President Trump Files in Court to Intervene in Michael Cohen FBI Raid Case

PR considerations and the personal circumstances of the person filing the lawsuit are ALWAYS a factor in the decision to pursue legal remedies.

 

It appears you are unfamiliar with the concept, and it further appears you don't know who decides when it has been violated and how that is brought to the courts attention.

 

Then everyone in the country should get equal treatment and all evidence should be ignored.
Or does that fact that these are two SEPARATE cases not matter to you?

 

The what about Clinton argument???? Gee, perhaps Trump's lawyer (Joanna Hendon) can use this "Clinton argument" in front of Judge Kimba Wood, LOL. Nah, she won't, she's a good lawyer. The filing last night states Trump and his lawyer(s) should be able to review all materials before prosecutors get a look, (likely his lawyers only, Trump doesn't read anything). I'm doubting they will be successful, we'll see.......

 

Give me an example of how Trump's attorney client privilege has been violated in this situation. Just one.

 

Absurd claim. What a stunning revelation of legal ignorance.

Do you really want to argue that a citizen should allow their rights be violated because to question those actions could look bad to the public?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and conclude you didn't think that one through.

 

Evidently equal treatment under the law is pretty lopsided and liberals shout in approval.

 

Spare me the false choice and strawman bullshit. I said that PR considerations and personal circumstances of the person filing the lawsuit are always a factor in the decision to pursue legal remedies. I stand by that assertion because it is the truth. In the overwhelming percentage of cases, those considerations result in the plaintiff being more likely to pursue legal remedies, but that there are situations - and this is one of them - where the consideration would lead most attorneys to recommend the client not pursue the legal recourse.

Here, the President is effectively filing a lawsuit which is unlikely to succeed, creates a public perception that he is afraid of what will be uncovered, and has filed a lawsuit against his own Justice Department and demanding that they institute additional protections - thereby potentially setting a precedent which would result in greater cost and fewer convictions going forward.

 

Really? The information related to the raid and confiscation of documents, etc., is indication enough that a violation could have occurred.

The fact attorney's have filed on that basis is proof they believe it occurred.

It's not up to me, or you, to decide if the attorney client privilege has been violated, it's up to the court. Attorney's are seeking that ruling.

You keep proving your claims about experience in the law should be viewed with great suspicion.

 

I said to give me an example. You have not. Let me know when you can.

 

Really? Cause raiding lawyers on frankly minor, ridiculous charges and grabbing all his client information is daily occurrence, right? In North Korea perhaps.

He is accused of lying on his home equity application and FEC violations. Under absolutely no scenario people (let alone lawyers) get no knock FBI raid on such pathetically inconsequential accusations, it just never happens.

The supporters of a witch hunt and fishing expedition are bleating about equal treatment. Oh the irony.

 

It's not a false choice. It's a basic principle in the law.

Spare me your ridiculous indignation. There is no truth to your claim in a case such as this. A decision to protect ones rights should never be filtered through such a "public perception" filter.

I can see where a decision to sue someone for some reason or another could fit your description, but a rights case?

Absurd.

 

Hardly. I think the Clinton case was handled badly. I'm glad to see the current Justice Department is being more thorough in their investigations. But one case does not excuse the other. They are separate. Period.

 

I did give you an example.

It's clear you have no idea what you are going on about.

A total waste of time to engage further.

The credibility in your argument does not exist.

 

He has not been officially accused of anything, so to claim that the criminal allegations against him did not warrant the raids - when multiple high ranking department officials and a judge agreed that such a warrant was necessary - is really weak, at best.

 

Where is the example? You said, the raid could have resulted in a violation and that his attorney's filings prove that they are afraid of a violation.

Still waiting on an ACTUAL example.

 

Here, the President is effectively filing a lawsuit which is unlikely to succeed, creates a public perception that he is afraid of what will be uncovered, and has filed a lawsuit against his own Justice Department and demanding that they institute additional protections - thereby potentially setting a precedent which would result in greater cost and fewer convictions going forward.

 

NO. Cohen has a long reported history of association with Russian Mafia. His former partners in a taxi business were arrested for money laundering. His former Russian partners in a casino boat were arrested for fraud. The Justice Department has had this guy on their radar for a long time. There is a possibility this is a Mafia/money laundering case which DOES support the Justice Department's raid.

 

No, lawyers should not be able to hide criminal activity. However, attorney client privilege is a foundation concept in the law.

Ever see the movie, "The Firm"?

 

Given this did not go to an unconstitutional FISA court, I must of course agree with you. And we seldom agree on much of anything, given your partisanship which is self evident. But yep, you are right here, on this issue. With that said, I do not believe this would have been possible 60 years ago, but that is just how much IMO, the constitution has been watered down. An earlier time would never have permitted the war on privacy either, by our national security state. Entropy, IMO. Happens in nature, and in government. The effect of human nature, perhaps its most base side when it involves the power of a ruling elite? Regardless, it is just what is.

 

It would save time, effort, and taxpayer dollars if Trump's lawyers were authorized to sniff through Trump's fixer's dirty laundry, and whatever they objected to being released, released.

 

Indeed he hasn't been accused of anything, which makes the raid look even more Stalinist and exposes it as an unprecedented assault on the presumption of innocence and attorney client privilege.

And please spare me all these references to courts ans judges, in light of horrendous FISA abuses, and dozens of liberal rulings overturned unanimously by the SC, this appeal to "higher authority" sounds incredibly hollow.

 

Ever watch the real life drama that is Cohen's reported history of partners who were convicted of money laundering and fraud? The guy has been on the Justice Department's radar for years. The possibility that this is Russian Mafia/money laundering would support the need for a raid.

 

"Reported history"........

I don't know anything about Cohen. Makes no difference if he's been on anybody's radar.

Attorney/client privilege is a critical protection against aggressive state actions. Why do you think that concept exists?

 

Trump! This is that, "I am above the law", and investigate what I say you can investigate. Good luck with that. And the Trump Sheep will find a way to make excuses for it. Pitiful!