F.B.I. Raids Trump Lawyer's Office

Wow

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/09/us/politics/fbi-raids-office-of-trumps-longtime-lawyer-michael-cohen.html

For me it's FINALLY!!!

Tick, Tock...

Good bye and Good riddance!

It's quite difficult to get such a warrant on an attorney!!!

-Ron Carter

As long as it isn't tick tock on mueller. These republicans have strong principles about the rule of law, deficits, limited government. But they seem to evaporate once they are in power.

Trump's own appointee to Preet Bharara's former post had to sign off on the raid.

gerritn said:

As long as it isn't tick tock on mueller. These republicans have strong principles about the rule of law, deficits, limited government. But they seem to evaporate once they are in power.

Only Rosenstein can fire Mueller and Rosesnstein signed off on the raid.  Trump could fire Rosenstein and give him instructions to fire Mueller, but how would that not be obstruction of justice?

1) As I said, these republicans have very flexible attitudes towards principles.

2) And by the way, Trump told the russians, in the oval office, on camera, that he fired Comey over the Russian thing. How is that not obstruction? Go to 1)

dave said:

gerritn said:

As long as it isn't tick tock on mueller. These republicans have strong principles about the rule of law, deficits, limited government. But they seem to evaporate once they are in power.

Only Rosenstein can fire Mueller and Rosesnstein signed off on the raid.  Trump could fire Rosenstein and give him instructions to fire Mueller, but how would that not be obstruction of justice?

dave said:
Trump's own appointee to Preet Bharara's former post had to sign off on the raid.

To quote Keanu, "whoa."

Popcorn time.

We shall see. Maybe it only takes one president to go from the greatest country on earth to a banana republic. One special guy. Stable genius, that kind of a guy.

dave said:

gerritn said:

As long as it isn't tick tock on mueller. These republicans have strong principles about the rule of law, deficits, limited government. But they seem to evaporate once they are in power.

Only Rosenstein can fire Mueller and Rosesnstein signed off on the raid.  Trump could fire Rosenstein and give him instructions to fire Mueller, but how would that not be obstruction of justice?

Over the last year or so I've come to the opinion that the Mueller investigation is not likely to culminate in Trump's removal from office. That's partly because of what others have already stated ... he currently has a friendly majority in both houses of Congress who don't seem likely to initiate impeachment proceedings. Even if both houses flip in November and the House voted to impeach  I doubt the Senate would convict given the supermajority needed to do so.  I think enough Republican Senators are afraid of the Trump base that he would survive an attempt to remove him.

I suppose if Mueller uncovered something exceptionally grievous then some Republicans would find themselves faced with a choice.  Risk losing their seats if they vote to convict, or have an historical legacy of turning their backs on a crime against their nation. The question is whether such an offense occurred. If Trump did something legally wrong that's not super flagrant I'm sure some legislators would carefully weigh whether their own constituents would believe it was all that bad. Look at how people on different ends of the political spectrum view the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Some people feel he should have been booted, others that it was a stupid trumped-up charge. I think we could expect something similar with Trump if he got impeached.

Add in to the fact that DJT tends to surround himself with hyperloyal associates who would bend over backwards for him. I think a lot of his team would perjury themselves or fall on their swords to protect him. I'm not sure why. As an example to bring it back around to the current topic ... Cohen claims to have paid Stephanie Clifford out of his own pocket. If that turns out to have been untrue he risks some personal fallout. Who knows what this raid on his office means?

It does seem like a net is being drawn around Trump and this is the latest strand. When Mueller finally tightens it we'll see who gets caught and who wiggles free. 

dave said:

gerritn said:

As long as it isn't tick tock on mueller. These republicans have strong principles about the rule of law, deficits, limited government. But they seem to evaporate once they are in power.

Only Rosenstein can fire Mueller and Rosesnstein signed off on the raid.  Trump could fire Rosenstein and give him instructions to fire Mueller, but how would that not be obstruction of justice?

And if there is obstruction, so what?

Only congress or the voters can hold a president to account. Forget about our judiciary which he can disregard as long as he's president with a complicit congress.

The voters won't get their chance until 2020. 

Currently, its up to congress. A congress that refuses to do its job.

And don't forget that if Trump somehow miraculously gets thrown out of office, or leaves, Pence takes over. I try not to think about that, and usually I can forget about Pence for a bit, but then the line of succession intrudes on my daydreams. 

mountainwood said:
And don't forget that if Trump somehow miraculously gets thrown out of office, or leaves, Pence takes over. I try not to think about that, and usually I can forget about Pence for a bit, but then the line of succession intrudes on my daydreams. 

My take on this is that Pence is no worse than Trump from a policy perspective, and more stable from a personality perspective. And that reelecting president Pence would be much harder than reelecting president Trump. 

Another possible outcome from the Mueller investigation is that the current Administration survives, but multiple Republican legislators tarnish their own images to protect the president in an impeachment proceeding. The impeachment significantly weakens the reelection chances of the current president. Maybe this means he loses the election, or even possibly the Republican Party finds a way to replace him on the ballot in 2020.

At the same time, maybe some of the legislators who choose not to vote to convict either lose their next election, or decide not to run again for fear of that happening. If you are a proud Republican like Mueller, perhaps this is playing the long game to attempt to weed out corruption and restore the party. It would probably mean a temporary loss of power, but in the long run might restore the GOP to a state where it could once again appeal to younger fiscal conservatives.

This is based on the assumption that Mueller has some political motive as opposed to being an honest and honorable public servant who believes in the rule of law. I tend to believe in the latter far more than the former.

mrincredible said:
My take on this is that Pence is no worse than Trump from a policy perspective, and more stable from a personality perspective. And that reelecting president Pence would be much harder than reelecting president Trump.  

I think Pence would be much more effective at getting deeply conservative law and policy in place, but I consider Trump to be a genuine danger.

And that's the trade-off. Get rid of a dangerous lunatic and get Pence for a year or two. I think it's worth the trouble. I can't imagine Pence getting elected in 2020. I think there's a chance Pence's hands are also somewhat dirty, given his proximity to DJT.

GL2 said:
 I think there's a chance Pence's hands are also somewhat dirty, given his proximity to DJT.

Ew. Ew ew ew ew.

Who's a scarier incumbent president for you in 2020? Pence or Ryan?

D’s take the House in 18 but not the Senate.  Pelosi initiates impeachment proceedings the passage of which depends on the Mueller outcome.  If House does impeach, Senate votes against removal from office.  

For me this is win win:  the Trump brand is further sullied and Pence doesn’t become President.  

ETA:  2020 the first Samoan American is elected President:  Dwayne Johnson.  

Take that Jibronies. 

Lets not get carried away. Shouldn't we see how The Rock performs on HQ tomorrow night before anointing him POTUS?

I don't think the Democrats want to impeach Trump.  To impeach and convict they need 60 votes, which they don't and won't have, and to impeach and fail would be a disaster.  Second, if they leave him in office to continue this disaster they have issues to run on, and if they find decent candidates and if they focus on getting out the vote and if they play their cards right ( all things that they have failed at to some extent for the last 10 years) then they can run the table between 2018 and 2020.

FilmCarp said:
I don't think the Democrats want to impeach Trump.  To impeach and convict they need 60 votes, which they don't and won't have, and to impeach and fail would be a disaster.  Second, if they leave him in office to continue this disaster they have issues to run on, and if they find decent candidates and if they focus on getting out the vote and if they play their cards right ( all things that they have failed at to some extent for the last 10 years) then they can run the table between 2018 and 2020.

I agree.  House D’s impeachment of Trump is kind of like House R’s repeal of the ACA.  

67 votes are needed in the Senate.

na ga happen

Red_Barchetta said:
D’s take the House in 18 but not the Senate.  Pelosi initiates impeachment proceedings the passage of which depends on the Mueller outcome.  If House does impeach, Senate votes against removal from office.  
For me this is win win:  the Trump brand is further sullied and Pence doesn’t become President.  
  

That's what happened with Clinton and if he had been allowed to run for a third term in 2000 he probably would have won. And Gore did not become President in part because he did not use Clinton to vigorously campaign for him.

The Search Warrant for Cohen's office might have had nothing to do with his representation of Trump.

I think the Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee are most in jeopardy for doing nothing.

If Trump didn't know about the payment to Stormy Daniels, there's no attorney -client privilege. 

cramer said:
If Trump didn't know about the payment to Stormy Daniels, there's no attorney -client privilege. 

Anything Trump told his attorney in confidence is subject to attorney client privilege. Trump may have had an entire conversation with his attorney about the matter. If that attorney then went out on his own without telling Trump anything and paid her from his own money what Trump told Cohen beforehand is still privileged.

LOST said:

cramer said:
If Trump didn't know about the payment to Stormy Daniels, there's no attorney -client privilege. 

Anything Trump told his attorney in confidence is subject to attorney client privilege. Trump may have had an entire conversation with his attorney about the matter. If that attorney then went out on his own without telling Trump anything and paid her from his own money what Trump told Cohen beforehand is still privileged.

In that case, does the fraud exception apply? 

"But if a client is using a lawyer’s services for the purpose of engaging in crime or fraud, there is no privilege. The very aggressive search of Mr. Cohen’s office for attorney-client files suggests that the prosecutors believe they can convince a judge that communications between Mr. Trump and Mr. Cohen fall under the crime-fraud exception. If you think they can’t pull that off, think again — they’ve already done it once: Mr. Mueller persuaded a judge to apply the exception to compel testimony from Paul Manafort’s lawyer, arguing successfully that he engaged her services in order to commit fraud."

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/10/opinion/trump-michael-cohen-fbi-raid.html?smid=tw-nytopinion&smtyp=cur

LOST said:

cramer said:
If Trump didn't know about the payment to Stormy Daniels, there's no attorney -client privilege. 

Anything Trump told his attorney in confidence is subject to attorney client privilege. Trump may have had an entire conversation with his attorney about the matter. If that attorney then went out on his own without telling Trump anything and paid her from his own money what Trump told Cohen beforehand is still privileged.

"If the client is not the client, then there are no confidences or secrets to protect. In the case of then Mr. Trump's and now President Trump's attorney Michael Cohen, whose residence and office were the subject of a search warrant executed by the FBI, if Mr. Trump did not know then, that Mr. Cohen was acting as his attorney in resolving the Stormy Daniels matter with a payment of $130,000, then there is no attorney-client relationship.

And therefore no privilege. Mr. Cohen can be asked about the payment because the client didn't know about it.

The rules say that the attorney is supposed to advance the client's objectives, which means the client has to give the instructions – the guidance. If Mr. Cohen acts without Mr. Trump's knowledge, then Mr. Cohen is not advancing the client's objectives and the rule has been broken. If Mr. Cohen goes ahead and settles a case and pays the money for the settlement without Mr. Trump knowing about it, he has not followed the client's directives. The rule has been broken." 

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/10/how-trumps-lawyer-michael-cohen-might-have-broken-the-law.html