it with his legal team, according to The Associated Press.

Wood did not make a final decision on Cohen's request that she appoint a neutral third party known as a “special master” to sift out privileged materials.

Prosecutors have said a standard "taint team" can review Cohen's materials and decide what is privileged and cannot be given to criminal investigators.

Wood professed confidence in the U.S. attorney’s office handling the case but noted that there might be a role for a special master to ensure the “perception of fairness.”

“I have faith in the Southern District U.S. Attorney’s Office,” she said. “Their integrity is unimpeachable.”

Cohen’s lawyers had objected to the use of a so-called taint team to review the materials. A “taint team” is a separate team of prosecutors tapped to take a first pass at seized documents to filter out those that are subject to attorney-client privilege, before the core prosecutorial team views the materials.

The procedure is an established one laid out in the U.S. Attorneys' Manual that's designed "to protect the attorney-client privilege and to ensure that the investigation is not compromised by exposure to privileged material."

But because the taint team would be made up of "colleagues of the prosecutors assigned to this investigation,” Cohen’s lawyers argued, Cohen's team should be given first crack at the materials, or the court should appoint a special master.

The filing noted a “growing public debate” about whether government investigations “are being undertaken impartially, free of any political bias or partisan motivation” — an allegation made by many of President Trump’s staunchest supporters.

In an extraordinary move that pitted Trump against his own Department of Justice, a lawyer for the president filed an emergency motion Sunday night saying that he also objected to the “extraordinary measure.”

The Justice Department pushed back on the claims, arguing that Trump’s requests to review the seized materials “erect an unprecedented and unwarranted obstacle to the government’s ability to investigate attorneys for their own conduct, in this case or any other.”

According to the government’s filing, Cohen is under investigation for “criminal conduct that largely centers on his personal business dealings” — reportedly bank fraud and violations of campaign finance law. A $130,000 payment to adult-film star Stormy Daniels is believed to be among the things the U.S. attorney’s office is investigating.

There are limits to attorney-client privilege in court, including if the discussions were not centered on legal advice or if they were untaken as part of an effort to commit a crime.

In its filing, the government says that it believes the "overwhelming majority of evidence seized" will relate to Cohen’s business dealings — and that many of the crimes it is investigating "have nothing to do with his work as an attorney."

[ballsofsteel]

If the state prosecutes Cohen for anything, Drumph won't be able to pardon him. He might sing like a canary.

[jj22]

Imagine if a popular tv personality in "MSM" was a client of Obama's attorney who was under criminal investigation by the FBI, and they used their show to attack the FBI and defend the attorney for weeks without disclosing that they too are a client. Conservatives (including Hannity/Fox News) would be outraged. OUTRAGED!

I feel bad for people having to defend this. Come up with excuses or conspiracy theories as to why this is "different" then it would be if it was the other political party. It's time to stand up for yourself and not play the fool for politics. Call a spade a spade. Establish some standards and stick to them. Regardless of party.

How can you drain the swamp, if you are a resident? Truth is those who claim to want to drain the swamp, are a significant part of it. We must do better as a people. We must.

[GMDino]

(04-17-2018, 08:45 AM)jj22 Wrote: Imagine if a popular tv personality in "MSM" was a client of Obama's attorney who was under criminal investigation by the FBI, and they used their show to attack the FBI and defend the attorney for weeks without disclosing that they too are a client. Conservatives (including Hannity/Fox News) would be outraged. OUTRAGED!  

I feel bad for people having to defend this. Come up with excuses or conspiracy theories as to why this is "different" then it would be if it was the other political party. It's time to stand up for yourself and not play the fool for politics. Call a spade a spade. Establish some standards and stick to them. Regardless of party.

How can you drain the swamp, if you are a resident? Truth is those who claim to want to drain the swamp, are a significant part of it. We must do better as a people. We must.

And Hannity already switched his story between his radio show and his television show.  First he "never" paid Cohen for anything.  Then he "maybe paid him $10" once.

Sean isn't a good liar when it comes time to cover his own rear it seems, or at least his writers didn't have time to concoct a better story and he tried to adlib his way through it.

[fredtoast]

Prosecutors have said a standard "taint team" can review Cohen's materials and decide what is privileged

[*michaelsean*]

(04-17-2018, 04:48 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Prosecutors have said a standard "taint team" can review Cohen's materials and decide what is privileged

The taint team is made up of prosecutors who lost their last case.  

[fredtoast]

Rumor has it that Hannity is also one of the "anonymous victims" claiming Trump sexually assaulted them.  Sean claims he only consented to oral penetration.

[ballsofsteel]

I stink I figured out what is going on in "Desert Stormy". You have Cohen, Hannity and Dennison engaged in a " ménage à trois" while Stormy video taped the three going at it, hence the dvd she has.

[ballsofsteel]

The FBI has been corrupted since its inception. J edgar winter Hoover was always black mailing people when he wasn't dressing up in woman's cloths.

[*PhilHos*]

(04-17-2018, 08:45 AM)jj22 Wrote: Imagine if a popular tv personality in "MSM" was a client of Obama's attorney who was under criminal investigation by the FBI, and they used their show to attack the FBI and defend the attorney for weeks without disclosing that they too are a client. Conservatives (including Hannity/Fox News) would be outraged. OUTRAGED!  

Probably. Double standards suck no matter WHO is using them.

Except when I do, of course.

(04-17-2018, 08:45 AM)jj22 Wrote: I feel bad for people having to defend this. Come up with excuses or conspiracy theories as to why this is "different" then it would be if it was the other political party.

Not me. You want to accept double standards and the other nonsense that has helped lead to a presidential election campaign featuring arguably the 2 worst candidates in American history? That's on you (not you, jj22, but the "you" who does these things).

[GMDino]

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/19/michael-cohen-drops-buzzfeed-fusion-lawsuit-537327

Quote:Cohen drops libel suits against BuzzFeed, Fusion GPS


hare on Facebook Share on Twitter
Embattled attorney Michael Cohen has dropped a pair of much-touted libel suits against BuzzFeed and the private investigation firm Fusion GPS over publication of the so-called dossier detailing alleged ties between President Donald Trump and Russia.
Cohen abandoned the suits late Wednesday as he continues to fight to recover documents and electronic files seized from his home, office and hotel room last week by federal authorities as part of what appears to be a broad criminal investigation into his conduct.

"The decision to voluntarily discontinue these cases was a difficult one," Cohen's attorney David Schwartz said. "We believe the defendants defamed my client, and vindicating Mr. Cohen’s rights was — and still remains — important. But given the events that have unfolded, and the time, attention, and resources needed to prosecute these matters, we have dismissed the matters, despite their merits."
The dossier claims that Cohen met with Russian operatives somewhere in Europe, including Prague, to attend a meeting to “clean up the mess” created by public disclosures of other Trump associates’ reported ties to Russia.

Dropping the suits could help Cohen avoid being questioned by lawyers from Fusion GPS or having to turn over evidence related to the case — both steps that could undercut his defense in the criminal probe.


The move could also bolster Cohen's effort to delay a suit brought in Los Angeles by porn star Stormy Daniels, who claims to have had a sexual encounter with Trump about a decade ago. It could have been difficult for Cohen to convince that judge to put Daniels' case on hold while Cohen continued to press civil suits in other federal courts.

[GMDino]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/04/25/michael-cohen-says-he-plead-fifth-amendment-stormy-daniels-case/552183002/

Quote:Michael Cohen says he will plead the Fifth Amendment in Stormy Daniels case

President Trump's personal attorney Michael Cohen says he will plead the Fifth Amendment in the case brought by adult film star Stormy Daniels. 


Cohen made the assertion in a signed statement filed in federal court Wednesday.


He said in the filing he would assert his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination because of a criminal investigation targeting him, which led to his New York office, home and hotel room being raided by federal agents earlier this month. 


Cohen said federal investigators seized various electronic devices and documents, which he says include information pertaining to a $130,000 payment Cohen made to Daniels to keep her silent about accusations of an affair with Donald Trump. 


Trump has denied the affair and knowing anything about the payment. 


Daniels, whose legal name is Stephanie Clifford, is suing Cohen and Trump in hopes of being freed from the agreement. 


Daniels' lawyer, Michael Avenatti, previously told reporters that he expected Cohen to plead the Fifth Amendment but it was not made official until this filing. 

Quote:
[/url]Michael Avenatti

@MichaelAvenatti

This is a stunning development. Never before in our nation’s history has the attorney for the sitting President invoked the 5th Amend in connection with issues surrounding the President. It is esp. stunning seeing as MC served as the “fixer” for Mr. Trump for over 10 yrs. [url=https://twitter.com/hashtag/basta?src=hash]#basta
6:52 PM - Apr 25, 2018

"This is a stunning development," Avenatti said on Twitter Wednesday evening. "Never before in our nation’s history has the attorney for the sitting President invoked the 5th Amend in connection with issues surrounding the President."



He added it was an especially "stunning" development since Cohen also served as Trump's "fixer," helping to solve problems before they became bigger issues. 


Along with making the payment to Daniels, Cohen also negotiated a $150,000 payment in 2016 from the parent company of the National Enquirer for Karen McDougal, a Playboy model who says she had an affair with Trump.

He's helped pay off others as well, including a former Playboy model who claimed to have been impregnated by a top Republican fundraiser. 


Cohen’s disclosure comes on the eve of a Thursday court hearing in New York where a federal judge is poised to decide whether to appoint a special master to oversee the examination of documents seized from Cohen’s office earlier this month to determine if they should be shielded from federal investigators by attorney-client privilege.


Attorneys for the president asserted in court documents Wednesday that they were capable of such a document review.

“Our own associates … are exceptionally well-qualified, hailing from the country's best law schools and having worked directly with the partners at our firm on complex, confidential government investigations, civil litigation, or both,” the Trump lawyers stated in a letter to U.S. District Judge Kimba Wood. “Finally, our client will make himself available, as needed, to aid in our privilege review on his behalf.”


Federal prosecutors have argued that no such special master was necessary, saying that a separate division of the Manhattan U.S. attorney’s office, known as a filter team, could determine which documents were relevant to the criminal investigation of Cohen and those that were protected by attorney-client privilege.