Michael Cohen Was Wiretapped (Rudy Giuliani, states, administration, status)

[Marlow]

Originally Posted by pknopp

You can't violate a right to do so. Was it here? Not enough info but everyone should have that concern at the top of their list.

The phone can be tapped if prosecutors convince a judge that there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. If, during the tapping, agents overhear privileged conversations, those conversations cannot be divulged or used in a prosecution. But the tapping is still legal under the 4th amendment.

[Timmyy]

Originally Posted by trobesmom

Thanks for clearing that up, lol.

So that poster has no idea what it says but he still believes he understands it more than you do. Hilarious.

[dothetwist]

Originally Posted by Marlow

Yes. But that doesn't mean the conversations won't be heard. Presumably transcripts are printed and privileged content is redacted.

Again, the attorney/client privilege is not absolute. If the attorney is involved in criminal activity with his client, the privilege would not apply.

Example: A bank robber and his lawyer are planning a bank robbery. No privilege would apply.

[TEPLimey]

Originally Posted by pknopp

The vast majority of arguments here are hypocritical and political in nature. I said this concerns me. It should everyone.

The only person who is arguing is you. And sadly, your argument is based on a misunderstanding of the law.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by pknopp

The vast majority of arguments here are hypocritical and political in nature. I said this concerns me. It should everyone.

It would concern me if there was any evidence whatsoever that it was political. There isn't, and hence I'm not embarrassing myself with fact-free claims like you are. Show some evidence.

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by Marlow

The privilege first has to be established.

Once established any conversations between attorney and client are privileged and thus inadmissible unless the AC exception didn't apply, such as when the conversation is about a crime in which the attorney was involved.

That isn't how the privilege works. The privilege is the clients, not the lawyers.

The privilege can also be waived. Every time Trump and Giuliani open their mouths about Cohen/Daniels/Trump they are eroding the argument that Trump/Cohen conversations are privileged. Once the beans are spilled by one of the parties, they can't be put back in the can.

Lying does not erode anything. Has Trump lied concerning this? That's a given. Giuliani corrected that lie for a reason.

[honeyinhouston]

Originally Posted by WannaliveinGreenville

When are they going to wiretap Stormy's sleazy Attorney?

What they really need to do is wiretap your sleazy President.

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by TEPLimey

Most of your posts rely on a lot of assumptions, most of which you should know are not accurate.

My statement was absolutely accurate.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by pknopp

I go to bat for my beliefs and principles no matter who they apply to. It does not matter. Support them or not, our rights and protections apply to everyone.

So show your evidence that there is legitimate reason to believe that this is all political in nature. Can you?

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

You're not proving your case, it's that simple. You've repeatedly claimed that the warrant was politically motivated

I never claimed that. I stop reading when I come to the falsehood. I claimed the arguments here are largely politically motivated.