So the U.S. attorney's manual lays out the ground rules for conducting searches on attorneys who are subjects of an investigation, stating prosecutors should always take the least intrusive approach and consider subpoenas before search warrants. That's in the general case, for fear of having lawsuits into petty drug dealers tossed because you violated privilege or issued unreasonable search warrants without giving an attorney the presumption of good faith and opportunity to voluntarily disclose. And from these media reports, Mueller only had anything to refer about Cohen because Cohen voluntarily disclosed it to him when asked about Stormy Daniels. And then the SDNY went on a no-knock raid of all things, like its a drug kingpin who's about to burn all the evidence.

What possible basis could they have to justify even the optics of such insane overreach? The impression this leaves regardless of its legal basis is damaging to the credibility and trust in the impartiality of the special counsel. When Mueller is supposed to be an impartial special counsel looking into Russian interference in the 2016 election and now Cohen's privileged communications with Trump are being seized by the FBI under the pretext of paying hush money to a bimbo he banged a decade ago? If a prosecutor was actually interested in pushing a case that would stand up on trial and not get holes poked in it by defense attorneys due the kind of antics that are the trademark of Andrew 'Suppress the evidence' Weissmann, if a prosecutor wasn't just interested in digging up political dirt to sabotage his target knowing the charges have no traction, well then why would Mueller being nosing into such a tangent in the first place?

This post was edited by Goomshill on Apr 9 2018 09:01pm

I expect many FBI agents will be fired for this overreach.

https://twitter.com/preetbharara/status/983522446191026177
https://twitter.com/eorden/status/983529255614197760
Preet Bharara and some WSJ journalists are raising the possibility that the ambiguous wording in the announcement could mean that this wasn't a referral from Mueller to investigate a matter unrelated to the Russian probe and the SDNY is employing taint teams to sort through what they can use, but that this is actually in coordination with Mueller to investigate Cohen and the SDNY are being used as taint teams for Mueller to look at attorney-client privileged information.
If thats the case, then that makes it even more crazy and higher stakes. that would be mueller just pissing all over constitutional protections like a madman.
that is all speculation, however.

This post was edited by Goomshill on Apr 9 2018 09:41pm

Maybe Trump is giving Mueller enough rope to hang himself.

W/e Mueller is doing, I bet money that it's illegal.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/alan-dershowitz-today-is-a-very-dangerous-day-for-lawyer-client-relations

and there's dershowitz's head exploding as predicted^
and as if fox-guarding-the-hen-house wasn't issue enough when the FBI acts as taint teams for FBI investigations in general, now its applied to the president in a hyperpartisan investigation
any left vestiges of civil libertarianism need to get wiped off the floor

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/04/09/to-search-michael-cohens-home-and-office-the-fbi-had-to-clear-a-higher-than-normal-bar



That seems like an important point. Michael Cohen's first reaction was to say that he's been fully compliant and made full disclosures on everything. And from Mueller's office it sounded like the referral was made based on those statements he gave in cooperation, If the FBI / Mueller / SDNY or whoever is organizing this was obeying the rules, they had to try to subpoena those documents from Cohen first, which he'd know about, and get no cooperation. If they went ahead with a no-knock warrant without even trying to subpoena the evidence, that would be grounds to get everything thrown out as an improper warrant and any products of it as fruit of the poisonous tree. Attorney-client privilege is supposed to be so sacrosanct that even if there's enough probably cause for a warrant, its still grounds to toss out a search if you didn't go through all the least intrusive options first.

the details of the story we have right now are too incomplete. Either there is much more shoes to drop on Cohen and he just outright lied in reaction to this raid, or the DoJ just fucked up big time, like bigly

This post was edited by Goomshill on Apr 9 2018 10:36pm

and from the other lens: If mueller is acting in good faith and wants to resolve the russia investigation by getting to the bottom of the truth of whether Trump actually colluded with Russia, how does this help?
They want Trump to testify or give an interview, ostensibly to help clear up it all up. And Trump's expressed willingness to do so, if it meant finally wrapping up the probe
but this shows michael cohen telling mueller the truth about stormy daniels to assure him its nothing to do with russia, and then mueller turning around and sending the storm troopers after him on that minor count. Well how are Trump and all his related officials and Cohen supposed to interview mueller in good faith and be willing to tell the whole truth if even the relatively minor and inconsequential things get them crucified? Dershowitz was ranting about this in his piece today, saying that subjects of an investigation are only willing to assist the investigation in good faith if they get treated decently for it.

If Muellers interest is to actually find the truth, then he just made it so nobody with even a lick of sense would cooperate with his investigation anymore because even a whiff of jaywalking could get the FBI kicking down your door, constitutional protections be damned. And especially considering the FEC violation claim against Cohen is a huge stretch to begin with, since they need to prove it was intended to influence the election, not just defend trump's reputation or hide it from melania. Now imagine you're a certain orange someone who is suspicious Mueller is just angling for a spurious obstruction of justice or lying to investigator charge knowing Mueller has no actual dirt on you. Would you willingly attempt that minefield?

This post was edited by Goomshill on Apr 9 2018 11:05pm

it's so funny, whenever some poor bastard gets executed by police, our resident cultists act like they had it coming somehow because of their criminal past, that you don't run if you have nothing to hide, implying it was somehow justified they DIED.
but when trump's crooked former lawyer gets a visit from the FBI, it's an unacceptable overreach, and the outrage on the right knows no limits. whatever happened to 'just roll with it if you have nothing to hide'? this is not even a matter of life and death, why not just cooperate?

Did you just call trumps lawyer a nigger?

because you can't distinguish between "police good lawyers bad" and "authorities good niggers bad".
being a consistent civil libertarian would make it mutually exclusive to both be against authoritarian overreach and want to roast the pigs every time some 'innocent child like michael brown gets lynched'. Because then you'd be violating the civil rights of the police officers

the cops who walk the beats are supposed to deal with the harsh realities and limitations of society, whereas the lawyers and judges in the courtrooms are supposed to arrive at the truth.
I don't expect police officers to freeze time and conduct detailed analysis of every gangbanger's upbringing and circumstances during the blink of an eye as he reaches for a gun, but I sure have a problem with it when a judge allows evidence that's more prejudicial than probative into a courtroom so that politically biased jurors walk out and talk about how he 'had it coming'

Accurately describing what Trump did 10-15 years ago isn't a smear campaign. Also, Cohen's payment to the pornstar Donald Trump had sex with while his wife was at home taking care of his newborn son happened in 2016, not 10-15 years ago.



That first rule doesn't make much sense to me. If the investigators have reason to believe Cohen would destroy documents, why would they be required to issue a subpoena first?

@bold: Where's it say that?

As with everything Mueller related, I just assume what everyone thought about him the day before he was involved in investigating Trump, which is that he's a great attorney with integrity who is respected on both sides. I'll maintain that belief until I see sufficient evidence to prove otherwise.

This post was edited by IceMage on Apr 10 2018 02:19am