following the legal avenues to skirt attorney client privilege =/= breaking the law

if they broke the law the evidence would be inadmissible.

you really should learn how to phrase things to be correct, you're the teeball equivalent here in PARD because you do this constantly.

it's fine to have an opinion on the matter, but u generally push ahead into incorrectly stating opinions as fact. its what makes you sound so unintelligent.

It's highly unlikely the raid was an overreach... it was approved by Rosenstein, the SDNY, and a magistrate judge. I know I know, deep state derp.

I don't recall the Trump cult viewing Flynn as a shady figure. He was the head of military intelligence... lol. Manafort and Gates were definitely looked at as DC creatures who were well known in political circles, but until the Ukraine stuff started bubbling up, I don't remember accusations of them being shady either(and I watch CNN, which is apparently the anti-Trump hub).

The Trump tower/DonJr/Papadopoulus stuff is very significant. It shows they were willing and even giddy at the thought of receiving dirt on Hillary from the Russians.

This post was edited by IceMage on Apr 11 2018 11:36am

How many times do we need to go over the same simple things, before you understand.

I'll ask again. Are you saying, that in this entire country, no unnamed judge ever did anything wrong or w/o due consideration?


/e Or maybe the information presented to the unnamed judge was not complete or accurate. It takes a TON of pretty hard evidence to over turn the attorney client privilege.

/ee Best part of all, is this wasn't just ANY of Trump's cronies this was Trump's attorney.

This post was edited by Ghot on Apr 11 2018 11:40am

no, it doesn't. you can say it as many times as you want but a simple illustration that there is a likelihood the attorney would destroy evidence is all that's needed.

we're not talking a violent raid on a crack den, this was a knock knock quiet and polite seizing of evidence.

Mueller demonstrated that he believed Cohen had evidence pertinent to his investigation, and further suggests that Cohen might hit the shredders (HRC style, try to recognize that) if notified. done, judge signed. they were going to seize the evidence either way, the only real difference is Cohen wasn't notified until they got there.



all of this is a dog and pony show, the second the stormy story broke in the media all evidence was destroyed. that's day 1 shit. so i dont expect Mueller to collect evidence based on his supposed motivations. he's using those motivations (bs campaign finance violations that i already stated i believe shouldnt be an impeachable offense, but likely is under the law) to get a grab on Cohen's info to find OTHER illegal activity. it's dirty ball no doubt, its just legal. you keep dipping back into the legality pool, stay away from that, the water's well over ur head.

Why is Mueller investigating stormy daniels and the access hollywood tape? Why would he be looking at such charges when his investigation into russia interference is ongoing, knowing that it could taint and jeopardize his investigation? Why wouldn't he just wait until after Trump is no longer a subject of the investigation? Why is such an insane degree of aggressive tactics being used to pursue so minor and inconsequential charges against Trump's lawyer when the case on campaign violations is subjective and the attorney-client privilege sacrosanct and a third rail to the russia investigation, but Hillary was free to destroy evidence under subpoena and skate because of lack of intent?



Judges have tossed out cases against drug dealers for less, legal or not. And Mueller would know that, after all he has Andrew Weissmann on his team.
If Mueller was really acting in good faith to investigate russian interference, what good does it do him to pursue such a ridiculous tangent that not only throws his main investigation into legal jeopardy when a judge scrutinizes whether it was unreasonable or coercive or violated privilege, and when its guaranteed to chill any willingness for witnesses to cooperate (like Trump himself)? The only upside to his probe is those illegal and unconstitutional advantages: Coercing the defense counsel, threatening lawyers, violating privilege, or just using the special counsel's office as a muckraker to damage Donald Trump politically.

It's a competition to see who can waste the most tax dollars.

If Mueller had any integrity he wouldn't have referred this bank fraud/FEC violation case to SDNY, he would've just turned the other cheek like Jesus.

Cultists in full deflect and deny mode.

Mueller is going to crack some eggs.

Mueller wasn't put in there to look at minor FEC violations, he was put in there to investigate Russian interference. If he found such evidence (or was just given it directly by Cohen's full disclosure) then it should be taking a back seat to his russia investigation. Attacking defense counsel jeopardizes his mission, and the stakes are so low by comparison to his main mission that there's no harm in just delaying until after the investigation. Discretion doesn't always mean burying it permanently.
We just went from having Trump warming to the idea of a voluntarily sit-down to cooperate with Mueller to instead having him dine with Alan Dershowitz to discuss how his civil rights have been violated, and opening a whole can of worms that could imperil Mueller's probe. And what did they gain? They were looking for dirt on stormy daniels and the access hollywood tape. Talk about appearance of bad faith.

The problem with cohen is that the campaign finance allegations arent enough to warrant this.

In the meantime, Hillary’s lawyers didnt cooperate in handing over documents either. We really have no reason to disagree here