President Trump & U.S Election 2016 Investigation - Page 57

ianch99 · 06-04-2018, 09:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Speaking as a forum user, I appreciate all the hard work that goes on behind the scenes to keep the thousands of posts clean and relevant by people doing this work in a purely voluntary capacity.

Totally agree

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Are Crooked Hillary and Comrade Trump equally acceptable?

No, neither are. Calling people you do not like by childish names adds nothing to the debate and is just designed to wind people up.

**Hugh** · 06-04-2018, 10:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Trump makes his first public comment on Stormy Daniels payment.

Quote:

Donald Trump said he was not aware of a $130,000 payment from his lawyer to Stormy Daniels shortly before the 2016 election in his first public comments about the issue.
The president denied knowledge of the payment on Air Force One on Thursday, according to the White House press pool report...

Michael Avenatti, the lawyer representing Ms Clifford, responded on Twitter: “We very much look forward to testing the truthfulness of Mr Trump’s feigned lack of knowledge concerning the $130k payment”.

https://www.ft.com/content/e2a3b45a-...8-2f31af407cc8

This statement puts his lawyer in a lot of trouble, and invalidates the non-disclosure agreement.

a) A lawyer who makes payments on behalf of a client, without the client's permission, is breaking the law
b) the non-disclosure agreement - Clifford’s case is based on the notion that the confidentiality agreement is invalid because Trump was not a party to it. By saying he was not aware of the payment or the agreement, Trump appeared to confirm that argument, which would mean neither party is legally bound by it, thus potentially paving the way for Clifford to break her silence without consequences.

**Hugh** · 09-04-2018, 21:18

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/09/u...?smid=pl-share

Quote:

F.B.I. Raids Office of Trump’s Longtime Lawyer Michael Cohen

The F.B.I. on Monday raided the office of President Trump’s longtime personal lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, seizing records related to several topics including payments to a pornographic-film actress.

Federal prosecutors in Manhattan obtained the search warrant after receiving a referral from the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, according to Mr. Cohen’s lawyer, who called the search “completely inappropriate and unnecessary.” The search does not appear to be directly related to Mr. Mueller’s investigation, but likely resulted from information he had uncovered and gave to prosecutors in New York...

...The payments to Ms. Clifford are only one of many topics being investigated, according to a person briefed on the search. The F.B.I. also seized emails, tax documents and business records, the person said.

**Damien** · 09-04-2018, 22:18

Tax records eh?

Looks like you were right about the lawyer landing himself in it anyway.

**Mick** · 09-04-2018, 22:19

The witch hunt continues.... shut it down FFS.

Nothing to do with Russian Collusion. Mueller overstepped his boundaries he may have also breached client privileges laws (with other clients of Cohen] by raiding the office and seizing documents.

**Damien** · 09-04-2018, 22:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick

The witch hunt continues.... shut it down FFS.

Nothing to do with Russian Collusion. Mueller overstepped his boundaries he may have also breached client privileges laws (with other clients of Cohen] by raiding the office and seizing documents.

This isn't part of the Mueller investigation. It looks like he just passed something onto the prosecutors in Manhattan precisely because this isn't his remit.

Also those prosecutors obtained a warrant, they didn't just raid it without authorisation.

pip08456 · 09-04-2018, 22:28

Sorry Mick but he has not raided the office or seized documents.

If however the raid has been carried out as a result of a referral from Muller then it can be argued that Muller has overstepped the bounds of his investigative remit.

1andrew1 · 09-04-2018, 22:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

This isn't part of the Mueller investigation. It looks like he just passed something onto the prosecutors in Manhattan precisely because this isn't his remit.

Also those prosecutors obtained a warrant, they didn't just raid it without authorisation.

Yes, I think it's a bit bizarre to ask Mueller to look the other way if he comes across something potentially unlawful during his investigations into the alleged Russian allegations.

pip08456 · 09-04-2018, 23:36

No more bizzare than finding nothing that he was appointed to investigate.

1andrew1 · 09-04-2018, 23:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by pip08456

No more bizzare than finding nothing that he was appointed to investigate.

Investigating something and finding no evidence of it is not bizarre. However, ignoring other potential unlawful activities of that person is. Are you suggesting that the person being investigated gets a carte blanche to commit other crimes if they're unrelated to the one being investigated?

pip08456 · 10-04-2018, 00:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Investigating something and finding no evidence of it is not bizarre. However, ignoring other potential unlawful activities of that person is. Are you suggesting that the person being investigated gets a carte blanche to commit other crimes if they're unrelated to the one being investigated?

No, I'm suggesting the investigator doesn't have carte blanche. That would suggest a failure in law enforcement agencies.

**Damien** · 10-04-2018, 06:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by pip08456

If however the raid has been carried out as a result of a referral from Muller then it can be argued that Muller has overstepped the bounds of his investigative remit.

There is nothing that says if you come across suspicion or evidence of a crime whilst investigating another, unrelated, crime that you cannot start a different investigation.

If the police obtain a warrant to raid your house during a fraud investigation but instead they find 1000 tons of crystal meth in your basement then they are allowed to refer that to a new investigation. It's not deemed inadmissible on the basis it was found during the course of a different investigation.

Obviously I am not a lawyer but it seems fantasy law people have invented on twitter that anything else Mueller finds outside of his remit in ineligible for investigation.

1andrew1 · 10-04-2018, 07:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

There is nothing that says if you come across suspicion or evidence of a crime whilst investigating another, unrelated, crime that you cannot start a different investigation.

If the police obtain a warrant to raid your house during a fraud investigation but instead they find 1000 tons of crystal meth in your basement then they are allowed to refer that to a new investigation. It's not deemed inadmissible on the basis it was found during the course of a different investigation.

Obviously I am not a lawyer but it seems fantasy law people have invented on twitter that anything else Mueller finds outside of his remit in ineligible for investigation.

Nailed it.

**Damien** · 10-04-2018, 09:55

They must have something to persuade an attorney and judge to sign off on the searching of a lawyers office.

1andrew1 · 10-04-2018, 10:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

They must have something to persuade an attorney and judge to sign off on the searching of a lawyers office.

Do bears like honey?