FBI Raids Office of Trump Lawyer Michael Cohen

[boyst]

9 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Redacted

If this is all your argument can turn to because you are unable to discuss the full matter of something then you need to sshut up. 

 

You do a disservice to Credible arguments that are made by educated people on the matter. 

 

You make the Board unreadable

Edited April 10, 2018 by Boyst62

[Coach Tuesday]

6 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Again, I ask you, is it problematic that the FBI has performed an end run around attorney-client privilege, a necessary hallmark of our entire system of jurisprudence, in order to gain access to information about a person investigating/prosecuting wide spread malfeasance and corruption in that agency?

 

Is this something the intelligence apparatus of a free country should be doing?

 

This answer is why there will be an actual shooting war in this country.

 

You are, quite literally, dismissing people posing legitimate concerns about the intelligence apparatus/legal system of our nation launching end runs around the basic legal protections that the entire notion of a free country rests upon as cry babies.

 

This cannot stand, Gary.  This is not clever.  This is the collapse of our system.  This is where desperation sets in.

 

Oh please.  There has been no "end run around" anything.  You're such a psychotic conspiracy-monger.  Everything the Left does is an attack on fundamental freedoms, and the survival of the State is imperiled.  Please, enough with the John Galt melodrama.  The attorney-client privilege is a strong - but penetrable - doctrine.  The crime/fraud exception is well-recognized.  SDNY judges and magistrates are not "on the take" - this was a judicially-authorized search, not some coup or grand conspiracy.

1 hour ago, LA Grant said:

 

?

Well, I know I can't wait to see it.

 

I suspect it will go down exactly as every prior conversation with you has — you, searching for ways to dismiss the points; me, attempting to get you to engage on the facts and issues at hand; you, scampering away to avoid making any statements of your own.

 

Tom may as well be the mascot for modern American conservative. His tactics are the same: Distract. Attack the messenger. Avoid the issues. Claim the other side is either lying or stupid (depending on which trait serves your argument in the moment).

 

Tom has no ideas of his own, and based on his posting history, appears to only be interested in his own vanity and power. In this case, that vanity & power are related to... a message board. In his mind, he's convinced he's making some really great points. He also thinks he's something of a humorist, or at least that's the form his smugness has taken. "Sniping retards from the balcony."

 

He's PPP's Colonel Kurtz - he lords over the zombie hordes, the one-eyed old king in the land of the blind.

[row_33]

so LA Grant has basically spent 100 hours a week on here?

 

too bad this doesn't pay anything

 

 

[Coach Tuesday]

7 hours ago, Boyst62 said:

Come in. Drop a stupid statement and then don't return.

 

It doesn't do you much justice. You're a smart guy, Coach, different opinions are welcome. But, if you're coming to PPP to engage the old curmudgeons with #feelings and nonsense you won't get far.

 

Trump has done far less, if anything, to degrade this country than Mueller, the IC and all of those behind this coup.  At the end of the day there is one thing that has been tremendously unexpected: Trump still stands.

 

You're right about the drop-ins, I shouldn't do that - but this place is such a cesspool, a Fox & Friends circle-jerk.  You say "different opinions are welcome" but most of you don't want discussion or divergent views.  You folks mistake the echo of your own voices with some kind of broad, national consensus.  People like me avoid this place because it's toxic and, frankly, boring.  Whenever someone pursues a counter-argument with any real vigor, he or she gets called an idiot by  DC Tom, and the rest of you snicker like hyenas because "someone got emotional" - isn't that just hilarious?  Someone getting emotional?  

 

Here is a challenge: see if you (the broad "You") can respond to a discussion about potential crimes committed by Trump and his cronies, without resorting to the words "But Obama," "But Hillary," or "But CNN..."  see how many posts you can run up without that happening - I bet you don't get farther than 2 or 3 in a thread.

 

As for me being a smart guy, that's debatable.  You and I aren't so far off in terms of our actual views about human nature, and I suspect we'd enjoy having a beer (and a shot) together.  Unfortunately PPP - "the taint of TBD" - doesn't bring out the best in people.

Edited April 10, 2018 by Coach Tuesday

[Deranged Rhino]

1 hour ago, LA Grant said:

 

I've quite patiently answered virtually every question thrown my way.

 

Now you've just gone to straight out lying...

 

You've DODGED every question, the ones you haven't dodged (or ignored because your manhood is missing), you reframe in intellectually dishonest way. 

 

You're an asshat who prides himself on asshattery.

 

If you weren't lying, you would have answered the question posed to you in this thread. You claim there's evidence for collusion - I asked you to provide it - and you responded with crickets. 

Why? Because you're a dishonest asshat.

[Coach Tuesday]

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Now you've just gone to straight out lying...

 

You've DODGED every question, the ones you haven't dodged (or ignored because your manhood is missing), you reframe in intellectually dishonest way. 

 

You're an asshat who prides himself on asshattery.

 

If you weren't lying, you would have answered the question posed to you in this thread. You claim there's evidence for collusion - I asked you to provide it - and you responded with crickets. 

Why? Because you're a dishonest asshat.

 

Are we anti-lying now?  Yes or no, is lying bad?

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, Coach Tuesday said:

Are we anti-lying now?  Yes or no, is lying bad?

 

Name one time I've abided lying in an intellectual discussion. 

 

You can't. Because it's cowardly. But that's all LA Asshat has to offer. Cowardly dishonesty passed off as what he thinks is intellectual elitism. 

[DC Tom]

10 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Now you've just gone to straight out lying...

 

You've DODGED every question, the ones you haven't dodged (or ignored because your manhood is missing), you reframe in intellectually dishonest way. 

 

You're an asshat who prides himself on asshattery.

 

If you weren't lying, you would have answered the question posed to you in this thread. You claim there's evidence for collusion - I asked you to provide it - and you responded with crickets. 

Why? Because you're a dishonest asshat.

 

Not just intellectually dishonest, but fallacious.  The entirety of his posts are based on the Appeal to Outrage fallacy.  

 

No ****, I've seen some of his arguments listed in books as examples of fallacies. 

[Warren Zevon]

2 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Not just intellectually dishonest, but fallacious.  The entirety of his posts are based on the Appeal to Outrage fallacy.  

 

No ****, I've seen some of his arguments listed in books as examples of fallacies. 

 

"Itching his balls on the balcony"

[DC Tom]

1 minute ago, garybusey said:

 

"Itching his balls on the balcony"

 

It is hilarious that you are all so upset about my avatar.    Really, that's the best you bring to the table?  You could at least accuse me of being guilty of the "Sniping at retards from the balcony" fallacy.  No less stupid...but at least it would be original.

[Deranged Rhino]

3 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

It is hilarious that you are all so upset about my avatar.    Really, that's the best you bring to the table?  You could at least accuse me of being guilty of the "Sniping at retards from the balcony" fallacy.  No less stupid...but at least it would be original.

 

He's still learning how avatars work, clearly, based on his swings at the plate recently. He thought turning his own into an asshat was somehow a slam against other posters rather than what it really was: an accurate self-description.

 

Kind of like a warning label on cigarettes: reading asshat posts can cause cancer. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(don't worry, pot will cure it... or copious amounts of Tom Petty)

[snafu]

7 hours ago, HappyDays said:

 

The fact that you're asking this question tells me you still don't understand what happened. The FBI raid on Cohen might have nothing to do with Trump. They're investigating Cohen for possible crimes that he committed. Completely separate from anything Mueller is investigating. Unless Trump was committing crimes with Cohen in which case he is also screwed.

 

 

If what's bolded is true, then they can't run in and take all of Cohen's files unless every file contains suspected evidence of crimes. That's overbroad and it isn't Constitutionally protected activity.

 

How about the FBI goes to your lawyer's office because they think that person (not you) is committing a crime, and  they sweep up your file and read your private - potentially offensive - matters because they're casting a wide net?  Your lawyer would have a right to fight that overbroad warrant, and you'd be able to get any evidence thrown out if they came after you because of what they found.

 

If their goal was just to squeeze your lawyer to turn over on some other target, then that's a crappy way of going about business.  If they never use any of the information in Court, but just leak it out to smear rivals, then that's worse.  It makes the President's political opponents look like the fascists.

 

[Deranged Rhino]

Cohen's raid is about Sater. Who is Sater and why does he matter?

(those are the relevant questions people really interested in what's happening should be digging into)

[snafu]

7 hours ago, garybusey said:

 

What would be problematic is Mueller sweeping potential crimes under the rug. 

 

You mean like Mueller's predecessor, Comey, did?

 

[Coach Tuesday]

15 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

If what's bolded is true, then they can't run in and take all of Cohen's files unless every file contains suspected evidence of crimes. That's overbroad and it isn't Constitutionally protected activity.

 

How about the FBI goes to your lawyer's office because they think that person (not you) is committing a crime, and  they sweep up your file and read your private - potentially offensive - matters because they're casting a wide net?  Your lawyer would have a right to fight that overbroad warrant, and you'd be able to get any evidence thrown out if they came after you because of what they found.

 

If their goal was just to squeeze your lawyer to turn over on some other target, then that's a crappy way of going about business.  If they never use any of the information in Court, but just leak it out to smear rivals, then that's worse.  It makes the President's political opponents look like the fascists.

 

 

That might be a decent argument - if it had happened.

[Deranged Rhino]

2 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said:

 

That might be a decent argument - if it had happened.

 

His point is you don't know if it did or didn't. Hence the reason for concern rather than blind approval. The track record of abuse in this matter is clear and unambiguous making blind trust more than naive at this point; it's willful ignorance. 

 

Partisanship is blinding. This is an issue that goes beyond partisanship despite being cloaked in exactly that. 

[LA Grant]

44 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Name one time I've abided lying in an intellectual discussion. 

 

You can't. Because it's cowardly. But that's all LA Asshat has to offer. Cowardly dishonesty passed off as what he thinks is intellectual elitism. 

 

Well you're lying right now, for one thing, since I did respond to your request for "collusion evidence." Twice, in fact. Receipts, b*tch.

 

Of course, like you've also done here, you are somehow able to reconcile ignoring 90% of my post or questions to you, then turn around and accuse me of dishonesty.

 

It is incredible to watch you work.

[snafu]

8 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said:

 

That might be a decent argument - if it had happened.

 

It is a decent argument and it seems to be what happened.  The reports are that they took everything and they're sorting out what's usable and what's not.  How does that sound acceptable to anyone?

 

[LA Grant]

Just now, snafu said:

It is a decent argument and it seems to be what happened.  The reports are that they took everything and they're sorting out what's usable and what's not.  How does that sound acceptable to anyone?

 

It was both acceptable & wise.

 

The warrant allowed for a raid of all of Cohen's relevant materials because they didn't trust him to turn them over or destroy the evidence. Considering Cohen's long history, it's not at all shocking the judge agreed & signed the warrant.

 

The rules were followed. Attorney-client privilege remains sacrosanct. Only the diehard Trumpers are crying foul, as they do with everything they don't like. It's old.

[snafu]

2 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

It was both acceptable & wise.

 

The warrant allowed for a raid of all of Cohen's relevant materials because they didn't trust him to turn them over or destroy the evidence. Considering Cohen's long history, it's not at all shocking the judge agreed & signed the warrant.

 

The rules were followed. Attorney-client privilege remains sacrosanct. Only the diehard Trumpers are crying foul, as they do with everything they don't like. It's old.

 

There are many times when this saying applies:  "just because you can, doesn't mean you should".  In my opinion, this was one of those times.  "All of Cohen's relevant materials" does not equal "all of Cohen's materials".  See the difference?

 

 

[Koko78]

Well, while the sniping is fun and all, back to the topic at hand (from the NY Law Journal):

 

Quote

...

 

On Monday, the FBI raided offices of Michael Cohen, Esq. to get the lawyer’s records, all his client records, business records, memos to the file, etc. Whether you like Donald Trump, don’t like Donald Trump, or are indifferent to Trump, what happened yesterday is appalling. As working lawyers, most of us have within our files our own memos dealing with information on the private lives of husbands, wives, messy family disputes, with all kinds of claims and cross claims, in criminal; cases of defendants (guilty and innocent), corporate people (naughty and nice), etc. Everyone has a right to counsel and to exercise their attorney-client privilege, and everyone has a right to be honestly and ethically defended without being concerned for the violation of their attorney-client privilege...

 

The copout seems to be that other federal investigators go through the files primarily creating a “wall” and then give only those relevant materials to their colleagues, who undoubtedly they will then have lunch with (certainly, Donald Trump will create a better wall than this). Let us not suspend common sense.

 

Nobody elected any of these prosecutors...

 

I speak not only as a private lawyer whose files I would lay across and die before anyone could get them and know what clients told me, in the naïve belief that they are privileged. Having voted for him or not, we have a democratically elected president. Should a handful of prosecutors be allowed to override the will of the people? Do we want a bunch of prosecutors running our country? That did not seem to work in the Salem Witch trials, the McCarthyism inquisitions nor for Mr. Robespierre.

 

And all of these draconian actions of investigators are for what? Chasing after adults who had a consensual relationship and his lawyer who is also his friend for writing a check. The only assault on our democracy seems to be from a by now desperate special counsel chasing vague shadows who should be gone. It is a disgrace, and, by the way, I am a registered independent and am a former federal prosecutor.

https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2018/04/10/seizure-of-cohen-records-akin-to-salem-witch-trials-mccarthyism/?kw=Seizure of Cohen Records Akin to Salem Witch Trials%2C McCarthyism&et=editorial&bu=New York Law Journal&cn=20180410&src=EMC-Email&pt=Daily News

[Deranged Rhino]

3 hours ago, LA Grant said:

 

(1) For collusion, you don't want to believe the Steele dossier,

(2)we also know there are things we don't yet 

(3)I'm sure you'll take this as "proof" that there "is no evidence" because your mind is closed and you're going to conclude that, no matter what.

 

You literally didn't answer the question, asshat - let alone "twice".  

 

I asked for evidence of collusion. You presented zero evidence in your response. Not a single thing.

 

The only thing you said that could even be argued as an attempt to answer was (1) "the Steele dossier" - which by its own "author's" admission, is unverifiable and at best partially accurate. That's not evidence of collusion, it's the source of controversy in the FISA abuse scandal precisely because it doesn't meet the bar for admissible evidence. So, that's just nonsense.

 

My favorite bit though is (2)  "we also know there are things we don't know yet"... that's not evidence of anything other than you're even dimmer than I thought. You call me a conspiracy theorist and you fall back on conspiracy 101 logic immediately when forced to acknowledge you're believing in something entirely without proof. Moves like that is why you're LA Asshat, LA asshat. 

 

(3) though is the ultimate expression in asshatery. My mind being open or closed has no bearing on the accuracy of this statement, the fact your own response DIDN'T PROVIDE EVIDENCE is ... actual evidence ... that you are wrong.

 

And dishonest. 

 

And an asshat with the IQ hovering around sea sponge range. 

 

 

[Coach Tuesday]

23 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

His point is you don't know if it did or didn't. Hence the reason for concern rather than blind approval. The track record of abuse in this matter is clear and unambiguous making blind trust more than naive at this point; it's willful ignorance. 

 

Partisanship is blinding. This is an issue that goes beyond partisanship despite being cloaked in exactly that. 

 

What track record of Southern District of New York warrant over-issuance or overreaching are you referring to?  I’ll take one example.  

[LA Grant]

6 minutes ago, snafu said:

There are many times when this saying applies:  "just because you can, doesn't mean you should".  In my opinion, this was one of those times.  "All of Cohen's relevant materials" does not equal "all of Cohen's materials".  See the difference?

 

They didn't take his bathrobe or his slippers. They took documents that would have evidence that he has been breaking the law.

 

The law is being enforced in a just & equitable way. That is a good thing. 

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, Coach Tuesday said:

 

What track record of Southern District of New York warrant over-issuance or overreaching are you referring to?  I’ll take one example.  

 

I've got no beef with them - but you knew that. I've got beef with other people involved in this decision. You can read any of my numerous posts on the subject to get more clarity if you wish. My thesis doesn't deal in monolithic structures, but compartmentalized groups across many different agencies, departments, companies et al.  

[3rdnlng]

5 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

You literally didn't answer the question, asshat - let alone "twice".  

 

I asked for evidence of collusion. You presented zero evidence in your response. Not a single thing.

 

The only thing you said that could even be argued as an attempt to answer was (1) "the Steele dossier" - which by its own "author's" admission, is unverifiable and at best partially accurate. That's not evidence of collusion, it's the source of controversy in the FISA abuse scandal precisely because it doesn't meet the bar for admissible evidence. So, that's just nonsense.

 

My favorite bit though is (2)  "we also know there are things we don't know yet"... that's not evidence of anything other than you're even dimmer than I thought. You call me a conspiracy theorist and you fall back on conspiracy 101 logic immediately when forced to acknowledge you're believing in something entirely without proof. Moves like that is why you're LA Asshat, LA asshat. 

 

(3) though is the ultimate expression in asshatery. My mind being open or closed has no bearing on the accuracy of this statement, the fact your own response DIDN'T PROVIDE EVIDENCE is ... actual evidence ... that you are wrong.

 

And dishonest. 

 

And an asshat with the IQ hovering around sea sponge range. 

 

 

Didn't you know that just saying "collusion" is proof of collusion?

[Deranged Rhino]

2 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

The law is being enforced in a just & equitable way. That is a good thing. 

 

You can't know that for sure. And, in fact, this primary source document begs to differ.

 

When left unchecked, there has been a track record of overreach and constitutional violations of the worst kind by many different departments and agencies against US citizens. 

https://www.scribd.com/document/349542716/Top-Secret-FISA-Court-Order-President-Obama-Spying-on-Political-Enemies

[snafu]

4 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

They didn't take his bathrobe or his slippers. They took documents that would have evidence that he has been breaking the law.

 

The law is being enforced in a just & equitable way. That is a good thing. 

 

Don't be disingenuous.  It makes people want to avoid engaging you in discussions.

 

It is my opinion that the law (while apparently being followed) is not being enforced in a just or an equitable way -- at least not by reports of what they took from Cohen's offices and residences.  To me, they're walking on the line, and possibly over it.  I went over why I believe an overbroad search and seizure is wrong a few posts up.  And a few pages back, I mentioned why this is a bad precedent.  No need to rehash those opinions here.

 

 

 

[DC Tom]

12 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

The law is being enforced in a just & equitable way. That is a good thing. 

 

Prove it.

 

Without using the fallacy of Circular Reasoning.

[Warren Zevon]

In an interview with Don Lemon on CNN Cohen Mentioned he is extremely worried about the safety of his family. He never once mentioned Trump. Is Cohen flipping already?

[Coach Tuesday]

23 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

I've got no beef with them - but you knew that. I've got beef with other people involved in this decision. You can read any of my numerous posts on the subject to get more clarity if you wish. My thesis doesn't deal in monolithic structures, but compartmentalized groups across many different agencies, departments, companies et al.  

 

Sounds like a conspiracy to me.

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, Coach Tuesday said:

 

Sounds like a conspiracy to me.

 

It is. And there's mountains of evidence to support it's reality.

[HappyDays]

1 hour ago, snafu said:

If what's bolded is true, then they can't run in and take all of Cohen's files unless every file contains suspected evidence of crimes. That's overbroad and it isn't Constitutionally protected activity.

 

This is 100% false. They can take all the files they want. Not every record will be admissible evidence which is the point of the "dirty team" who looks through it all and determines what is admissible. Not all communications between an attorney and his client are protected. And if they discover evidence of a crime totally separate from what the raid was for they can use that evidence as long as it wasn't found in privileged communications.

 

17 minutes ago, garybusey said:

In an interview with Don Lemon on CNN Cohen Mentioned he is extremely worried about the safety of his family. He never once mentioned Trump. Is Cohen flipping already?

 

 

Edited April 10, 2018 by HappyDays

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, HappyDays said:

 

This is 100% false. They can take all the files they want. Not every record will be admissible evidence which is the point of the "dirty team" who looks through it all and determines what is admissible. Not all communications between an attorney and his client are protected. And if they discover evidence of a crime totally separate from what the raid was for they can use that evidence as long as it wasn't found in privileged communications.

 

Evidence doesn't need to be admissible to be leverage. 

 

(Not saying that's what's happening or happened - just making the point more clear). 

[DC Tom]

2 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

This is 100% false. They can take all the files they want. Not every record will be admissible evidence which is the point of the "dirty team" who looks through it all and determines what is admissible. Not all communications between an attorney and his client are protected. And if they discover evidence of a crime totally separate from what the raid was for they can use that evidence as long as it wasn't found in privileged communications.

 

You're both wrong.  What they can take depends on the scope of the warrant.

 

What they can end up using is a different matter, of course...

[boyst]

1 hour ago, Coach Tuesday said:

 

You're right about the drop-ins, I shouldn't do that - but this place is such a cesspool, a Fox & Friends circle-jerk.  You say "different opinions are welcome" but most of you don't want discussion or divergent views.  You folks mistake the echo of your own voices with some kind of broad, national consensus.  People like me avoid this place because it's toxic and, frankly, boring.  Whenever someone pursues a counter-argument with any real vigor, he or she gets called an idiot by  DC Tom, and the rest of you snicker like hyenas because "someone got emotional" - isn't that just hilarious?  Someone getting emotional?  

 

Here is a challenge: see if you (the broad "You") can respond to a discussion about potential crimes committed by Trump and his cronies, without resorting to the words "But Obama," "But Hillary," or "But CNN..."  see how many posts you can run up without that happening - I bet you don't get farther than 2 or 3 in a thread.

 

As for me being a smart guy, that's debatable.  You and I aren't so far off in terms of our actual views about human nature, and I suspect we'd enjoy having a beer (and a shot) together.  Unfortunately PPP - "the taint of TBD" - doesn't bring out the best in people.

I should come back and read the rest of this. But it's hardly a circle jerk of Fox News.

 

If you choose to focus on that then that's all you'll see. Just like those who come here and only read Grant, Gary, Tiberius, others. They'll see it as a Bastion of retardism instead of alt right neo Nazis

I'll try to get back to the rest of this. But you know that I respect you even though we differ on a lot of opinions

 

[Taro T]

2 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Cohen's raid is about Sater. Who is Sater and why does he matter?

(those are the relevant questions people really interested in what's happening should be digging into)

 

If you are correct on this one, that is about the biggest bait & switch ever.  (Far bigger than going after Manafort being about the Podestas.  IMHO)

[LA Grant]

4 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

I should come back and read the rest of this. But it's hardly a circle jerk of Fox News.

 

If you choose to focus on that then that's all you'll see. Just like those who come here and only read Grant, Gary, Tiberius, others. They'll see it as a Bastion of retardism instead of alt right neo Nazis

 

I'll try to get back to the rest of this. But you know that I respect you even though we differ on a lot of opinions

 

Boyst is not worthy of respect. He knows why.

[boyst]

11 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Boyst is not worthy of respect. He knows why.

No I don't. Tell me you coward. 

[3rdnlng]

3 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

No I don't. Tell me you coward. 

He's the guy that said TYTT was a closet pedophile. He'll stoop to any level.