info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Raid on Cohen's office: Trump and Cohen are well and truly fucked
19 views
Skip to first unread message
Red Prepper
Apr 10, 2018, 9:57:43 PM4/10/18
to
On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 19:00:15 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
wrote:
> The very big news of the day: FBI agents raided the law office of
> Michael Cohen, President Donald Trump's lawyer who was involved in
> payment of $130,000 to adult performer "Stormy Daniels" for a
> nondisclosure agreement. Some reports suggest they also raided his
home.
> Recently I've been listening to the podcast Slow Burn, about
Watergate.
> There's a fascinating theme throughout it: When you're living a
> historical event, how do you know? How can you tell when a
development
> is a big deal?
> This is a big deal. It's very early on, but here's some things we
can
> already tell.
> 1. According to Cohen's own lawyer, the U.S. Attorney's Office for
the
> Southern District of New York (widely regarded within itself as
being
> the most important and prestigious U.S. Attorney's Office in the
> country) secured the search warrants for the FBI, based on a
referral
> from Robert Mueller's office. Assuming this report is correct,
that
> means that a very mainstream U.S. Attorney's Office not just
Special
> Counsel Robert Mueller's office thought that there was enough
for a
> search warrant here.
> 2. Moreover, it's not just that the office thought that there was
enough
> for a search warrant. They thought there was enough for a search
> warrant of an attorney's office for that attorney's client
> communications. That's a very fraught and extraordinary move
that
> requires multiple levels of authorization within the Department
of
> Justice. The U.S. Attorney's Manual (USAM) at Section 9-13.320
> contains the relevant policies and procedures. The highlights:
> * The feds are only supposed to raid a law firm if less
intrusive
> measures won't work. As the USAM puts it:
> In order to avoid impinging on valid attorney-client
> relationships, prosecutors are expected to take the least
> intrusive approach consistent with vigorous and effective
law
> enforcement when evidence is sought from an attorney
actively
> engaged in the practice of law. Consideration should be
given to
> obtaining information from other sources or through the use
of a
> subpoena, unless such efforts could compromise the criminal
> investigation or prosecution, or could result in the
obstruction
> or destruction of evidence, or would otherwise be
ineffective.
> * Such a search requires high-level approval. The USAM requires
such
> a search warrant to be approved by the U.S. attorney the head
of
> the office, a presidential appointee and requires
"consultation"
> with the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice.
This
> is not a couple of rogue AUSAs sneaking in a warrant.
> * Such a search requires an elaborate review process. The basic
rule
> is that the government may not deliberately seize, or review,
> attorney-client communications. The USAM and relevant caselaw
> therefore require the feds to set up a review process. That
> process might involve a judge reviewing the materials to
separate
> out what is privileged (or what might fall within an
exception to
> the privilege), or else set up a "dirty team" that does the
review
> but is insulated from the "clean team" running the
investigation.
> Another option is a "special master," an experienced and
qualified
> third-party attorney to do the review. Sometimes the
reviewing team
> will only be identifying and protecting privileged material.
> Sometimes the reviewing team will be preparing to seek, or to
> implement, a court ruling that the documents are not
privileged.
> (Robert Mueller is aggressive on this sort of thing; he
already
> sought and obtained a court ruling that some of Paul
Manafort's
> communications with his lawyers were not privileged because
they
> were undertaken for the purpose of fraud the so-called
"crime-fraud
> exception" to the attorney-client privilege.)
> 3. A magistrate judge signed off on this. Federal magistrate judges
> (appointed by local district judges, not by the president)
review
> search warrant applications. A magistrate judge therefore
reviewed
> this application and found probable cause that is, probable
cause to
> believe that the subject premises (Cohen's office) contains
specified
> evidence of a specified federal crime. Now, magistrate judges
> sometimes are a little too rubber-stampy for my taste (notably,
> recall the time that a magistrate judge signed off on a truly
> ludicrous gag order forbidding Reason from revealing that it
had been
> served with a subpoena for information identifying commenters).
But
> here, where the magistrate judge knew that this would become
one of
> the most scrutinized search warrant applications ever, and
because
> the nature of the warrant of an attorney's office is unusual,
you can
> expect that the magistrate judge felt pretty confident that
there was
> enough there.
> 4. The search warrant application (the lengthy narrative from the
FBI
> agent setting for the evidence) is almost certainly still under
seal,
> and even Michael Cohen doesn't get to see it (yet). But the FBI
would
> have left the warrant itself and that shows (1) the federal
criminal
> statutes they were investigating, and (2) the list of items they
> wanted to seize. Much can be learned for those. Assuming Michael
> Cohen doesn't release it, watch for it to be leaked.
> Again: This is a big deal.
> It's early times. Watch for the search warrant itself that will
show us
> what crimes they are investigating and what documents they think
are
> probative of that crime. Watch also for what Michael Cohen's
lawyers do
> in the struggle to compel arbitration with Stormy Daniels in a
federal
> court in Los Angeles the search warrant dramatically complicates
whether
> Cohen can, or should, submit to any questions in that case. Be
skeptical
> of the surge of misinformation and inaccurate legal takes that are
> certain to drop. But watch. This is historic.
>
http://reason.com/archives/2018/04/09/what-we-know-about-the-search-tru
mp-lawy
Hardly news if compared to you performing cunnilingus on Ed
Cuntdress's stank nasty crusty old cunt.
wrote:
> The very big news of the day: FBI agents raided the law office of
> Michael Cohen, President Donald Trump's lawyer who was involved in
> payment of $130,000 to adult performer "Stormy Daniels" for a
> nondisclosure agreement. Some reports suggest they also raided his
home.
> Recently I've been listening to the podcast Slow Burn, about
Watergate.
> There's a fascinating theme throughout it: When you're living a
> historical event, how do you know? How can you tell when a
development
> is a big deal?
> This is a big deal. It's very early on, but here's some things we
can
> already tell.
> 1. According to Cohen's own lawyer, the U.S. Attorney's Office for
the
> Southern District of New York (widely regarded within itself as
being
> the most important and prestigious U.S. Attorney's Office in the
> country) secured the search warrants for the FBI, based on a
referral
> from Robert Mueller's office. Assuming this report is correct,
that
> means that a very mainstream U.S. Attorney's Office not just
Special
> Counsel Robert Mueller's office thought that there was enough
for a
> search warrant here.
> 2. Moreover, it's not just that the office thought that there was
enough
> for a search warrant. They thought there was enough for a search
> warrant of an attorney's office for that attorney's client
> communications. That's a very fraught and extraordinary move
that
> requires multiple levels of authorization within the Department
of
> Justice. The U.S. Attorney's Manual (USAM) at Section 9-13.320
> contains the relevant policies and procedures. The highlights:
> * The feds are only supposed to raid a law firm if less
intrusive
> measures won't work. As the USAM puts it:
> In order to avoid impinging on valid attorney-client
> relationships, prosecutors are expected to take the least
> intrusive approach consistent with vigorous and effective
law
> enforcement when evidence is sought from an attorney
actively
> engaged in the practice of law. Consideration should be
given to
> obtaining information from other sources or through the use
of a
> subpoena, unless such efforts could compromise the criminal
> investigation or prosecution, or could result in the
obstruction
> or destruction of evidence, or would otherwise be
ineffective.
> * Such a search requires high-level approval. The USAM requires
such
> a search warrant to be approved by the U.S. attorney the head
of
> the office, a presidential appointee and requires
"consultation"
> with the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice.
This
> is not a couple of rogue AUSAs sneaking in a warrant.
> * Such a search requires an elaborate review process. The basic
rule
> is that the government may not deliberately seize, or review,
> attorney-client communications. The USAM and relevant caselaw
> therefore require the feds to set up a review process. That
> process might involve a judge reviewing the materials to
separate
> out what is privileged (or what might fall within an
exception to
> the privilege), or else set up a "dirty team" that does the
review
> but is insulated from the "clean team" running the
investigation.
> Another option is a "special master," an experienced and
qualified
> third-party attorney to do the review. Sometimes the
reviewing team
> will only be identifying and protecting privileged material.
> Sometimes the reviewing team will be preparing to seek, or to
> implement, a court ruling that the documents are not
privileged.
> (Robert Mueller is aggressive on this sort of thing; he
already
> sought and obtained a court ruling that some of Paul
Manafort's
> communications with his lawyers were not privileged because
they
> were undertaken for the purpose of fraud the so-called
"crime-fraud
> exception" to the attorney-client privilege.)
> 3. A magistrate judge signed off on this. Federal magistrate judges
> (appointed by local district judges, not by the president)
review
> search warrant applications. A magistrate judge therefore
reviewed
> this application and found probable cause that is, probable
cause to
> believe that the subject premises (Cohen's office) contains
specified
> evidence of a specified federal crime. Now, magistrate judges
> sometimes are a little too rubber-stampy for my taste (notably,
> recall the time that a magistrate judge signed off on a truly
> ludicrous gag order forbidding Reason from revealing that it
had been
> served with a subpoena for information identifying commenters).
But
> here, where the magistrate judge knew that this would become
one of
> the most scrutinized search warrant applications ever, and
because
> the nature of the warrant of an attorney's office is unusual,
you can
> expect that the magistrate judge felt pretty confident that
there was
> enough there.
> 4. The search warrant application (the lengthy narrative from the
FBI
> agent setting for the evidence) is almost certainly still under
seal,
> and even Michael Cohen doesn't get to see it (yet). But the FBI
would
> have left the warrant itself and that shows (1) the federal
criminal
> statutes they were investigating, and (2) the list of items they
> wanted to seize. Much can be learned for those. Assuming Michael
> Cohen doesn't release it, watch for it to be leaked.
> Again: This is a big deal.
> It's early times. Watch for the search warrant itself that will
show us
> what crimes they are investigating and what documents they think
are
> probative of that crime. Watch also for what Michael Cohen's
lawyers do
> in the struggle to compel arbitration with Stormy Daniels in a
federal
> court in Los Angeles the search warrant dramatically complicates
whether
> Cohen can, or should, submit to any questions in that case. Be
skeptical
> of the surge of misinformation and inaccurate legal takes that are
> certain to drop. But watch. This is historic.
>
http://reason.com/archives/2018/04/09/what-we-know-about-the-search-tru
mp-lawy
Hardly news if compared to you performing cunnilingus on Ed
Cuntdress's stank nasty crusty old cunt.
Rudy Canoza
Apr 10, 2018, 10:05:04 PM4/10/18
to
On 4/10/2018 6:57 PM, Red Prepper wrote:
> Hardly news that I used to have eight nasty convicts fucking me up the ass at the same time.
No, that's not news at all, pecker.
No, that's not news at all, pecker.
Ed Huntress
Apr 11, 2018, 3:40:19 AM4/11/18
to
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 19:05:04 -0700, Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con>
wrote:
Oh, Jesus, the obsessed sex pervert is still around, eh? Why don't you
just kill file him? I did that weeks ago and it turns out that hardly
anyone talks to him since he's become such an obnoxious freak, and
it's just like he doesn't exist.
--
Ed Huntress
wrote:
just kill file him? I did that weeks ago and it turns out that hardly
anyone talks to him since he's become such an obnoxious freak, and
it's just like he doesn't exist.
--
Ed Huntress
Siri Cruise
Apr 11, 2018, 4:59:16 AM4/11/18
to
In article <almarsoft.1375...@reader.eternal-september.org>,
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
I'm saving up to buy the Donald a blue stone This post / \
from Metebelis 3. All praise the Great Don! insults Islam. Mohammed
Red Prepper <r...@red.com> wrote:
> Hardly news if compared to you performing cunnilingus on Ed
> Cuntdress's stank nasty crusty old cunt.
Is ir just me or do I detect desparate denialism?
> Hardly news if compared to you performing cunnilingus on Ed
> Cuntdress's stank nasty crusty old cunt.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
I'm saving up to buy the Donald a blue stone This post / \
from Metebelis 3. All praise the Great Don! insults Islam. Mohammed
Rudy Canoza
Apr 11, 2018, 10:19:16 AM4/11/18
to
> I did that weeks ago and it turns out that hardly
> anyone talks to him since he's become such an obnoxious freak, and
> it's just like he doesn't exist.
#BeamMeUpScotty
Apr 12, 2018, 7:47:00 PM4/12/18
to
hadn't even vetted.....
If the FBI/DOJ can lie about that evidence to get that warrant then this
one should have been a cake walk.
--
That's Karma
The Liberal goal is always to force you to only have the choices they
give you and then stigmatize any choice that isn't what they wanted in
the first place.
A kinder gentler Fascism....
Tristan Mauger
Apr 12, 2018, 8:36:59 PM4/12/18
to
On 4/12/2018 4:46 PM, #ReamMeUpTheAssScotty stupidly bawled:
No, the information from the dossier is accurate, and it wasn't primary
- it corroborated other evidence that was presented to get the FISA
warrant. The FISA warrant subsequently was renewed *THREE* times based
on new evidence each search uncovered. Every application for a FISA
warrant was clean.
>
> If the FBI/DOJ can lie about that evidence
They didn't lie about any evidence to get a warrant, you brain-damaged
cocksucker.
- it corroborated other evidence that was presented to get the FISA
warrant. The FISA warrant subsequently was renewed *THREE* times based
on new evidence each search uncovered. Every application for a FISA
warrant was clean.
>
> If the FBI/DOJ can lie about that evidence
cocksucker.
#BeamMeUpScotty
Apr 13, 2018, 12:16:23 PM4/13/18
to
ObamaRegime and the FBI/DOJ believed they could get away with their
criminal activity by hiding it.
Ed Huntress
Apr 13, 2018, 12:44:31 PM4/13/18
to
pages did you get to look at? Maybe you'll tell us what it says.
--
Ed Huntress
#BeamMeUpScotty
Apr 13, 2018, 12:52:21 PM4/13/18
to
Frank
Apr 13, 2018, 1:08:50 PM4/13/18
to
As for the FBI raid, what in the world does Stormy Daniels have to do
with Russian collusion?
Siri Cruise
Apr 13, 2018, 1:41:55 PM4/13/18
to
In article <paqo6v$or0$1...@dont-email.me>, Frank <"frank "@frank.net> wrote:
> As for the FBI raid, what in the world does Stormy Daniels have to do
> with Russian collusion?
What does Berman have to do with russian collusion?
> As for the FBI raid, what in the world does Stormy Daniels have to do
> with Russian collusion?
Ed Huntress
Apr 13, 2018, 1:43:18 PM4/13/18
to
On Fri, 13 Apr 2018 12:52:18 -0400, #BeamMeUpScotty
That's interesting, because they haven't been released yet. As of
March 16, the DoJ was contemplating releasing *some* of them. But it
hasn't happened yet.
Where did you get them?
--
Ed Huntress
March 16, the DoJ was contemplating releasing *some* of them. But it
hasn't happened yet.
Where did you get them?
--
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
Apr 13, 2018, 2:11:36 PM4/13/18
to
>
>As for the FBI raid, what in the world does Stormy Daniels have to do
>with Russian collusion?
regarding her, the speculation is that they're tracking down evidence
of campaign finance violations. They probably have something
indicating it was, indeed, an attempt to influence the election by
shutting her up.
Considering the gravity of raiding an attorney's office, there's
probably a lot more, which we won't know until it's over.
--
Ed Huntress
Brandon Clark
Apr 13, 2018, 4:43:52 PM4/13/18
to
On 4/13/2018 9:16 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssScotty stupidly bawled:
There was no "lie" used, you brain-damaged fucktard. You're the one lying.
!Jones
Apr 13, 2018, 4:56:25 PM4/13/18
to
x-no-idiots: yes
x-get-the-fuck-over-it-Rudy: yes
On Fri, 13 Apr 2018 13:08:46 -0400, in talk.politics.guns Frank
<"frank "@frank.net> wrote:
>As for the FBI raid, what in the world does Stormy Daniels have to do
>with Russian collusion?
She has big tits. Anybody who has watched 007 knows all spies have
big tits.
I think they're looking for bank fraud. I find it disturbing that...
one of the major networks... reported that Cohen owns a taxi business.
Taxicabs are a well known money laundry because they run on cash and
it's almost impossible to nail 'em down to any provable figure.
I dunno; they don't keep me in the loop too good, ya know. But, if
you were around in '73, Watergate began with less.
Maybe the Donald didn't commit any crime, but he's a sleaseball and
it's beginning to look like his people may have committed crimes in
his name. I think the Donald is honestly indifferent to the truth...
I don't think he knows what it is.
Jones
--
Quod si verum est, non dicere.
x-get-the-fuck-over-it-Rudy: yes
On Fri, 13 Apr 2018 13:08:46 -0400, in talk.politics.guns Frank
<"frank "@frank.net> wrote:
>As for the FBI raid, what in the world does Stormy Daniels have to do
>with Russian collusion?
big tits.
I think they're looking for bank fraud. I find it disturbing that...
one of the major networks... reported that Cohen owns a taxi business.
Taxicabs are a well known money laundry because they run on cash and
it's almost impossible to nail 'em down to any provable figure.
I dunno; they don't keep me in the loop too good, ya know. But, if
you were around in '73, Watergate began with less.
Maybe the Donald didn't commit any crime, but he's a sleaseball and
it's beginning to look like his people may have committed crimes in
his name. I think the Donald is honestly indifferent to the truth...
I don't think he knows what it is.
Jones
--
Quod si verum est, non dicere.
tRudy Crayola
Apr 14, 2018, 12:34:01 AM4/14/18
to
On 4/13/2018 3:56 PM, !Jones wrote:
> you were around in '73, Watergate began with less.
>
> Maybe the Donald didn't commit any crime, but he's a sleaseball and
> Jones
> you were around in '73, Watergate began with less.
>
> Maybe the Donald didn't commit any crime, but he's a sleaseball and
Jeez...All this from a real sleezeball...fuck off Jones!
--
Rudy's Nut & Fruit farm- Sacramento
#BeamMeUpScotty
Apr 14, 2018, 8:14:38 PM4/14/18
to
On 04/13/2018 04:56 PM, !Jones wrote:
> x-no-idiots: yes
> x-get-the-fuck-over-it-Rudy: yes
>
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2018 13:08:46 -0400, in talk.politics.guns Frank
> <"frank "@frank.net> wrote:
>
>> As for the FBI raid, what in the world does Stormy Daniels have to do
>> with Russian collusion?
>
> She has big tits. Anybody who has watched 007 knows all spies have
> big tits.
Putin and Trump and Stormy were involved in a manage tua.... ;)
> x-no-idiots: yes
> x-get-the-fuck-over-it-Rudy: yes
>
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2018 13:08:46 -0400, in talk.politics.guns Frank
> <"frank "@frank.net> wrote:
>
>> As for the FBI raid, what in the world does Stormy Daniels have to do
>> with Russian collusion?
>
> She has big tits. Anybody who has watched 007 knows all spies have
> big tits.
--
That's Karma
*Rumination*
13- If Hillary's speeches cost $250,000 an hour, how come no one shows
up to her free ones?
Avenging Angel
Apr 15, 2018, 9:34:45 AM4/15/18
to
Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:chine.bleu-
B20B3B.015...@reader.eternal-september.org:
> In article <almarsoft.1375...@reader.eternal-september.org>,
> Red Prepper <r...@red.com> wrote:
>
>> Hardly news if compared to you performing cunnilingus on Ed
>> Cuntdress's stank nasty crusty old cunt.
>
> Is ir just me or do I detect desparate denialism?
>
What you hear is the sound of millions of guns being cocked. If you want to
live in this kind of police state, go elsewhere.
B20B3B.015...@reader.eternal-september.org:
> In article <almarsoft.1375...@reader.eternal-september.org>,
> Red Prepper <r...@red.com> wrote:
>
>> Hardly news if compared to you performing cunnilingus on Ed
>> Cuntdress's stank nasty crusty old cunt.
>
> Is ir just me or do I detect desparate denialism?
>
live in this kind of police state, go elsewhere.
0 new messages