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

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Aazadan

I don't see why the court would care. Unless there is documentation involved.

I can think of many situations where this is relevant. Hannity has made no secret of the fact that he is regularly in contact with Trump and advising him on policy. What else were they discussing? If a news organization and the President are conspiring to push a certain story, is it legal? Could they have been trying to hide the communications by using an attorney to conceal it?

What if Hannity is telling the truth and these matters related to real estate? There are several crooked real estate deals Cohen handled for Trump. Could Cohen have been doing the same for Hannity too and facilitated money laundering?

Maybe this is all innocent on Hannitys end, there's really not enough evidence to say either way right now. However it does raise some pretty serious questions.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xcathdra

You're probably right there probably isn't anything involving Hannity in those records.
Which really just reduced the client base by a third.

Agreed... The only issue would be the 3rd client. If that client is legitimate and its verified then Cohens lawyers would have some ammunition to challenge the ruling again.

To the best of my knowledge the only issue now is who gets to review the documents. The government wants their taint team to do it and Cohen wants a special master (uninvolved 3rd party, like another judge).

A reasonable request in my opinion. I would not want to turn documents over to federal prosecutors in hopes they wont be biased towards their coworkers while also hoping there are no leaks by them either.

I say assign a special master and be done with it.

a reply to: Sillyolme

The warrant was in fact issued...

Is a warrant in itself evidence? I thought it was issued in order to find evidence.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: soberbacchus

Overlap so much it fell outside Muellers jurisdiction... lol ok.



The crimes associated with Manafort and Gates occurred back in like 2005 to 2014. No connection to TRump.

Incorrect. The indictments cite through 2016. We have had this debate already.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Trump does sound like a mob boss.

I was quoting your words.

Not those of Donald Trump.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Sillyolme

The warrant was in fact issued...

Is a warrant in itself evidence? I thought it was issued in order to find evidence.

TheRedneck

Warrants are not issued without sufficient evidence of a crime.
Warrants are not issued for a sitting Presidents attorney without SUBSTANTIAL evidence of criminal activity.

a reply to: Xcathdra

But no one is disputing the warrant only the right to privilege.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: yuppa

Lol One doesn’t have to be biased to notice this doesn’t look good for trump..

One recused himself, one said to raid Cohen..

It doesn’t change the dynamic one itty bitty bit..

Trump can’t pin this on some partisan democrat conspiracy.. atleast not without throwing his appointee under the bus.

I bet you Trump pardons them all depending on what Muellers says.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: soberbacchus

Overlap so much it fell outside Muellers jurisdiction... lol ok.



The crimes associated with Manafort and Gates occurred back in like 2005 to 2014. No connection to TRump.

Incorrect. The indictments cite through 2016. We have had this debate already.

and again none of which have anything to do with Trump-Russia bs. Gates and Manafort crimes are financial.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Xcathdra

But no one is disputing the warrant only the right to privilege.

No they are also challenging the fact documents were taken that were not covered by the warrant. Hence the special master request.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: yuppa

Lol One doesn’t have to be biased to notice this doesn’t look good for trump..

One recused himself, one said to raid Cohen..

It doesn’t change the dynamic one itty bitty bit..

Trump can’t pin this on some partisan democrat conspiracy.. atleast not without throwing his appointee under the bus.

I bet you Trump pardons them all depending on what Muellers says.

The laugh of the day was a Democrat from the House wanting to introduce a bill that requires Congressional approval of Presidential pardons.

Once again demonstrating that certain people need to actually read the Constitution.

a reply to: TheRedneck

The only thing the warrant could be evidence of is that someone presented some pretty compelling information to obtain it.

a reply to: Aazadan

Hannity has made no secret of the fact that he is regularly in contact with Trump and advising him on policy.

Does Trump have something to do with this case?

Could Cohen have been doing the same for Hannity too and facilitated money laundering?

That would be interesting. Thus my comment about documentation. If there is none (in the gathered evidence) the point is moot unless Cohen implicates Hannity for whatever reason.

If there is documentation two things; a) Hannity is a client so privilege can be invoked (maybe), b) Hannity is not a client so there is no privilege.

a reply to: soberbacchus

So where is all this evidence? Why the secrecy?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Aazadan

I don't see why the court would care. Unless there is documentation involved.

I can think of many situations where this is relevant. Hannity has made no secret of the fact that he is regularly in contact with Trump and advising him on policy. What else were they discussing? If a news organization and the President are conspiring to push a certain story, is it legal? Could they have been trying to hide the communications by using an attorney to conceal it?

Hadn't pondered that possibility.

Put a different way, what if Hannity was in fact not Cohen's client, but rather Trump was Hannity's client with Cohen as middleman. Hannity taking payment via shell corps to push Trump's chosen themes/stories/agenda and otherwise cheerlead for Trump?

Sounds outrageous, but nothing seems too out there with this crew these days.

Why hasn't Hannity come clean on what he consulted with Cohen about? Why did Cohen's lawyers call Hannity a client in court only to have Hannity deny it on the airwaves?

This is weird.

I'll place that in the 10% likely category.

originally posted by: Phage
Does Trump have something to do with this case?

No one knows. Prosecutors haven't gone through the evidence yet, and none of it is a matter of public record.

Hannity could be neck deep in this, or he could be completely clean and just picked the wrong lawyer to get involved with. It's all speculation for now.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soberbacchus

So where is all this evidence? Why the secrecy?

TheRedneck

If they indict Cohen it will be included in the indictment.
If they don't indict, then they don't share evidence in Grand Jury investigations or warrant applications that don't lead to indictments.

No offense, but you seem to be asking questions with obvious answers?

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: yuppa

Lol One doesn’t have to be biased to notice this doesn’t look good for trump..

One recused himself, one said to raid Cohen..

It doesn’t change the dynamic one itty bitty bit..

Trump can’t pin this on some partisan democrat conspiracy.. atleast not without throwing his appointee under the bus.

I bet you Trump pardons them all depending on what Muellers says.

The laugh of the day was a Democrat from the House wanting to introduce a bill that requires Congressional approval of Presidential pardons.

Once again demonstrating that certain people need to actually read the Constitution.

True. Thats a presidents power. they overstep their bounds yet again.

a reply to: soberbacchus

I am pointing out that we have seen no actual evidence of wrongdoing by anyone, have had no charges filed against anyone, and some have already sentenced Cohen to a public crucifixion and locked the cell door on Trump.

In the meantime, client-attorney privilege may be being abused and no one seems to care...

TheRedneck

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: yuppa

Lol One doesn’t have to be biased to notice this doesn’t look good for trump..

One recused himself, one said to raid Cohen..

It doesn’t change the dynamic one itty bitty bit..

Trump can’t pin this on some partisan democrat conspiracy.. atleast not without throwing his appointee under the bus.

I bet you Trump pardons them all depending on what Muellers says.

I believe that is a strong possibility.
I also think it would force the hand of Congress toward impeachment.
Pardons would mean that the President is throwing in the towel on behalf of the GOP for Mid-Terms and on behalf of himself in 2020.
It's a last resort for him IMO.