Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If Trump supporters believe that the FBI should ignore Trump's potential crimes, then will they also agree that law enforcement should ignore all potential crimes? What makes Trump/Cohen so special? If the FBI was investigating a suspect for Crime A, and they discovered evidence of a Crime B but none for Crime A, should the FBI let them walk?
I am looking forward to getting home and reading about these events concerning Mr. Cohen.
Of course, part of me is disturbed that the search warrant apparently involved the seizure of 'attorney-client' privileged information.
Yet, it begs the question: which attorney-client privileged information?
Mr. Cohen does not have such a privilege with Ms. Daniels.
Mr. Trump refers to Mr. Cohen his 'my attorney'. However, Mr. Cohen has tried to thread the needle by claiming that the payment he made to Ms. Daniels, through a dummy corporation, was done without the knowledge of Mr. Trump, and without expectation of reimbursement.
In other words, there may be 'attorney-client' privilege concerning some aspects of the relationship between Mr. Cohen and Mr. Trump, but not others.
If Trump supporters believe that the FBI should ignore Trump's potential crimes, then will they also agree that law enforcement should ignore all potential crimes? What makes Trump/Cohen so special? If the FBI was investigating a suspect for Crime A, and they discovered evidence of a Crime B but none for Crime A, should the FBI let them walk?
An investigations goes where the evidence takes it. Not sure why some have trouble understanding this.
April 7 -- Trump Tower on fire
April 7 -- Cohen calls a Mr. Shields at Trump Tower and tells him to evacuate. No one else got an evacuation notice.
April 9 -- Cohen's offices raided.
Well if Democrats and those with TDS think it is ok to use some backdoor method to try and take down a president over this, it is putting politics over the country. Mueller was suppose to be looking for Trump & Russian trying to subvert the election. If he is guilty of that, yes it is a big deal and Mueller should pursue it.
However if it can devolve into all sorts of other petty garbage, then it has become a witch hunt.
So, what's the thrust here... if Trump is guilty of conspiring with the Russians, he's fair game, but if he's only guilty of tax evasion, misuse of campaign funds, bribery, money laundering, or some other trivial felony, it's nobody's business?
Really?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vector1
For example, if a SP were assigned to get Obama on something big, and it was determined he lied about being a foreign student to get admission and low tuition into Occidental, I wouldn't think he should be impeached or an attempt to remove him from office over it.
No (D) would either, and you know it.
I'm not so sure. I think a pretty good argument could be made in that case for impeachment. I certainly wouldn't think it was a "witch hunt," that's for sure. If he wound up getting impeached over it, I would be OK with it.
Never cared much for that pompous blowhard anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by legalsea
I am looking forward to getting home and reading about these events concerning Mr. Cohen.
Of course, part of me is disturbed that the search warrant apparently involved the seizure of 'attorney-client' privileged information.
Yet, it begs the question: which attorney-client privileged information?
Mr. Cohen does not have such a privilege with Ms. Daniels.
Mr. Trump refers to Mr. Cohen his 'my attorney'. However, Mr. Cohen has tried to thread the needle by claiming that the payment he made to Ms. Daniels, through a dummy corporation, was done without the knowledge of Mr. Trump, and without expectation of reimbursement.
In other words, there may be 'attorney-client' privilege concerning some aspects of the relationship between Mr. Cohen and Mr. Trump, but not others.
Anyway, interesting development.
Does attorney-client privilege even apply if the attorney is acting without the approval or even the knowledge of the client? In such a case, there wouldn't even be any communication to protect. Therefore, if there is communication on this matter between Trump and Cohen, Cohen is lying.
They pretty much have them either way, don't they?
I was just about to mention that. If a raid is the course of action it's because either the raidee has been uncooperative about turning over documents or they are worried the evidence will be tampered with or destroyed. Not a good image for the President's lawyer either way.
Absolutely. They should stick to the focus of their parameters.
And again - what part of "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation" is so confusing to you that you need a liberal to explain it to you?
That's what I was thinking. I wonder if he is better then the other one.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.