President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation

Good breakdown here: https://twitter.com/renato_mariotti/...68444212482048

The process of getting a warrant to access client-privileged information (it's more difficult than getting a normal search warrant).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.786d322cfbb5

1.Before obtaining a search warrant, investigators had to try to obtain the evidence in another way, such as by subpoena.
2. The authorization for the warrant had to come from either the U.S. attorney or an assistant attorney general. (Rosenstein is deputy attorney general, a higher position than assistant attorney general.)
3. The prosecutor had to confer with the criminal division of the department before seeking the warrant.
4. The team conducting the search had to “employ adequate precautions” to ensure that they weren’t improperly viewing privileged communications between Cohen and his clients.
5. The search team would have included a “privilege team,” including lawyers and agents not working the case, which would work to ensure that investigators conducting the search didn’t see privileged communications.
6. The investigators had to develop a review process for the seized material.

Even with those checks in place, the U.S. attorney wasn’t guaranteed a warrant. Search warrants granted to U.S. attorneys are approved by magistrate judges serving in U.S. District Court...

...The Cohen search warrant almost certainly included decision-making or approval on the part of the second-highest-ranking person at the Justice Department (Rosenstein), a federal judge and the U.S. attorney or an assistant attorney general. Before it was executed, the team would have needed to check a number of boxes meant to reduce the likelihood of improperly seizing privileged material and to make the case to a judge that evidence of criminal behavior would probably be found.

Judge who authorised it, probably Politically activist judge in New York, Clinton territory. This was a political move and just confirms that they (Mueller and co) have absolutely nothing on Trump with Russia collusion. Needs to be shut down now.

There is a lot of pissed of lawyers, not necessarily Trump supporting, but care greatly about the client privilege laws.

All the potential laws broken by Crooked Hillary, lying under Oath (Perjury) inproper handling of classified material, how many times has her lawyers office been raided.... ?

Oh yes that’s right, immunity deals handed out, no charges levied for tampering and destroying evidence and deleting 33,000 emails. The interview that was conducted with her, not recorded, key people allowed to sit in that interview. That’s why thankfully, the OIG in place that’s been investigating this shoddy criminal investigation of her for well over a year, his report is due imminently.

Originally Posted by Mick

Judge who authorised it, probably Politically activist judge in New York, Clinton territory. This was a political move and just confirms that they (Mueller and co) have absolutely nothing on Trump with Russia collusion. Needs to be shut down now.

The US attorney who signed off is a registered Republican who was appointed by Trump:

https://twitter.com/tsgnews/status/983482270299369472

And Trump can attempt to shut it down but this investigation is being conducted elsewhere. Only so many people Trump can fire/attempt to shut down.

Still needed a Judge, he was in New York.

This is a shambles Investigation, politically triggered by the damn corrupt DNC and rogue ‘For Her’ agents in FBI, they got one of them and rightly fired him. A gofundme Page has been created, to cover legal expenses, probably to cover the legal ramifications coming down the road, Comey isn’t safe either.

Maybe best wait to see why they raided the office. As has been pointed out they would have needed something in order to do so.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Damien

Maybe best wait to see why they raided the office. As has been pointed out they would have needed something in order to do so.

Agreed. I doubt a judge would sign off on these things willy-nilly.

Yes A judge would, if he was Anti-Trump. We’ve seen it before, Judges in Democrat heavy districts blocking his travel ban, when he has the Constitutional Authority to do so, is why the Supreme Court overruled that injunction and allowed parts of his Executive Order to stand, pending further hearing(s).

Originally Posted by Mick

Yes A judge would, if he was Anti-Trump. We’ve seen it before, Judges in Democrat heavy districts blocking his travel ban, when he has the Constitutional Authority to do so, is why the Supreme Court overruled that injunction and allowed parts of his Executive Order to stand, pending further hearing(s).

Well we don't yet know who the Judge was but this still needed signing off by the Republican backing, Trump appointed, district attorney. Why did he sign off if it's a conspiracy against Trump?

They'd sign anything with out verifying stuff, they signed the FISA warrants using a unverified source, the paid for Dossier paid by the DNC and Hillary.

Originally Posted by Mick

They'd sign anything with out verifying stuff, they signed the FISA warrants using a unverified source, the paid for Dossier paid by the DNC and Hillary.

Well he actively sought the warrant so he went to a judge to ask for it without verifying what he wanted the warrant for?

I think it's more likely he felt he had a valid reason to request it and clearly a judge agreed. It's certainly more likely than the idea that a Trump appointed attorney asked for a warrant to investigate Trump's lawyer without verifying his own request and got away with this spectacular degree of incompetence because the judged was a crooked democrat.

Incidentally this also needed signing off by the FBI Director (appointed by Trump) and Rosenstein (also appointed by Trump).

Just because they are appointed by Trump does not mean they have to be politically aligned with him, and even if they were, they have to act on whatever they had, if they had anything legitimately, I don't think they had, this was a political move, to squeeze Trump's close lawyer, but IMO they have breached client privileges, they cannot use anything they have seized in the court room, so why else was it they took it for, to leak it to the press no doubt, any communications they find.

Most interesting is that the New York Times yet again, was aware of this raid taking place before it occurred, as it was them who broke the story. Obama holdovers leaking again to the Anti-Trump press.

---------- Post added at 14:25 ---------- Previous post was at 14:18 ----------

BREAKING: Just in: Trump cancels his South American Trip to focus on issues in Syria.

He is going to order a military strike isn't he?

Originally Posted by Mick

Just because they are appointed by Trump does not mean they have to be politically aligned with him, and even if they were, they have to act on whatever they had, if they had anything legitimately, I don't think they had, this was a political move, to squeeze Trump's close lawyer, but IMO they have breached client privileges, they cannot use anything they have seized in the court room, so why else was it they took it for, to leak it to the press no doubt, any communications they find.

Why can't they use anything they seized? They obtained a legal warrant for this.

You also don't know if they had anything.

Originally Posted by Damien

Why can't they use anything they seized? They obtained a legal warrant for this.

Does not matter. That little detail known as 'client privilege', a privileged communication cannot be used as evidence in court.

Originally Posted by Mick

Does not matter. That little detail known as 'client privilege', a privileged communication cannot be used as evidence in court.

I think there are exemptions if they believe the communications involved both the client and the lawyer intending to make a crime.

But fair enough. From the reporting it seems they might after stuff other than that which would be protected by attorney-client privilege. Mostly because this article: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ege/501564002/

There will also be a "taint team" to examine everything before it is handed over to prosecutors to make sure that those conducting the case never see any material that might be "tainted" by attorney-client privilege.

The only way the prosecution would be permitted to examine any material that might otherwise fall under the attorney-client umbrella is if it is determined to be part of a crime jointly undertaken by the attorney and the client. But for the privilege to be nullified, Litman said the taint team would have to get the approval of the court to present the material to the prosecution.

In order to fall under attorney-client protection, the documents just have to be related to Cohen dispensing legal advice or gathering information in order to give that advice, Litman said. But merely having an attorney involved does not guarantee the protection.