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

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profil...-to-intervene-in-michael-cohen-fbi-raid-case/

ATrump believes that the Department of Justice should allow potential suspects in an investigation to intervene and determine which evidence is relevant and permissible in the potential criminal proceeding. That is not how this works. The "taint team" is a group of government lawyers, completely independent of the investigative team, who always review these documents for privileged communications. If they share or publish that privileged information, that information can not be used in court and the person who shared it faces significant sanctions, including loss of license.

This move just screams of a desperate client forcing his lawyers to do something.

Also, I have to chuckle at the notion that Donald Trump, who can't be bothered to read single page and bulleted national security briefings, wants to ask the court for the ability to review tens of thousands of communications between Cohen and every Cohen client for privilege determinations.

 

That's what happened in the Clinton email case why doesn't he get the same consideration?

 

Hillary Clinton's lawyer was not raided because of a criminal investigation. So no, not the same. At all.

 

and why wasn't he when he was clearly committing a crime being in possession of classified material with out clearance

 

Documents were under investigation and the actual property of the US government and the DOJ and Coney allowed her attornies including one which was a witness in the investigation choose which would be turned over to the investigation and destroy the others.

 

"But ... but ... Clinton!".
Sorry, that does not excuse everything Trump does.
One thing does not excuse the other.

 

Make a comment about the topic of this thread. Not Hillary Clinton.

 

Criminal investigation could have been opened just as easily

 

Since you claim to be an attorney, I'm surprised you would take issue with a perfectly legitimate maneuver by a potentially harmed party.

It is rather common practice for legal representation to seek such actions.

Certainly law school would have touched on the actions of legal counsel, and it's irrelevance to guilt of the petitioning party.

My guess is the inclusion of the conjecture presented in the WaPo piece is an attempt to distract from such a poorly executed argument.

 

So if your argument is that Clinton SHOULD have been investigated, but wasn't because of an incompetent FBI, then wouldn't that be an argument for a more competent FBI to make more complete investigations in the future? Looks like the investigators on the Cohen case are just being more thorough, as they should have been with Clinton.

But being sloppy on the Clinton case does not excuse the Cohen case from being investigated more carefully.

 

Which you are arguing was a mistake. So you want Justice to be forced to make the same mistake twice in order to be "fair"? That's a pretty screwy argument.

 

Not relevant to the topic of this thread.

 

Relevant to your post

 

my argument was a rebuttal to his weak argument. The fact that one was an official investigation and one was not is a weak argument. The other could just have easily been

 

Setting aside the fact that there is no precedent for this move - i.e. the President attempting to limit the authority of his own Department of Justice and thereby opening up other potential legal ramifications for other criminal investigations involving the Department of Justice - this is a topic for discussion because it is a current event and because this is a debate forum. So, the thread is both informative and designed to be a jumping off point for discussion.

I would note that this court filing is both idiotic from a legal perspective (he is seeking the ability to personally review all communications involving this one attorney and every other client for privileged communications instead of the ordinary course of business) and from a PR perspective. Now, everyone should and will believe that Trump is scared of the information that could come to light as the result of this raid. If the taint team found privileged communications or if the investigative team found nothing, then this information does not come to light and the public is left believing that the witch hunt is real. But no, Trump demanded that this lawyers make a court filing and thereby to scream that he is scared.

 

and that is why the OIG is investigating the FBI handling of the Clinton email investigation if their wasn't an appearance of incompetence and or wrong doing their wouldn't be an OIG investigation

 

But that is what makes the argument strong. The situations were different regardless of whether you believe that they could have been made more similar. They were not similar and thus, not relevant.

 

And now, back to our regularly scheduled program.

The reason that the Department of Justice is investigating the Trump campaign is because there is an appearance of incompetence and wrong doing.

 

Which still wouldn't excuse improper conduct by Cohen. Two separate cases. The "What about Clinton ...!" defense is pure shinny penny distraction. One does not excuse the other.

 

Trump did the same thing to prevent the publication of the book "Fire and Fury"...

With the results we know.

 

Where in the law does it say a citizen is precluded from legal protection and or remedy from state actions, based on their employment?

Why does the principle of attorney client privilege exist?

I understand that extreme prejudice can compel the average someone to ignore basic protections provided for by the Constitution and statute, but someone trained and educated in the law should know better.

Seeking protection from unreasonable violations of privileged and protected communications should not be filtered by public perception.

Suggesting it should be filtered in such a way leads more credence to witch hunt. In effect, the state could violate someone's rights, and then dare them to seek action against such violations simply to attack the character of the person for doing so.

 

It's interesting to observe, how the left wholeheartedly approve an uber-aggressive, virtually unprecedented, stalinist (yes, Stalin had bogus pretexts and pretenses too) attack on sacred attorney client privilege.... but a legitimate court filing by Trump's legal team triggers predictable hysteria and fake outrage.

Par for the course.

 

Let me know when the sacred attorney client privilege has been attacked.

 

In fact they simply ignored looking for evidence so Trump should get equal treatment.

 

Should lawyers be able to hide any criminal act they are engaged in by claiming all evidence is protected by Client privilege?
There has to be some way to investigate illegal activity by lawyers - a taint team is a legal avenue for doing so.