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

a reply to: TheRedneck

I agree with you.. and it requires getting the OK of 2 TRUMP APPOINTEES and NEw York DA or NY FBI office.. I can’t remember... so it almost certainly is ..


They don’t let you raid the office of the President who approinted them’s bagman without crazy damning evidence..

So it must be BAD..

a reply to: TheRedneck

Do you disagree?

Not in the least. But I think IV is the more applicable.

originally posted by: Phage
Do you have reason, not opinion, to believe otherwise?

Again - yes. Based on Muellers investigation thus far, coupled with lawyers on his staff and the fact almost all of them have had serious issues in the past with their honesty to the court, Brady violations, Giglio violations, depravation of rights while acting under color of law, knowingly putting 4 people in prison even though the evidence was present that said they were guilty of the crime, up to and including the US Supreme Court either overturning convictions, prosecutorial misconduct, ethics violations and complaints. If Mueller and his team get to scrutinize a person, up to and including their previous bad conduct, it is only fair the reverse be applied (hence the Giglio violation).

Those verifiable and public facts provide more than enough doubt to ensure that anything Mueller or his team touches needs to be thoroughly double checked and verified before acting on it.

originally posted by: Phage Okay. As long as you acknowledge it is your opinion. Does your experience tell you that a passport must be stamped in every EU country?

The Schengen zone does not require a US citizen to have their passport stamped every time they enter another Schengen country. However border controls can be reinstated without notice so there is always a possibility, depending on country, where you have to have it stamped to enter the Schengen zone and then again when crossing a border into another EU country. You also have to have your passport stamped when leaving the Schengen zone. The United States is a reciprocal for the Schengen, meaning US citizens traveling to Europe for business or tourism can stay up to 90 days with no visa requirement. The same holds in reverse for Schengen citizens visiting the US.

Where does Cohens passport say he entered and exited from and what are the dates / times?

originally posted by: Phage
Nowhere did I claim you did. However you have made your opinion of the process quite clear.

Weird.. maybe you can explain to me what you meant when you said -

Are Cohen's attorneys arguing such? Maybe he should hire you instead.

A - Why would they hire me if I never sought employment?

As for my position being clear - clarify.

You asked some questions and I answered them. The answers, by the way, are based on facts and not opinions.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: rnaa

What part?

TheRedneck

The same part that you thought sounded illegal about Phage's travel.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Those verifiable and public facts provide more than enough doubt to ensure that anything Mueller or his team touches needs to be thoroughly double checked and verified before acting on it.

And you think it wasn't?

Where does Cohens passport say he entered and exited from and what are the dates / times?

I don't know. I only know that the claim is that there is no stamp for the Czech Republic and that is supposed to mean something.

Why would they hire me if I never sought employment?

With your expertise and experience, perhaps you should.

As for my position being clear - clarify.

No matter what is shown, if it is contrary to the administrations claims, you won't accept it. You've made that quite clear (See answer #1, above, for a recent example).

originally posted by: Phage

Yes. If you had neither the authority or warrant.
Evidence can be seized without a warrant if there is a belief, supported by documentation, that waiting for a warrant would allow evidence to be destroyed. The evidence can be seized (but not searched) until a warrant arrives.

originally posted by: Phage
The FBI had both and Cohen had no complaints about their behavior.

The question is what was the warrant for? Warrants have to be specific. By specific I mean you have to provide the addresses to be searched, a description of the building to be searched, the specific items you want to seize and justification for it. The warrants in this case did not allow the seizure of all documents / communications. However that is what happened and it is why they ended up in court Friday morning. The FBI stated they have set up a screening unit to review all documents and to only allow ones covered by the warrant.

That is extremely dangerous and is not inline with a good faith / inevitable discovery situation. Complaints about the FBI/DOJ behavior have been raised since Cohen was a cooperating suspect, providing requested documents. All of a sudden the FBI/DOJ went 180 and took an extreme route.

originally posted by: Phage I think the colloquial term is "building a case."

More like seizing everything in an effort to find a crime.

a reply to: Xcathdra

The question is what was the warrant for? Warrants have to be specific. By specific I mean you have to provide the addresses to be searched, a description of the building to be searched, the specific items you want to seize and justification for it.

Mr. Cohen seemed to be quite satisfied with the documentation presented to him and the conduct of the FBI. He's an attorney. Are you? Have you seen the warrant?

a reply to: rnaa

That makes no sense. I've never been abroad, much less to Europe.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Phage
And you think it wasn't?

The referral that started this came from Mueller. Where did the info come from and under what circumstances was the info located?

originally posted by: Phage I don't know. I only know that the claim is that there is no stamp for the Czech Republic and that is supposed to mean something.

No stamp to that are means nothing. His passport would need to be checked for entrance and exit from the zone. Since that info is easy to locate at the State Department one would think this issue would be settled (and it is, he never was in Prague). Does his passport place him in any of the EU countries during the time of the supposed meeting (nope).

originally posted by: Phage With your expertise and experience, perhaps you should.

Nope

originally posted by: Phage No matter what is shown, if it is contrary to the administrations claims, you won't accept it. You've made that quite clear (See answer #1, above, for a recent example).

and contrary to the fact Cohen said he was not in Europe and was with his son in California and the fact the guy who wrote this latest article wrote the original article which was in fact debunked people like you cant seem to accept the opposite. That there is no evidence placing Cohen in Prague and there is evidence he was in California during the times / dates in question.

I think the problem of not being unable to accept something has nothing to do with me and everything to do with people who want Trump gone by any means.

As I said its easy enough to figure out. Look at his passport. You will find another person with the last name of Cohen was there but it was not the Cohen in this discussion.

How many times does the same false information have to be debunked before you can accept it?

a reply to: Xcathdra

Since that info is easy to locate at the State Department one would think this issue would be settled (and it is, he never was in Prague).

How would the State Department know he was in Prague?

How many times does the same false information have to be debunked before you can accept it?

How long does it take you to accept new information?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra

The question is what was the warrant for? Warrants have to be specific. By specific I mean you have to provide the addresses to be searched, a description of the building to be searched, the specific items you want to seize and justification for it.

Mr. Cohen seemed to be quite satisfied with the documentation presented to him and the conduct of the FBI. He's an attorney. Are you? Have you seen the warrant?

and his lawyers comments to date say otherwise. Never mind the fact the federal judge granted their motion to keep all documents seized from other parties trying to get a hold of them.

If Cohen was ok why would he be taking this to court?

Maybe you should work for the SDNY.

a reply to: Xcathdra

and his lawyers comments to date say otherwise.

Nah. They're just bleating about attorney/client privilage and saying there are thousands, millions of documents to go through. The judge does not buy it and demanded a list of clients in order for them to demonstrate their case. She doesn't seem concerned about the validity of the warrant itself.
www.politico.com...

If Cohen was ok why would he be taking this to court?

Because he's scared and knows he in deep doodoo?

originally posted by: Phage
How would the State Department know he was in Prague?

STEP
TTP's
APIS
Not to mention all passports have a number/code on them that can be run through law enforcement systems just like a drivers license.
Countries talk to each other a lot on this topic and those countries close to the US friendly wise share more than other countries.

originally posted by: Phage How long does it take you to accept new information?

This is not new information. It is an updated article by the original journalist with no new information in it. Mueller nor anyone on his team have recently said they have new evidence Cohen was in Prague.

So how long does it take you to accept the fact the same info is being used and the same info has been debunked.

a reply to: Xcathdra

The Netherlands stamped my passport. I went through customs there. France did not stamp my passport. I did not go through customs there. France does not know I was in France, nor do they care. Does the US?

It is an updated article by the original journalist with no new information in it.

You are mistaken.

originally posted by: Phage
They're just bleating about attorney/client privilage and saying there are thousands, millions of documents to go through. The judge does not buy it and demanded a list of clients in order for them to demonstrate their case. She doesn't seem concerned about the validity of the warrant itself.
www.politico.com...

Well no.. The judge adjourned court until Monday to see if Cohens lawyers, Trumps lawyers and federal prosecutors could reach an agreement about how the files will be reviewed. Federal prosecutors stated the files will remain closed up (they wont look at them) until an agreement is reached or a judge issues her ruling.

originally posted by: PhageBecause he's scared and knows he in deep doodoo?

Yeah that doesnt really answer my question but whatever.

So, again, if Cohen was ok with the warrants, the seizures and the way FBI/DOJ conducted themselves then why is he fighting it? He is challenging the validity of the warranty in addition to the way the federal prosecutors want to review the files. While the warrant may be valid the method to review the documents is outside the standard norm.

a reply to: Xcathdra

The judge adjourned court until Monday to see if Cohens lawyers, Trumps lawyers and federal prosecutors could reach an agreement about how the files will be reviewed.

And required that Cohen provide a list of his clients in order to help determine which documents may be excluded as evidence.

He is challenging the validity of the warranty in addition to the way the federal prosecutors want to review the files.

No, he isn't. The challenge is about which documents can be used.

While the warrant may be valid the method to review the documents is outside the standard norm.

It is the norm for cases in which the records of an attorney are seized, which is unusual but not unprecedented.

originally posted by: Phage
The Netherlands stamped my passport. I went through customs there. France did not stamp my passport. I did not go through customs there. France does not know I was in France, nor do they care. Does the US?

Your in one of your talk in circles with hypothetical out the ass moods I see. They know you entered the EU and they know when you left the EU. The US government, in addition to all EU government, know who you are, what airline you are on and what your destination is. The same holds in reverse using the same system. If you fall into anyone of the programs I listed then yes, the US government will know what countries you are in.

originally posted by: PhageYou are mistaken.

No - that would be the journalist who posted the false story to begin with and then compounded it be bringing it back up when absolutely no one from MUeller's team commented on it.

If Meullers team provided the info the they broke the law and DOJ policies. It would also go back to the reason I gave as to why anything coming from Mueller should be scrutinized and verified.

Also in the governments response to Cohens motion they stated they had all communications, even ones not asked for or listed on the warrant. People seem to be ignoring that fact and its implications,. Hence one of the reasons Cohen challenged the seizure.

A warrant cannot be broad and undefined. Again, Muellers team already got spanked by the courts for doing that with regards to Flynn. the court forced Mueller to redo the warrant and the judge required specificity. An overly broad search warrant is not a search warrant. It is an open ended fishing expedition that does not conform to 4th amendment requirements or established case law.

a reply to: Xcathdra

They know you entered the EU and they know when you left the EU.

Correction. They know when I entered the EU and when I arrived back in the US. But I doubt there are any written records of it. I don't recall agents at either point doing anything other than looking at my passport and asking if I had anything to "delcare." There were a lot of people in front of and behind me in line.

Also in the governments response to Cohens motion they stated they had all communications, even ones not asked for or listed on the warrant.

Please elucidate.

A warrant cannot be broad and undefined.

It seems this one involved three specific locations.

originally posted by: Phage
And required that Cohen provide a list of his clients in order to help determine which documents may be excluded as evidence.

She gave Cohens lawyer 1 hour on Friday to submit that information. The Monday hearing deals with the broadness of the warrant, the items seized that were outside the scope of the warrant and the manner those files are to be reviewed.

originally posted by: Phage No, he isn't. The challenge is about which documents can be used.

Which is what I just said. He is challenging the warrant in that they seized items that were not listed. He is challenging the method of review, citing having federal prosecutors determine what is and is not needed is a massive problem. Standard curse is to assign a special master unrelated to either side to review documents for determination.

originally posted by: PhageIt is the norm for cases in which the records of an attorney are seized, which is unusual but not unprecedented.

and its standard course to have a specificity in the warrant and a special master to review those documents to protect attorney client privilege,

The bar to get a warrant like this is high. The fact they got the warrant and then immediately violated it is a problem. The departure from having a 3rd party review to having the prosecutor do the review is also problematic. and once again the fact the referral came from MUeller should cause a thorough review of how the feds got from point a t point z.

a reply to: Xcathdra

She gave Cohens lawyer 1 hour on Friday to submit that information.

Incorrect.

U.S. District Judge Kimba Wood on Friday ordered attorneys for Cohen to hand over a list of Cohen’s law clients and proof of their relationship by 10 a.m. Monday, so she can decide whether materials seized from Cohen’s office by federal law enforcement agents last week should be protected by attorney-client privilege.

www.politico.com...

As I said, the list is required in order to determine which material, if any, may be protected.

The bar to get a warrant like this is high.

Yes. Yes it is. Such warrants are not granted lightly.