F.B.I. Raids Office of Trump’s Longtime Lawyer Michael Cohen

a reply to: soberbacchus

It doesn't matter if comey liked him or trusted him, the correct action was to take it to his boss if he had issues. Comey chose not to; instead when fired he leaked it to his friend (who had no clearance) who leaked it to the media. Comeys actions show he has no integrity on this issue, and it will be Comeys fault if trump walks on this as all Comey had to do was take this to his boss.

Comey did it solid and by the book.

Now you are showing your ignorance. Even Comey himself stated he did not do this properly.

FEINSTEIN: Now, here's the question, you're big. You're strong. I know the oval office, and I know what happens to people when they walk in. There is a certain amount of intimidation. But why didn't you stop and say, Mr. President, this is wrong. I cannot discuss this with you.
COMEY: It's a great question. Maybe if I were stronger, I would have. I was so stunned by the conversation that I just took in. The only thing I could think to say, because I was playing in my mind -- because I could remember every word he said -- I was playing in my mind, what should my response be? That's why I carefully chose the words. Look, I've seen the tweet about tapes. Lordy, I hope there are tapes. I remember saying, “I agree he is a good guy,” as a way of saying, I'm not agreeing with what you asked me to do. Again, maybe other people would be stronger in that circumstance. That's how Ed myself. I hope I'll never have another opportunity. Maybe if I did it again, I'd do it better.

Comey himself said he would do it better; which means he did not do it by the book!

Also Comey knows jack squat about what trumps intentions were.

FEINSTEIN: Talk for a moment about his request that you pledge loyalty and your response to that and what impact you believe that had.
COMEY: I don't know for sure because I don't know the president well enough to read him well. I think it was — first of all, relationship didn't get off to a great start, given the conversation I had to have on January 6th. This didn't improve the relationship because it was very, very awkward. He was asking for something, and I was refusing to give it. Again, I don't know him well enough to know how he reacted to that exactly.

If comey doesn't know the president well enough to read him how the hell can he "interpret" anything the president says as obstruction?
Comey stated this twice in the answer.
Hope simply means hope as comey didn't know him well enough to know if it meant anything else.
That or he lied to congress...take your pick, either one works for trump.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: soberbacchus

lol
when it was "for him to say", he did exactly jack squat about it
his actions betray your words for him

??? He took appropriate action? He documented in real time and contemporaneously shared the bizarrely corrupt behavior of the President in case it ever evolved into more than words, like firing the Director of the FBI.

The NOTES are in admissable in any court in the US because they were leaked illegally.

They weren't "leaked" because they were not structured as classified Memos.
They were shared publicly by Comey via a buddy so Comey could avoid the press.

Were you lying or just confused?

Trump’s Unfounded Leak Claim
www.factcheck.org...

Facts, Truth...you should give them a try.

FLAT AZZ WRONG. Comeys notes were made while in his Official capacity as FBI leader. All FBI communications written by someone as such in their official capacity are CLASSIFIED. If he wrote it on FBI provided paper or used anything the FBI had on hand such as office supplies that too is classified. even their garbage is classified.
So no you dont know of what you are talking about in this regard.

a reply to: soberbacchus

1) Yes
2) President
3) No - Firing someone is a separate issue from the Reason you fire someone.
There is no law that forbids a CEO from firing a secretary for not performing oral sex.
There is a law that forbids the CEO from demanding oral sex from his secretary.
The firing of that secretary after the demand and refusal is evidence of the illegal action, but not illegal in itself.

Ditto for your next round of Qs.

Good! Although there was no need to answer questions 3 or 6, since they began with "if not." No matter, allow me to follow up now.

If we assume for the sake of argument that the President had demanded the Director of the FBI to do something untoward, does that demand place the Director of the FBI in a position above the law, where he cannot be fired? Same question for the Special Prosecutor.

Let me know if you are still confused or intend to cling to that straw man.

I am asking questions. Are you having any difficulty answering them, to the extent you have to attack the questioner?

TheRedneck

Considering Lynch threw Comey under the bus by saying Comey never raised any concerns and the Matter verse investigation conversation apparently never happened...

The credibility of Comey and the left, after I thought had bottomed out, brought in dynamite and blasted their way deeper. At the rate they are going they will hit China very quickly.

When the rats start attacking each other as they abandon ship... its going to get interesting...

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soberbacchus

1) Yes
2) President
3) No - Firing someone is a separate issue from the Reason you fire someone.
There is no law that forbids a CEO from firing a secretary for not performing oral sex.
There is a law that forbids the CEO from demanding oral sex from his secretary.
The firing of that secretary after the demand and refusal is evidence of the illegal action, but not illegal in itself.

Ditto for your next round of Qs.

Good! Although there was no need to answer questions 3 or 6, since they began with "if not." No matter, allow me to follow up now.

If we assume for the sake of argument that the President had demanded the Director of the FBI to do something untoward, does that demand place the Director of the FBI in a position above the law, where he cannot be fired? Same question for the Special Prosecutor.

Let me know if you are still confused or intend to cling to that straw man.

I am asking questions. Are you having any difficulty answering them, to the extent you have to attack the questioner?

TheRedneck

I already answered that question in Number 3? I am confused why you are repeating the question in response to a post where I specifically answered it.

The President has the authority to fire the FBI Director.
The FBI Director is not immune from being fired. There is no law that forbids it.
No one is claiming that the act of President Trump firing James Comey was Illegal.

The charge is that the things that the President asked the FBI Director to do and the reasons the President gave for firing the FBI Director when those things did not happen are clear evidence of obstruction of Justice.

If a CEO asks a subordinate to falsify the companies accounting and tax returns and that subordinate doesn't do that, the CEO can fire the subordinate. There is nothing illegal in the act of firing that person. Whether the CEO engaged in an attempt to defraud the IRS is a separate question.

If a CEO asks an employee to murder his wife and the employee refuses and the CEO fires the employee? Still nothing illegal in the act of firing that employee, but the act is evidence of a conspiracy to commit murder.

The President can ask his secretary to perform sexual acts on him. He can fire her if she refuses. The law does not forbid that firing, but the request and consequence are evidence of a separate illegality around sexual harassment.

The organizational authority and legality of a superior firing a subordinate is a separate issue from whether those actions are evidence of a crime.

Two separate legal questions.

As far as the Special Prosecutor, there are specific legal structures as to who can and can not fire a special counsel and for what reasoning. This is written into law specifically to ensure a Special Counsel's independence.

Would you like further detail on how that works?

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soberbacchus

1) Yes
2) President
3) No - Firing someone is a separate issue from the Reason you fire someone.
There is no law that forbids a CEO from firing a secretary for not performing oral sex.
There is a law that forbids the CEO from demanding oral sex from his secretary.
The firing of that secretary after the demand and refusal is evidence of the illegal action, but not illegal in itself.

Ditto for your next round of Qs.

Good! Although there was no need to answer questions 3 or 6, since they began with "if not." No matter, allow me to follow up now.

If we assume for the sake of argument that the President had demanded the Director of the FBI to do something untoward, does that demand place the Director of the FBI in a position above the law, where he cannot be fired? Same question for the Special Prosecutor.

Let me know if you are still confused or intend to cling to that straw man.

I am asking questions. Are you having any difficulty answering them, to the extent you have to attack the questioner?

TheRedneck

I already answered that question in Number 3?

Except you didnt.

A termination is usually because of something occurring that violated a policy / procedure or a legal violation. Your example is also off base because political appointees of the Executive branch can be fired without cause. Comey already stated that in his testimony to Congress that you keep ignoring.

Also if a person is told to perform oral sex on their boss and they refuse and are terminated it is a legal violation in addition to an EEOC violation.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soberbacchus

1) Yes
2) President
3) No - Firing someone is a separate issue from the Reason you fire someone.
There is no law that forbids a CEO from firing a secretary for not performing oral sex.
There is a law that forbids the CEO from demanding oral sex from his secretary.
The firing of that secretary after the demand and refusal is evidence of the illegal action, but not illegal in itself.

Ditto for your next round of Qs.

Good! Although there was no need to answer questions 3 or 6, since they began with "if not." No matter, allow me to follow up now.

If we assume for the sake of argument that the President had demanded the Director of the FBI to do something untoward, does that demand place the Director of the FBI in a position above the law, where he cannot be fired? Same question for the Special Prosecutor.

Let me know if you are still confused or intend to cling to that straw man.

I am asking questions. Are you having any difficulty answering them, to the extent you have to attack the questioner?

TheRedneck

I already answered that question in Number 3?

Except you didnt.

A termination is usually because of something occurring that violated a policy / procedure or a legal violation. Your example is also off base because political appointees of the Executive branch can be fired without cause. Comey already stated that in his testimony to Congress that you keep ignoring.

Also if a person is told to perform oral sex on their boss and they refuse and are terminated it is a legal violation in addition to an EEOC violation.

Right, but courts do not make hire or fire decisions for corporations or the President.

The legal violation centers on the act of the ask and the firing that follows. Those things speak to legal violation, but the legal violation is not in the firing by itself.

It is never illegal to fire someone (absent a specific employment contract)..At will/For or without cause. The circumstances surrounding the firing might speak to something illegal though.

They are not prosecuted or fined for the firing, but for the conditions surrounding the firing.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: soberbacchus

lol
when it was "for him to say", he did exactly jack squat about it
his actions betray your words for him

??? He took appropriate action? He documented in real time and contemporaneously shared the bizarrely corrupt behavior of the President in case it ever evolved into more than words, like firing the Director of the FBI.

The NOTES are in admissable in any court in the US because they were leaked illegally.

They weren't "leaked" because they were not structured as classified Memos.
They were shared publicly by Comey via a buddy so Comey could avoid the press.

Were you lying or just confused?

Trump’s Unfounded Leak Claim
www.factcheck.org...

Facts, Truth...you should give them a try.

All FBI communications written by someone as such in their official capacity are CLASSIFIED.

The we need to start rounding up anyone at the FBI that has ever provided a written document to someone without a security clearance! We can start with anyone at the FBI that has ever made a court filing, or served a warrant, or given a public statement as well as the entire press office at the FBI.

a reply to: soberbacchus

Whatever source you are using for your answers you should replace... as soon as possible. I dont know where you get half this crap you spout out. Even when you are proven wrong you just simply ignore the truth and double down on your wrong answer.

Everything in your last post does not reflect what the actual laws says.

a reply to: soberbacchus

The President has the authority to fire the FBI Director.
The FBI Director is not immune from being fired. There is no law that forbids it.
No one is claiming that the act of President Trump firing James Comey was Illegal.

The charge is that the things that the President asked the FBI Director to do and the reasons the President gave for firing the FBI Director when those things did not happen are clear evidence of obstruction of Justice.

OK, that's a reasonable answer. Thank you for that.

So we have established that Trump was well within his rights to fire Comey. The issue is that he was, according to you, attempting to stop an investigation into Michael Flynn. I disagree with that assessment, but let's leave that for now.

Comey gave testimony about the meeting in question in an open forum before Congress. I watched it on CSPAN. He also gave testimony behind closed doors in a classified setting, both times under oath. As a previous FBI Director with classified access, Mueller has direct access to that testimony. Trump made his statement on public TV in an interview which has been on YouTube since. I retrieved all the information you have given to support your claim of obstruction of justice within a couple of days after it happened. Me. A self-professed redneck sitting behind a keyboard in a place so rural we have to pipe in sunlight, had all the information you claim is needed to convince Donald Trump of obstruction of justice a week after it happened.

Yet, here we are, months later, and there has been no indictment from Mueller, and Mueller himself has said publicly that Donald Trump remains a "subject" of his investigation but is not a "target" of his investigation, meaning that Trump has not, at this point, been identified by the investigation as having committed any illegal acts.

With that in mind, I ask you this:

Is Mueller simply grossly incompetent, or did he lie in his statement about Trump's status?

Given that all the information needed to convict Trump of obstruction of justice has been public for several months,what could have been Mueller's purpose in looking into whether or not Trump slept with a porn star in 2006, and whether or not someone paid said porn star to not make her allegation public?

Thank you for your clear answers thus far.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Comey's book just destroyed Mueller's probe. Comey stated in his book that what trump asked about Flynn did not meet the obstruction of justice statute.

Now what?

Shut Mueller down.
Fire Rosenstein.
Fire Sessions.

7 striking details from James Comey's new book

Trump’s behavior violates ‘basic norms of ethical leadership’ but ‘may fall short of being illegal,’ Comey argues

Another passage likely to elicit interest from Mueller’s team of federal prosecutors is Comey’s description of his meeting with Trump about the FBI investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn.

Comey, who testified on the matter before lawmakers last year, recalls Trump’s asking Attorney General Jeff Sessions to clear the room so they could speak directly about the matter, according to The Washington Post.

“I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go,” Trump told Comey, according to his recollection in the memoir. “He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”

Comey described Sessions as being “both overwhelmed and overmatched by the job” and feeling as though “he would not be able to help me” in the situation.

But despite expressing deep concerns over Trump’s actions during the meeting, Comey declines to weigh in on whether the president obstructed justice.

“I have one perspective on the behavior I saw,” he writes, “which while disturbing and violating basic norms of ethical leadership, may fall short of being illegal.”

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soberbacchus

Yet, here we are, months later, and there has been no indictment from Mueller, and Mueller himself has said publicly that Donald Trump remains a "subject" of his investigation but is not a "target" of his investigation, meaning that Trump has not, at this point, been identified by the investigation as having committed any illegal acts.

One does not follow the other.

It is possible that Trump has been identified as having committed illegal acts, but still remains a "subject" and not a "Target".

It is still a very real legal debate whether or not a sitting President can be indicted.
It is not a debate though that if someone were to attempt to indict a sitting President, the evidence would have to monumental and the crime would need to be significant.
Even then, it would be murky uncharted waters in the courts and constitutionally.

For those reasons I believe Trump will never be more than a "Subject" (Someone believed to have been involved in criminal activity, but not an actual target for prosecution)

The Special Counsel's end game in my opinion is to prosecute anyone that committed crimes that is NOT the President of The Untied States and with any potential illegal acts by the President, Mueller will outline the evidence and acts in a final report to Deputy AG Rosenstein (or his replacement) and from there the Deputy AG makes the decision to forward to Congress. If forwarded to congress, then congress makes the determination on whether to impeach or not and wether to make the final report public or not.

With that in mind, I ask you this:

Is Mueller simply grossly incompetent, or did he lie in his statement about Trump's status?

Do you beat your wife in public or in private? Or some such thing? aka binary fallacy.

Neither. I think I have shown the definitions of "Subject" and "Target" before in other threads?
If not let me know.
Target: A campaign to indict specifically that person.
Subject: A cloud of evidence suggesting illegal activity, but the team is not assigned with the mission to specifically indict you, you are just a subject amongst a larger investigation.
Or something close to that.

Given that all the information needed to convict Trump of obstruction of justice

Impeach, not indict.

has been public for several months,what could have been Mueller's purpose in looking into whether or not Trump slept with a porn star in 2006, and whether or not someone paid said porn star to not make her allegation public?

Mueller handed that evidence off to NY AG to make the call and take action. That means it wasn't directly relevant to the Special Counsel investigation, but the evidence was uncovered via the investigation. That likely has to do with Money Laundering, Tax Evasion and Campaign Spending Violations etc.

Mueller's team includes a large staff of Financial Fraud and Money Laundering experts. The aim is to determine if there was any money flow from Putin and Putin Cronies to Trump Campaign members or associates. That means they are examining Team Trump's finances deeply for illicit transactions and illicit activity. Manafort + Russian Oligarchs and Corrupt Ukrainian Dictators working for Putin? It stays in Muellers prevue. A Lawyer and US Porn Stars? He handed it off. Not directly Russia related.

The ugly there will be where Cohen got the money from, how he spent it (did he hire people to threaten these women) and other associated banking activity that required Cohen's secret LLCs etc.

If he got the money from Trump? Still who cares. If he got the money via fraudulent bank loans? Prosecution worthy, but not raid worthy, no one thinks this was about lying on a loan application. If he laundered the money from Campaign Contributions? Then lied to the feds in FEC filings recently in response to FEC complaints on the issue? That might trigger the raid. We will have to see, BUT you and Mueller agree here, Stormy Daniels and all the other women that got money to stay quite has little to do with his investigation and that is why he handed the evidence to someone else and said do as you please and moved on.

That said, if the NY FBI finds evidence clearly damning of Cohen + Russians, they can and will hand that evidence back to Mueller and he can re-examine if his team wants to go after Cohen for something. Otherwise Cohen is no longer of interest to Mueller, he is of interest to the FBI and NY for whatever crimes Mueller flagged.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: TheRedneck

Comey stated in his book that what trump asked about Flynn did not meet the obstruction of justice statute.

“I have one perspective on the behavior I saw,” he writes, “which while disturbing and violating basic norms of ethical leadership, may fall short of being illegal.”

Curious if you can tell the difference between what you stated and what he stated?

Now what?

Shut Mueller down.
Fire Rosenstein.
Fire Sessions.

Do you believe that the Special Counsel was assigned for the purpose of indicting the President?

You seem to begin with the fake premise that the Special Counsel was assigned to indict Trump for Obstruction of Justice?

The fact that Trump and Trump followers believe an investigation into Russian Involvement in the 2016 election is identical to an investigation into Trump himself is telling.

All that said, Comey is a singular witness and as Red pointed out rightly, if the Comey incident was evidence by itself of something worthy of indicting a sitting President for the first time in history, that would have happened already.

On another note, it is strange seeing people encouraging that Rosenstein, Sessions and the Special Counsel should be fired.
What do you believe would happen next?

a reply to: Xcathdra

Thank you for the segway.

I have not really expressed an opinion in this thread thus far on the raid, other than to point out the worrisome legal aspects of it (and attempt to correct some of the most bigly ignorance of reality I have seen in a very long time). The reason I have not done so is simple: I was not aware enough of the facts as we know them surrounding the issue to have an informed opinion. At this point in time, I believe I have enough understanding to do so:

It makes no sense that the raids occurred to investigate anything related to the Stormy Daniels issue. It is simply not illegal in any way, shape, form, or fashion to sleep with anyone as long as it is consensual... and before anyone jumps to conclusions, yes, that includes Bill Clinton having too much fun in the Oval Office with Monica Lewinsky. There has been no statement whatsoever, even from Daniels, that anything non-consensual occurred. The idea that this was because campaign funds were used to pay off Daniels is absurd: monies in the amount of the payoff were obtained by Cohen via a mortgage, and Trump has specifically denied direct knowledge of or payment of monies used to make the payoff. I also do not see any legal basis for the claim that the payoff was a campaign contribution. I can not imagine a prosecutor claiming in court that porn star hush monies are a normal campaign expense. Even if it were made due to the campaign, it can legally be done as long as it was not done with Trump's knowledge or direct approval.

And it is not illegal to use monies obtained from a mortgage for any purpose whatsoever, even otherwise illegal uses, as long as the terms of the mortgage are not violated. And that is still a civil, not a criminal charge.

It makes no legal sense whatsoever that the NDA was improper because Trump was not a signatory. Cohen had as much right to make a contract with Daniels as anyone else. I personally do not see why he would do so, but he had the right to do so. And in either case, the signatory issue is not criminal, but a civil matter. It makes no sense that the NDA was improperly executed, as an NDA can indeed be singularly binding and other stipulations can be made... it is done all the time. The use of an LLC is also a non-issue, as an LLC is not prohibited from representing one of its principles. And again, this is all civil, not criminal, issues.

Tax evasion makes no sense. The IRS did not conduct the raids; the FBI did. The IRS instigates tax issues. The FBI acts on their behalf, but in this case no indication has been shown that the IRS is even involved.

The taxi medallions make no sense. This is a legitimate business expense. If it were used for money laundering, admittedly a criminal charge, then the books for that business would have been cooked. That cooking would likely have taken one of two forms: either monies were not reported, or the monies involved were hidden by inflating costs over a wide range of expenses. Either method can be detected by a thorough review, and that is precisely why people get caught doing it; only normal reviews would miss the discrepancies. There would be no need for a raid to be conducted if this was the issue, because the accounts could easily be subpoenaed and could not be deleted or revised without leaving some trail of evidence of such.

No, my belief is this was a message to anyone who might be considering supporting Trump. It was not a legal raid; it was a public statement by the FBI warning anyone who might try to represent Trump of the consequences they could face: public disgrace, a total, devastating loss of client confidence, and the costs of legal representation. My original thoughts, documented in earlier pages, was that this was a heinous abuse of the attorney-client privilege. I now believe it was much worse: it was nothing more than a mob-style hit intended to intimidate anyone who might represent or advise Trump legally in order to ensure that Trump could not defend himself against whatever (fake) charges might be forthcoming.

The FBI has shown itself to be beneath scum. This combined with the allegations of improper FISA procedures, the obvious political bias of agents, and the questions surrounding Comey and McCabe all combine to prove that in my mind. Every US citizen should be scared out of their gourd right about now: the Executive Branch of the US Government is using mob tactics against private citizens in violation of Constitutional protections to accomplish political agendas.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

The lawyer for Stormy is in federal court in the SDNY right now dealing with the FBI raid. They are filing a motion that would secure those documents for potential use in his clients lawsuit.

This sham keeps getting worse. Filing a motion to secure privileged communications for use in another lawsuit is so far of the ranch its not even funny.

Cohens lawyers wants the court to suspend the hearing saying answering question in this instance can place their client in legal jeopardy in another court action.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Xcathdra


The idea that this was because campaign funds were used to pay off Daniels is absurd: monies in the amount of the payoff were obtained by Cohen via a mortgage,

How do you know that? Because Cohen said so?

and Trump has specifically denied direct knowledge of or payment of monies used to make the payoff.

Trump is prolific liar. That said not relevant unless he directed some illegal transactions.

I also do not see any legal basis for the claim that the payoff was a campaign contribution. I can not imagine a prosecutor claiming in court that porn star hush monies are a normal campaign expense.

Debatable, but also irrelevant. Failing to file a campaign contribution? Contributing more than permitted? At worst the campaign returns funds. Not Multi-location FBI raid worthy of a sitting President's Lawyer.

And it is not illegal to use monies obtained from a mortgage for any purpose whatsoever, even otherwise illegal uses, as long as the terms of the mortgage are not violated. And that is still a civil, not a criminal charge.

Right...and certainly not worthy of a massive FBI Raid.

It makes no legal sense whatsoever that the NDA was improper because Trump was not a signatory.

etc. etc. The FBI did not conduct a massive raid over the specifics of an NDA with a porn star.

Tax evasion makes no sense. The IRS did not conduct the raids; the FBI did. The IRS instigates tax issues. The FBI acts on their behalf, but in this case no indication has been shown that the IRS is even involved.

Not yet, but reasonable observation.

The taxi medallions make no sense. This is a legitimate business expense. If it were used for money laundering, admittedly a criminal charge, then the books for that business would have been cooked. That cooking would likely have taken one of two forms: either monies were not reported, or the monies involved were hidden by inflating costs over a wide range of expenses.

Warmer in my opinion. From what I have heard is that back in the day, Taxi Medallions and NY Mobsters and Money Laundering were all inter-related. Don't know the specific methods for laundering the money via Taxi Medallions, but I heard a commentator talk about the Gambino family being known for it in the day.

That said, could have been simply seizing them as assets.

Either method can be detected by a thorough review, and that is precisely why people get caught doing it; only normal reviews would miss the discrepancies. There would be no need for a raid to be conducted if this was the issue, because the accounts could easily be subpoenaed and could not be deleted or revised without leaving some trail of evidence of such.

You seem to be treating this as if Cohen had a business that could be examined.
I think Stormy was relevant because of the mystery LLC Corp Cohen invented for the agreement.
If he has one shell LCC to move money, he has others. That money flow and where it came from and where it went triggered this. Thus the warrant wanted transactions of Stormy and other women, not for the affairs, but for disclosure of all of Cohens Shell LLCs and other activity with those anonymous "Fixer" accounts.

No, my belief is this was a message to anyone who might be considering supporting Trump.

My belief is that opinion does not comport with reality and what we know.

a reply to: shooterbrody

FBI has determined that the contemporaneous notes taken by then AG Dana Boente from the conversation he had with director Comey regarding what happened in the oval office is not classified. If his notes aren't considered classified and he was acting AG at the time. Comeys notes which were personal are not classified either. So there goes that argument.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: TheRedneck

The lawyer for Stormy is in federal court in the SDNY right now dealing with the FBI raid. They are filing a motion that would secure those documents for potential use in his clients lawsuit.

Let me know how the judge rules on that bit.
The evidence gathered likely hasn't even been seen by the NY Prosecutors team that led the raid.
They have a panel set aside to sort through the material collected to determine if it is privileged, relevant, criminal etc. before they hand it over to the NY Prosecutors that called for the raid.

They can ask, but it will only be material relevant to the raid if it overlaps with why NY conducted the raid in the first place. Put another way, this raid was not to assist the Stormy Daniels lawyer, so anything that would help their case would have to have to legitimately be relevant to the raids purpose.

Even then, they will be waiting a long time for that evidence as Cohen's case is early days.

Cohens lawyers wants the court to suspend the hearing saying answering question in this instance can place their client in legal jeopardy in another court action.

What other court action? THAT is interesting. Has Cohen been charged? Sealed indictment?

a reply to: soberbacchus

It is possible that Trump has been identified as having committed illegal acts, but still remains a "subject" and not a "Target".

Only if one changes the legal and ordinary definitions of the terms. The definition of a "target" is "a subject who is known to have committed a crime." A subject is "someone who is being investigated and who may or may not have committed a crime."

From further in your post:

Target: A campaign to indict specifically that person.
Subject: A cloud of evidence suggesting illegal activity, but the team is not assigned with the mission to specifically indict you, you are just a subject amongst a larger investigation.
Or something close to that.

to which I reply:

"Close only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, and thermonuclear warfare."

Do you beat your wife in public or in private? Or some such thing? aka binary fallacy.

A binary fallacy is dependent on the implication of an unproven assumption. In this case, where is my unproven assumption? I assert that all information you have given to prove obstruction of justice are easily obtainable or public knowledge.I have shown that Mueller has easy access to all of it and more. It is self-evident that the investigation has not only run for far longer than was therefore required to prove guilt, and is also obvious that there is therefore no reason to even look into the Cohen/Daniels issue.

Impeach, not indict.

Let's just go with "prove guilt."

No proof of anything is needed to impeach. That is a political, not a legal process. It is used to prevent an elected official from violating Constitutional bounds as a last resort. It means, in essence, that it has become necessary to override the votes of the citizenry. No one except the Senate can indict a sitting President, and that requires a super-majority.

The ugly there will be where Cohen got the money from, how he spent it (did he hire people to threaten these women) and other associated banking activity that required Cohen's secret LLCs etc.

So now we have secret LLCs?

Every LLC is required to file papers with the state in which they are incorporated, showing ownership, structure, and applicable dates. Every LLC, every corporation of any kind, is required to file with that state their articles of incorporation showing how the business is operated. That's public record, accessible to anyone who knows where to find it.

There are no secret LLCs.

The rest of your statements are addressed in my response to Xcathra.

We had a good conversation going, finally, and you just derailed it. Oh, well... I tried.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Xcathdra

“I have one perspective on the behavior I saw,” he writes, “which while disturbing and violating basic norms of ethical leadership, may fall short of being illegal.”

So why then the bs about leaking his "notes"?
Why then the need for a SC?
This whole event is nothing but partisan political shenanigans.
With Sessions ALREADY recused and comey handling the investigation there was NO NEED for a SC at that point, so the firing of comey makes RR incapable of doing his job? BS
Comey orchestrated all of this because he was bitter that he was fired.