Cable Forum - View Single Post - President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation

**Hugh** · 03-05-2018, 20:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick

Nope, you provided no such thing. You’re wrong yet again. My point still remains.

Your point that the liberal press weren’t covering Trump’s initiative on getting Korean prisoners released and I showed that they were?

OK, then...

---------- Post added at 20:47 ---------- Previous post was at 20:38 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

I assume they got a warrant to do so with the Judge who granted it being well aware of the implications.

This thread, by a US lawyer and former Federal prosecutor, explains it - Prosecutors would have detailed how they were handling calls that could be a privileged in their application for the wiretap, and the judge would have reviewed and approved it.

It’s worth reading.

Quote:

Renato Mariotti
@renato_mariotti

Replying to @renato_mariotti
1/ Today @NBCNews reported that federal law enforcement wiretapped Michael Cohen’s phones in the weeks leading up to the search of his office, home, and hotel room.

Feds tapped Trump lawyer Michael Cohen's phones
nbcnews.com

2/ As a starting point, a wiretap means federal law enforcement was investigating *ongoing* criminal activity. In order to obtain a wiretap, investigators had to convince a judge that Cohen would use the phone to communicate regarding criminal activity during the 30-day period.

3/ That is different from a search warrant, which often seeks evidence of *past* crimes. To get the search warrant, the prosecutors had to convince the judge that evidence would be found in a location. That evidence (documents, etc.) could be about crimes from months ago.

4/ In contrast, the wiretap seeks the ability to intercept calls in the future. So the prosecutors had to convince the judge that there was good reason to believe that Cohen would have conversations that would be evidence of a crime within the next 30 days.

5/ Typically the way prosecutors do this is by recording a call between the person using the phone and a cooperator during which criminal activity is discussed. There are other ways to prove a phone is being used to discuss crime, but the evidence on that point must be solid.

6/ That isn’t enough, though, because wiretaps require prosecutors to convince the judge that the wiretap is *necessary.* If prosecutors can only prove that Cohen is talking with their cooperator, they don’t need a wiretap because they can just record calls with the cooperator.

7/ So prosecutors also have to show the judge that Cohen used the phone to communicate with others who are part of the criminal activity. This is typically done by looking at phone records and providing evidence that others in contact with the phone are committing crime.

8/ Wiretaps are difficult to get. A normal wiretap has to be approved by a supervisor at the U.S. Attorney’s Office, then by special attorneys at the Justice Department, then by a Deputy Assistant Attorney General, and then by a judge. This one certainly got additional scrutiny.

9/ Once a judge signs a warrant, calls are screened by monitors at the FBI. Each monitor listens and determines early in the call if it is (1) not related to criminal activity or (2) privileged. If they determine the call is unrelated to crime or privileged, they stop listening.

10/ (Sometimes they “spot check” calls that are very long to see if the previously unrelated to crime has taken a turn and is now about criminal activity.)

11/ It is highly unusual to wiretap an attorney’s phone because so many of the conversations could be privileged. A wiretap like this would receive extra scrutiny from the Justice Department and the judge even if Cohen didn’t represent the president.

12/ When a phone is wiretapped, typically the investigation is “covert.” In other words, the person doesn’t know they’re being investigated. If the investigation isn’t covert, the person is unlikely to use the phone to discuss crime.

13/ For that reason, prosecutors who have a wiretap typically keep the investigation under wraps even if the person is in the process of committing a crime, unless serious crimes are being committed that could harm others, evidence is being destroyed, or they have what they need.

14/ For that reason, the search warrants executed at Cohen’s home, office, and hotel room are now much more interesting. Executing a search warrant means that the investigation is no longer hidden, and in the most “in your face” way possible.

15/ Prosecutors had to know that if they executed the search warrants, Cohen would be much less likely to talk on the phone about crime going forward. So why ruin their wiretap? Either they already had enough evidence to make their case, or they thought he would destroy evidence.

16/ Either reason is very bad news for Cohen. So who told NBC News about the existence of the wiretap? My guess is either Cohen’s camp or Trump’s camp. The existence of the wiretap may have been revealed to them by prosecutors, and they could have reason to leak. /end

ADDENDUM: Prosecutors would have detailed how they were handling calls that could be a privileged in their application for the wiretap, and the judge would have reviewed and approved it.