![]() |
FBI raids Trump lawyer's office - Printable Version +- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com) +-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums) +--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0) +---- Forum: P & R Archive (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-P-R-Archive) +---- Thread: FBI raids Trump lawyer's office (/Thread-FBI-raids-Trump-lawyer-s-office) |
RE: FBI raids Trump lawyer's office - Belsnickel - 04-16-2018 (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. RE: FBI raids Trump lawyer's office - GMDino - 04-16-2018 (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. RE: FBI raids Trump lawyer's office - michaelsean - 04-16-2018 (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. RE: FBI raids Trump lawyer's office - Belsnickel - 04-16-2018 (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.
RE: FBI raids Trump lawyer's office - GMDino - 04-16-2018 (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). 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. (All bold emphasis that of the author.) RE: FBI raids Trump lawyer's office - michaelsean - 04-16-2018 (04-16-2018, 05:48 PM)GMDino Wrote: It was an article on what attorney-client privilege means. 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. RE: FBI raids Trump lawyer's office - ballsofsteel - 04-16-2018 Drumph said the Cohen raid was an attack on the country. Will he order missiles be fired at the FBI? ![]() RE: FBI raids Trump lawyer's office - GMDino - 04-16-2018 (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. 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. RE: FBI raids Trump lawyer's office - GMDino - 04-16-2018 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. RE: FBI raids Trump lawyer's office - ballsofsteel - 04-17-2018 If the state prosecutes Cohen for anything, Drumph won't be able to pardon him. He might sing like a canary. RE: FBI raids Trump lawyer's office - jj22 - 04-17-2018 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. RE: FBI raids Trump lawyer's office - GMDino - 04-17-2018 (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! 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. RE: FBI raids Trump lawyer's office - fredtoast - 04-17-2018 Prosecutors have said a standard "taint team" can review Cohen's materials and decide what is privileged RE: FBI raids Trump lawyer's office - michaelsean - 04-17-2018 (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. RE: FBI raids Trump lawyer's office - fredtoast - 04-17-2018 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. RE: FBI raids Trump lawyer's office - ballsofsteel - 04-17-2018 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. RE: FBI raids Trump lawyer's office - ballsofsteel - 04-17-2018 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. RE: FBI raids Trump lawyer's office - PhilHos - 04-18-2018 (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). RE: FBI raids Trump lawyer's office - GMDino - 04-19-2018 https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/19/michael-cohen-drops-buzzfeed-fusion-lawsuit-537327 Quote:Cohen drops libel suits against BuzzFeed, Fusion GPS RE: FBI raids Trump lawyer's office - GMDino - 04-25-2018 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 |