President Trump- The Implications

[Cats Cats Cats]

Hannity claimed last night that he has never paid Cohen for anything and he just asked legal opinion on real estate. Which doesn't make sense why they said he asked to not be named.

[BKDotCom]

This actually happened, in the United States of America - not some crazy third world dumpster fire we all get to laugh at. This is not normal.

Instead, it's a dumpster fire the whole world (sans us) gets to laugh at.
It was a dumpster fire when we voted it into office.
Trump said if we voted for him we'd get tired of all the winning... Apparently we already were.

[erfalf]

Last night the news laid out the following story:

The FBI raided the President's Attorney's office at the behest of the US Attorney stemming from a Special Prosecutor investigation of Russian meddling in the US Election.
Attorneys for the President's Attorney as well as attorneys for the President enter the Courtroom to try to convince a Federal Judge to limit access to the materials confiscated.
The porn star allegedly paid off by the President and/or his attorney enters the Courtroom to witness the proceeding.
The Judge Orders a client list from the President's attorney, who reveals a short client list and tries to hold one back, and then reveals the name of the most prominent conservative news personality in the country.
The courtroom audibly gasps.


This isn't normal.  Not even speculating on the significance of any of it, it's surreal.  This would be a ridiculous plot line for West Wing, House of Cards, or some soap opera. This actually happened, in the United States of America - not some crazy third world dumpster fire we all get to laugh at. This is not normal.

In all seriousness, why in the world was his client list compelled in public? Is this normal?

I was under the impression a disinterested party was going to sift through everything and determine what was admissible, and what was protected by attorney client privileged. I was told that civil rights would not be trampled on in any way whatsoever. This was all above board. Instead, we get leaks (which I totally expected) and public admissions of clients. And we are cheering them on all the way. Please tell me I am missing something.

Trump's guilt or innocence aside, please tell me I am missing something.

[erfalf]

Instead, it's a dumpster fire the whole world (sans us) gets to laugh at.
It was a dumpster fire when we voted it into office.
Trump said if we voted for him we'd get tired of all the winning... Apparently we already were.

In fairness the other candidate was the only one being investigated for espionage at the time of the election. Just saying.

[swake]

In fairness the other candidate was the only one being investigated for espionage at the time of the election. Just saying.

1. The investigation into Clinton's mishandling of classified material was not an espionage issue.
2. Trump was under investigation for working with Russia Intelligence running an  espionage campaign against the DNC and Clinton campaign during the election. The FBI started its investigation into Russia and Trump in July of 2016.


So wrong, Clinton wasn't under investigation for espionage, Trump was and still is.

Words have meanings:
es·pi·o·nage
ˈespēəˌnäZH
noun
the practice of spying or of using spies, typically by governments to obtain political and military information.
synonyms: spying, infiltration

[erfalf]

1. The investigation into Clinton's mishandling of classified material was not an espionage issue.
2. Trump was under investigation for working with Russia Intelligence running an  espionage campaign against the DNC and Clinton campaign during the election. The FBI started its investigation into Russia and Trump in July of 2016.


So wrong, Clinton wasn't under investigation for espionage, Trump was and still is.

1. Yes she was...

https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-02-07%20Interim%20Report_The%20Clinton%20Email%20Scandal%20and%20the%20FBI's%20Investigation%20of%20It.pdf

Several Federal statutes criminalize the mishandling of classified information. The Espionage Act...prohibits various types of mishandling of "national defense information."

For which Comey attempted to quash obviously.

2. Not publicly investigated, I should have qualified my point.

And using the dictionary to be cute when discussing politics (which minuses words all the time) is not a good strategy.

[rebound]

In fairness the other candidate was the only one being investigated for espionage at the time of the election. Just saying.

Looking at the later posts, but think this is best point to interject...

Can't tell if you are doing this intentionally, but you are obfuscating the situation here, and being "precisely inaccurate".

Hillary was under investigation for the email stuff, and rightly so.  (And for the record, I think she should have been at least censured, or similar, for her actions).  However,  while I'll take  your word that  "mishandling of classified information" falls under an espionage act (and therefore, Hillary was technically under investigation for espionage), she was never accused of or investigated for actual espionage, i.e. acting in collusion with another foreign power.

Trump on the other hand, while not technically (maybe, not sure...) under actual espionage investigation, WAS actively being investigated for collusion with the Russians related to his campaign and influencing the election.

It is, I suppose, to each individual to determine which is worse, possibly putting putting information at risk due to mishandling, or possibly actively engaging with a foreign power to influence an election.

[erfalf]

Looking at the later posts, but think this is best point to interject...

Can't tell if you are doing this intentionally, but you are obfuscating the situation here, and being "precisely inaccurate".

Hillary was under investigation for the email stuff, and rightly so.  (And for the record, I think she should have been at least censured, or similar, for her actions).  However,  while I'll take  your word that  "mishandling of classified information" falls under an espionage act (and therefore, Hillary was technically under investigation for espionage), she was never accused of or investigated for actual espionage, i.e. acting in collusion with another foreign power.

Trump on the other hand, while not technically (maybe, not sure...) under actual espionage investigation, WAS actively being investigated for collusion with the Russians related to his campaign and influencing the election.

It is, I suppose, to each individual to determine which is worse, possibly putting putting information at risk due to mishandling, or possibly actively engaging with a foreign power to influence an election.

I was only pointing out the ground conditions at the time of the election. Not trying to obfuscate anything. While there were hints Trump was...well being Trump with Russia, to my recollection, no official word had been released (ie leaked) that he was under an official investigation. Clinton was (regardless of the semantics, which I might add I was not trying to be more harsh to Clinton or anything).

[rebound]

I was only pointing out the ground conditions at the time of the election. Not trying to obfuscate anything. While there were hints Trump was...well being Trump with Russia, to my recollection, no official word had been released (ie leaked) that he was under an official investigation. Clinton was (regardless of the semantics, which I might add I was not trying to be more harsh to Clinton or anything).

Fair enough. 

The one aspect I'd add to this, is that (according to my understanding) Obama wanted to make the Trump collusion investigation public prior to the election, but could not get the GOP to agree to this so as to show bipartisan agreement for the release.  Obama held off on releasing so as not to be accused of attempting to influence the election in a partisan manner.   

[BKDotCom]

While there were hints Trump was...well being Trump with Russia

Trump will be Trump ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
If only this were a sitcom

[erfalf]

Back to my original question regarding Cohen's hearing. Is this normal? Not is it normal that he is involved with the president, but how it is being handled?

[patric]

Instead, it's a dumpster fire the whole world (sans us) gets to laugh at.

All the more reason to laugh at ourselves.


Ingraham explained she would defend the First Amendment against "the totalitarian left": "That's my right to bully people without being bullied in return."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nybyEtN3kyc


"Not everyone's lucky enough to be in one of those rare fairytale marriages with a 100 percent no hooker-pee-pee guarantee."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UirzdrCr5zI

[cannon_fodder]

In all seriousness, why in the world was his client list compelled in public? Is this normal?

Court proceedings are generally public unless there is a reason for them to not be public. In this instance, the judge explained "because the identities of an attorney's clients are not subject to attorney-client privilege unless the mere name itself would reveal the kind of advice sought or given."  Cohen said he has only had a few clients since Trump took office, the Judge gave them an opportunity to argue why the names should not be disclosed.  Team Cohen argued that his clients really didn't want the names disclosed,  which the judge said doesn't meet the burden.

Is this normal?  None of this is normal.  But while I have never had to deal directly with this issue, it does not appear rare for a Court to order disclosure of client lists in certain circumstances - like where an attorney himself is at the center of some issue (2 minute Google search: the 3rd Circuit just affirmed such an Order in an IRS case out of Pennsylvania in February [quoted below], the DC Bar issued a similar ethics opinion way back in 1990).  Cohen almost certainly notified his clients, but one way or another Trump's attorneys showed up to argue and Hannity's did not.  If Cohen or Mr. Trump's attorneys thought the judges ruling was erroneous, they could have risked advising Cohen to withhold the information and sought an emergency appeal to the 2nd Circuit...  I'm sure I'm not thinking of things they didn't.

I was under the impression a disinterested party was going to sift through everything and determine what was admissible, and what was protected by attorney client privileged. I was told that civil rights would not be trampled on in any way whatsoever. This was all above board. Instead, we get leaks (which I totally expected) and public admissions of clients. And we are cheering them on all the way. Please tell me I am missing something.

Where are you getting the impression that someone went Rambo and started trampling rights?  Always a fear worth raising and certainly something that I think does happen (see my rants on here!).  But Rights can be taken away with due process.  In this instance, I think Uncle Sam needs to be very careful, but what do you think was over the established line?

No one is sifting through the materials at this time. The prosecution (State/Uncle Sam) wanted to set up a "taint team" who would sift though material and decide if it could go on to the prosecuting attorneys (presumably if it was privileged or not, or if it was wholly irrelevant AND privileged).  Team Cohen wanted to see all the materials first and then have a special master (3rd party) review the documents and make recommendations to the Court.     The President's team  doesn't want the US Attorney's office or Special Master, they want to review the records themselves to decide what should be withheld from the Government.  The Court has not ruled, but it looks like she is leaning towards a "taint team" inside the US Attorney's office. Presently, each side is supposed to make a list based on knowledge they have (Cohen knowing what he had and both sides presumably having an inventory of what was taken).
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/16/politics/michael-cohen-hearing/index.html

What leaks are you talking about?  The Mueller investigation and this US Attorney raid have had amazingly few leaks.  The details of exactly what the raid was about are only trickling out as it circulates among more and more people and is discussed by Trump, Cohen, various attorneys, prosecutors and judges.  nothing at all before the raid and no one knows what Mueller's team is doing other than when someone gets subpoena'd or indicted. This is a very leaky administration, but hard to point that at the US Attorney in NY or Mueller's team.

What's not above board?  A US Government DOJ employee found evidence they thought pointed to a crime, he reported it to the US Attorney for the district with jurisdiction, he recused himself because of a conflict, his subordinate apparently agreed with the alleged finding of a rime and thought the only way to get info was to confiscate the subject's files which may be privileged, so he went to the appropriate party at the DOJ for extra-ordinary approval, he then went to a Federal Judge for approval, he then went to the FBI for approval and execution of the subpoena.  The whole thing then went before another Federal Judge to decide if names would be revealed and start sorting out the issue of attorney client privilege.

If you think this isn't due process or above-board, please don't look at what happens in a normal criminal cases.  Most cases don't have the world watching, piles of attorneys waiting to slap Uncle Sam down, or parts of the government working against itself. I 100% agree that raiding an attorneys office should not be taken lightly, but I'd guess the DOJ, FBI, Federal Judges, Prosecutors, and defense attorneys involved all think that too.   If a righteous citizen could ever be vindicated in an instance of overreach by Uncle Sam... this would be it.  And we shall see.


3rd Circuit Court of Appeals on the issue of client lists:

The Supreme Court "has recognized the attorney-client privilege under federal law, as the oldest of the privileges for confidential communications known to the common law." United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 562 (1989) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). That privilege – although an essential and carefully guarded aspect of the attorney-client relationship – is not boundless. It protects only against the disclosure of confidential communications. Upjohn Co., 449 U.S. at 389; In re Teleglobe Commc'ns Corp., 493 F.3d 345, 359-60 (3d Cir. 2007). We have said that, absent unusual circumstances, the attorney-client privilege does not protect against disclosing clients' identities. Liebman, 742 F.2d at 809; see also Gannet v. First Nat'l State Bank of N.J., 546 F.2d 1072, 1073 n.4 (3d Cir. 1976) (citing cases).

http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/171371np.pdf

[heironymouspasparagus]

Last night the news laid out the following story:

The FBI raided the President's Attorney's office at the behest of the US Attorney stemming from a Special Prosecutor investigation of Russian meddling in the US Election.
Attorneys for the President's Attorney as well as attorneys for the President enter the Courtroom to try to convince a Federal Judge to limit access to the materials confiscated.
The porn star allegedly paid off by the President and/or his attorney enters the Courtroom to witness the proceeding.
The Judge Orders a client list from the President's attorney, who reveals a short client list and tries to hold one back, and then reveals the name of the most prominent conservative news personality in the country.
The courtroom audibly gasps.


This isn't normal.  Not even speculating on the significance of any of it, it's surreal.  This would be a ridiculous plot line for West Wing, House of Cards, or some soap opera. This actually happened, in the United States of America - not some crazy third world dumpster fire we all get to laugh at. This is not normal.

By Third world dumpster fire - you mean one of those sh$thole countries as Trump like to call them...??

It's the extremist right tea party way... It is not normal.  In the rest of the world.

[heironymouspasparagus]

In fairness the other candidate was the only one being investigated for espionage at the time of the election. Just saying.

Oh, please...even after ALL that facts that have been put out in the world from real news, Congressional hearings, and admissions by 2 main perpetrators (Starr..Brock) of lies against the Clinton's, you STILL don't understand enough of the English language words and structure to 'get it' ??

That is the extremist right tea party intellectual bankruptcy effect rampant in this country.