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.
In other words, you have to violate attorney/cleint privilege in order to gather the information you need to justify violating attorney/cleint privilege.....
Gotcha.
1) If the Feds went to a Judge and he/she signed off on the warrant it is legit..Cohen is within his legal rights to appeal the validity of the warrant.
2) the court appointed someone to look over all evidence seized, if it falls under attorney/client privilege it is Inadmissible. IF Cohen feels something is admitted that shouldn't of been he is within his rights to appeal.
3) Hannity said he is not his lawyer and never paid him for legal services, therefore No Privilege.
4) For some reason Trump is trying to play both sides on whether or not Cohen is his attorney. If he does not acknowledge him as his attorney he can't claim privilege.
It now seems likely that they took the unusual step of raiding Cohen's home, and office, because of what they may have learned from the wiretap. Maybe that he was planning on destroying evidence. They would have had to have had some serious evidence for the warrant, maybe the evidence came straight from the horses mouth.
You actually seem to harbor the idea that the FBI would wiretap the president's attorney without a warrant. That's - yes, i think "interesting" covers it.
Oh man!!! This is gonna be delicious!!! Cohen’s personal tapes and wiretaps???
This is All The President’s Men all over again.
Well...
Quote:
Two sources close to Trump's newest attorney, Rudolph Giuliani, say he learned that days after the raid the president had made a call to Cohen, and told Trump never to call again out of concern the call was being recorded by prosecutors.
You actually seem to harbor the idea that the FBI would wiretap the president's attorney without a warrant. That's - yes, i think "interesting" covers it.
No, I said they could wiretap an attorney. That is not the same as interfering in lawyer/client privileges.
No, I said they could wiretap an attorney. That is not the same as interfering in lawyer/client privileges.
Do you think this is the first time in history that an attorney has been wiretapped? There are well-established procedures in place to preserve evidentiary privileges like the attorney-client privilege.
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.
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.
