Tuesday, April 10, 2018

FBI falls to new lows...

Let's be clear about three things here.

The raid on Michael Cohen is an almost unprecedented move by the FBI. Much of what they seized is accepted by nearly everyone to be  protected under attorney client privilege. Nothing that is considered attorney client communications would be admissible in court to be used against anyone. If they openly sought that information, illegally gathered it during the raid, then anything else they found could also be inadmissible.

The fact that much of the information collected in the raided would inevitably be unusable, it can be assumed that there is alternative reasons for the raid itself. A theoretical new hypothetical idea that a financial based non-disclosure agreement could be made into a violation of campaign finance laws is just another in the long list of "new crimes" being pretty much made up on the fly against anyone associated with Donald Trump. While it could not be completely "discounted", the fact is that there is zero precedent for a legal agreement being considered a campaign contribution. Arguing such, puts us on an slippery slope can of worms situation that no reasonable people would want to travel down to open up. It's hard to imagine that the FBI would use dubious criminal allegations to stage a raid to gather information that ultimately likely to be suppressed anyways, in order to actually prosecute real crimes?

Lastly, we have entered into the territory where there is no longer even a pretense of objectively here. The idea that certain (both special counsel and people within the FBI) are simply "out to get" Trump and anyone associated with Trump has gone from something written off as paranoia, to something that is gathering much tangible evidence. Manafort's Ukrainian business dealings were known to the FBI for years, even investigated previously, and never considered criminal until he went to work for Donald Trump. General Flynn was apparently placed under investigation for negotiating on behalf of the United States Government (the never prosecuted Logan Act). Typical behavior of any Presidential transition team that did not include Trump as the President. Several people associated with Trump have been charged for lying under oath, something we saw happen routinely (without consequence) during the Clinton email investigation.

Bottom line. Special Counsel and the FBI are losing credibility in the eyes of many Americans. Is this credibility loss mainly partisan? Sure. But that doesn't stop it from being a credibility problem. I didn't vote for Trump, and am not necessarily the biggest fan, but the things that have been happening are actually pushing me over to "his side" on much of this.

Our law enforcement community has an obligation to be seen as fair for "all" Americans, not just liberals and democrats. Our law enforcement should never allow themselves to be in a position where legal experts and former prosecutors can literally come up with lists of behaviors that are outside of DOJ guidelines, outside of DOJ procedures, outside of DOJ rules, outside of protocol and norms, and some times even flirting with being outside the actual law. There is simply no excuse not to play these sorts of things 100% by the book, to avoid any and all allegations of wrongdoing. Especially with something this important.

193 comments:

Lenny said...

FBI falls to new lows...

You now fall to a new low of inanity CH...

DOJ trump appointee
FBI Trump appointee
Southern District...TRump appointee....

It is not an unprecedented move....Even your hero Fat Christie says it is not. The Southern District head was a law partner of Rudy!!!!! He also made significant contributions to trumps campaign....So please CH, you bullshit is just that...utter bullshit....All rules followed to the T!!!! Saying otherwise is just proving your complete take over by trump,,


Hang on, going to get real ugly.....!!! No client privilege here...LOL

Seems to me the facts trump your opinion.....sad very sad...

Loretta said...

"There is simply no excuse not to play these sorts of things 100% by the book, to avoid any and all allegations of wrongdoing. Especially with something this important."

It's chilling, really...

"Today is a 'very dangerous day for lawyer-client relations'" - Alan Dershowitz

Denny sweetie said...

The prosecutors obtained the search warrant after receiving a referral from the special counsel in the Russia investigation, 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 most likely resulted from information that he had uncovered and gave to prosecutors in New York.

Me calls CH full of shit on this one....complete BS. Witch hunt my ass.....An affront to our democracy...BS....Following the letter of the law....we are a nation of laws....YES!!!

Lenny sweetie. said...

Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz warned Monday that special counsel Robert Mueller's decision to raid President Trump's personal lawyer's office is an assault on the privileged lawyer-client relationship.


Muller did not make the decision.. The prosecutor of southern ny made the final call after all warrants were legally obtained....nice try though..

C.H. Truth said...

Denny -

If the letter of the law included raiding law offices and seizing client attorney information... then it would be something that routinely happens. But it's not something that routinely happens. For good reason.

An attorney entered into a non-disclosure agreement with a person, which by nature is a legal contract. How is it that a legal contract is considered illegal? By coming up with unprecedented concepts of legal action that a prosecutor simply "decides" is illegal?

This is your "rule of law". Whatever a prosecutor "says" is illegal today?

Lenny sweetie said...

If the letter of the law included raiding law offices and seizing client attorney information..

If the letter of the law was followed....the raid would not be required....Stupid comment CH>....No one said it was routine....Christie admitted using the procedure numerous times....Your limited law experience will not get donnie out of this jam, which is self inflicted....The prosecutor in this case is a trump-rudy man....I would finally say he is doing his job that he was hired to do instead of being a party hack, like you...

wphamilton said...

CH, privileged communications were indeed seized, but the fact that truly privileged communications can't be used means that the FBI was looking for information that was NOT privileged, and not an alternative reason for the raid as you surmise.

Lifted from a treatise by Houston Lawyer Thomas Fox:

1. A client is seeking legal advice or a lawyer’s services;
2. The person to whom the communication is made is a lawyer or his or her representative;
3. The communication relates to a fact disclosed from a client to a lawyer
4. Strangers are not present;
5. A client requires confidentiality.

All five elements must be in place for the privilege to be in effect. Deductively, the FBI expects to find documents relating to at least bank fraud by Cohen, (and perhaps other criminal activity that I'm not aware of) which fail one of these five prongs. Most likely Cohen setting up a payment by bank draft so as to obscure the source, but I don't really know any specifics. That, for example, would not be Cohen giving legal advice to a client because it concerns his own actions. It's not related to a fact told Cohen by a client.

He can't just say to someone in the room, "Pay your parking ticket and plead guilty" and boom it's privileged. That only works in TV and Congressional testimony. So yes, virtually everyone will agree that the FBI did seize privileged communications and no, they will not agree that the FBI intends to use privileged communications.

As for your further speculation, it's impossible. The FBI cannot use that information in a fishing expedition, but only against Cohen himself. Now if Cohen flipped, and testified against someone else, I'm not sure how that would work but it's crystal clear that this raid was specifically directed at Cohen and no one else.

Denny sweetie said...

By coming up with unprecedented concepts of legal action that a prosecutor simply "decides" is illegal?


And what exactly is unprecedented CH? Again I call bullshit on your bullshit....Your slip is showing..LOLOL

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

This is exactly I expected from you.

Denny sweetie said...

WP. What you posted has been explained in gruesome detail by every talking head this morning and is being ignored by our resident law genius CH this morning.....Thanx for posting that instead of me....

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Nothing that is considered attorney client communications would be admissible in court to be used against anyone.

100% incorrect. If they were engaged in a criminal enterprise, everything will be admissible in court.

wphamilton said...

Good to know that my research is verified by analysts in general. I was actually looking at earlier opinions, to know it won't be tainted by the current news cycle. https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/corporate/b/fcpa-compliance/archive/2012/02/17/attorney-client-privilege-for-in-house-counsel.aspx

More to address the broken logic than to inform about the law.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

A search warrant, unlike a grand jury subpoena, requires prosecutors to go before a federal judge to demonstrate probable cause that a crime has been committed and evidence of that crime can be found in the premises to be searched. Before approving a search of a lawyer’s office, a judge would want to be satisfied that there was some substance behind the prosecutors’ allegations. This is not just some prosecutorial fishing expedition; it bears the imprimatur of a federal judge.

The subpoena was issued by a Trump appointee and a Trump supporter who had contributed to his campaign.

Anonymous said...

Lastly, we have entered into the territory where there is no longer even a pretense of objectively here.


this is the only part of your post i disagree with.

in my opinion the lack of objectivity existed from the starting point, with the goal always and only being to remove trump by any means necessary.

as a nation we've set an interesting and troubling precedent. the next time a democrat wins the white house, his or her opponents are free to embark upon a coup attempt with the endorsement of federal law enforcement.

pretty cool stuff if you're into that sort of thing.

you reap what you sow i guess.

Commonsense said...

If they were engaged in a criminal enterprise

A big if considering there not even a crime.

This is a grave invasion of privacy.

Even the legitimate communication between Trump and Cohen while not involved in a crime will be leaked to the press.

Because that's how Mueller rolls.

wphamilton said...

The Crime-Fraud Exception from Clark v. United States (1933), attorneys are required to disclose even privileged communications that facilitated criminal activity.

Or more precisely: "the courts must find “reasonable cause to believe” the services of the attorney were “utilized in the furtherance of an ongoing unlawful scheme”"

This might also apply to Cohen.

C.H. Truth said...

WP...

You do realize that Cohen had already given depositions under oath and turned over thousands of documents to authorities. Literally most everything associated that he did not consider attorney client privilege.

Now you can work under the assumption that Cohen held stuff back that did not qualify for attorney client privilege. But we both know that if they seized information that "was" client privilege, then that search could be deemed illegal.

I guess I just take more issue than you do with Law Enforcement raiding the offices and homes of people (especially attorneys) who have been cooperative to date. Seems to me that some of you (when it comes to Trump or anyone associated with Trump) have little use for the multiple amendments in the bill of rights that protects us against possible abuses of law enforcement.

wphamilton said...

You do realize that Cohen had already given depositions under oath and turned over thousands of documents

I can deduce that the FBI had reason to believe that Cohen was lying, and/or withheld certain documents. This is kind of obvious, isn't it?

C.H. Truth said...

This might also apply to Cohen.

Still wouldn't justify them seizing actual privileged information, and if they did so, could render EVERYTHING that they seized to be unusable.

Again, I didn't realize that you were so supportive of overzealous law enforcement. Always saw you as more of a libertarian, who believed in individual rights.

Of course, that was before Trump was elected, huh?

Denny sweetie said...


You do realize that Cohen had already given depositions under oath

Which only proves nothing....The prosecutor determined that Cohen was a risk at destroying evidence. The rules were followed and his records seized legally by a trump appointee who made significant contributions to trumps campaign. His testimony is only interesting at this point and his paper will corroborate whether he was truthful....just another twist in the story..

C.H. Truth said...

I can deduce that the FBI had reason to believe that Cohen was lying, and/or withheld certain documents.

It's one way to look at it. I would be curious as to what their "reasons" for thinking that included.

Another way of looking at it, is that historical actions of Mueller and his team suggest that they push the envelope (to the point of breaking protocol and having convictions overturned) and that this is another example of them attempting some sort of "shock and awe" to "turn" someone.

denny sweetie said...


Still wouldn't justify them seizing actual privileged information

You don't know what was seized, only speculate that they did. Safeguards are in place to ferret out that information and it would be set aside and not applied. Criminal activity is not protected.....

Commonsense said...

Or more precisely: "the courts must find “reasonable cause to believe” the services of the attorney were “utilized in the furtherance of an ongoing unlawful scheme”"

Again, they have to prove an "unlawful scheme" existed.

The search warrant and application for it should be released to the public.

wphamilton said...

But we both know that if they seized information that "was" client privilege, then that search could be deemed illegal.

No, we don't know that. Didn't you read the treatise I provided, and did you see the reference to the Crime-Fraud Exception?

What they HAVE done is risk everyone who sees that information being kicked off whatever case they're on, and any other crimes that can be related to those documents getting dismissed if prosecuted.

Commonsense said...

You don't know what was seized, only speculate that they did. Safeguards are in place to ferret out that information and it would be set aside and not applied. Criminal activity is not protected..

After the FISA abuse, I have no confidence in any "Safeguard" that DOJ has.

And again there is no evidence presented that a crime was committed.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

If he fires Muller, you will scream in pleasure.

wphamilton said...

With Cohen being Trump's long-time legal enforcer/thug, and given the dodgy nature of Trump's past businesses and business partners, the FBI knowing about an unlawful scheme is to me the least problem of this. Knowing and proving are different things, which is precisely why you have this search. I doubt that it's a hail mary, because the FBI had better be right.

wphamilton said...

"And again there is no evidence presented that a crime was committed."

LOL someone fell off the edge with that!

Commonsense said...

OK WP, name that crime.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Another way of looking at it is your opinion is not based upon facts. I'm not in "awe". You are,in awe of the President.

Denny sweetie said...


After the FISA abuse,

Cramps, there was no fisa abuse.... Only idiots like you claiming it.. The judges who signed off on the warrants all R's....your speculation is completely groundless, just like your .6% growth..

Commonsense said...

“I tell [clients] on my word of honor that what you tell me is sacrosanct,” he said. “And now they say, just based on probable cause … they can burst into the office, grab all the computers, and then give it to another FBI agent and say, ‘You’re the firewall. We want you now to read all these confidential communications, tell us which ones we can get and which ones we can’t get.'”

“If this were Hillary Clinton being investigated and they went into her lawyer’s office, the ACLU would be on every television station in America, jumping up and down,” he added.

“The deafening silence from the ACLU and civil libertarians about the intrusion into the lawyer-client confidentiality is really appalling,” Dershowitz said. …

“This is a very dangerous day today for lawyer-client relations,” he added.


Except for one very honest liberal, the silence of the civil liberties crowd is deafening.

Loretta said...

Jim Jordan: "Think of the double standard – yesterday the FBI raided the president’s attorney’s office. Yet when HRC was under investigation, her team got to decide which emails they could keep and destroy and which ones to give to the government."

Commonsense said...

there was no fisa abuse..

You are in galactic denial. Or you're just plain ignorant.

Take your choice.

Commonsense said...

WP sill hasn't named a crime that we should LOL about.

Typical.

commie said...

WP sill hasn't named a crime that we

Tell us cramps, how would he know??? Only you and CH can speculate what it is until the prosecutor releases it.....Until then "you are in galactic denial and completely ignorant...

BTW....there was no fisa abuse.....only speculation unless you have a factual link....which you don't!!!!

Commonsense said...

Blogger Roger Amick said...
If he fires Muller, you will scream in pleasure.


If Trump fires Mueller now he'll have half the country behind him.

If Mueller keeps this up, Trump will have 2/3 of the country behind him. A third of the country are so TDS infected that they will never be behind him.

Regardless of what Mueller does to undermine their civil liberties.

Loretta said...

Lavrentiy Beria’s – Stalin’s head of the secret police -- famous dictum:

“Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.”

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Another national security adviser has resigned. Tom Brossert

commie said...


Memstral the cramp alleges that...

f Trump fires Mueller now he'll have half the country behind him.


https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/07/poll-robert-mueller-republican-approval-444366


Bullshit cramps....keep making shit up, it is all you got!!!!!!

Commonsense said...

commie said...
WP still hasn't named a crime that we
Tell us cramps, how would he know???


I guess he doesn't.

Only you and CH can speculate what it is until the prosecutor releases it.

You mean like Trump is on double secret probation?

That's not how it's supposed to work in America.

You're suppose to have crime first. Not try to find a crime because you don't like the guy.

Denny sweetie said...

Lavrentiy Beria’s – Stalin’s head of the secret police -- famous dictum:

Denny's famous last word... maybe you should move there since you hate this country and its laws

commie said...

That's not how it's supposed to work in America.

Everything is being done by the book, in spite of you saying otherwise... The laws are followed, and people are doing their jobs as trump appointed them to do....

Commonsense said...

it is all you got!!!!!!

Apparently all you got is a month old poll.

commie said...

Enough criminal activity to potentially put him away for life....maybe CH and cramps can help represent him.....LOL

Trump’s attorney under investigation for possible bank fraud, campaign finance violations
FBI agents raided Michael Cohen’s Manhattan office, home and hotel room, seizing records about his clients and personal finances. Among the records taken were those related to a 2016 payment Cohen made to adult-film star Stormy Daniels, who claims to have had a

Big trouble in river city.....

Commonsense said...

Everything is being done by the book

Given Mueller's track record, I doubt that very much.

In fact, he's very much stretching the envelopment on prosecutorial abuse leaving it up to judges to rein him back.

Loretta said...

"Denny's famous last word... maybe you should move there since you hate this country and its laws"

Lavrentiy Beria was a person, dipshit.

commie said...

Apparently all you got is a month old poll.

A whole month old, is the latest available...I'll post the latest when available and until then, know once again commie shoved it up your old white ass.....LOLOLOL

Loretta said...

"WP sill hasn't named a crime that we should LOL about.

Typical."

Almost as bad as Dennis' trolling...

...WP just knows bigger words, lol.

denny sweetie said...



Lavrentiy Beria was a person, dipshit.

And you are an asshole....we are even, dumbass...you quoted a Russian, I suggested you move there....even a mentally challenged Indian like yourself should have gotten that....sorry if I was too obtuse with your own post....LOL!!!!!!

denny sweetie said...

Almost as bad as Dennis' trolling...


In such a target rich environment, never have to cast very far, right injun?

Loretta said...

You forgot LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL, Dennis.

Commonsense said...

Trump’s attorney under investigation for possible bank fraud

The theory of this charge was that he used his equity line to pay off Stormy Daniels and he either didn't tell or lied to the bank about what he was using the money for.

Now I have had equity lines and never once did a bank asked me what the money was being used for.

If fact their big advertising point was that you can pretty much use it as you see fit.

The theory about being a campaign contribution is similarly specious since the event occurred well before the campaign started.

In fact, Zuckerberg is in far more legal jeopardy on this charge because facebook gave the Obama campaign millions of dollars worth of raw data to sift through.

Commonsense said...

A whole month old, is the latest available..

Which makes it no less irrelevant.

Commonsense said...

envelopment = envelope auto-correct sucks.

Anonymous said...

oPie also "talks" about being so called green, yet, his food mile footprint is that of Fat algore.

C.H. Truth said...

So far from the special prosecutor

four process crimes

- The first person charged is currently a free man.
- One was sentenced to 30 days.
- Another was delayed while prosecutors were ordered to turn over information to the defense attorneys (that the prosecutors previously withheld)
- one is waiting sentencing.

We also have a bunch of conspiracy charges against people who will be actually tried...

and one rather large indictment (having nothing to do with Russia or the election) that has yet to be proven in court (although a similar charge to his partner was plead down to two charges that put together could result in no time in prison).

Anonymous said...


Blogger Loretta said...
Jim Jordan: "Think of the double standard – yesterday the FBI raided the president’s attorney’s office. Yet when HRC was under investigation, her team got to decide which emails they could keep and destroy and which ones to give to the government."



and her attorneys, who were complicit in her crimes, were given immunity so they could "represent" her.

the double standard here is breathtaking.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous wphamilton said...
With Cohen being Trump's long-time legal enforcer/thug



you're thinking of roy cohn.


Loretta said...

"Another national security adviser has resigned. Tom Brossert"

Who?

Loretta said...

"and her attorneys, who were complicit in her crimes, were given immunity so they could "represent" her."

Bingo.

Anonymous said...

Blogger Loretta said...
"Another national security adviser has resigned. Tom Brossert"

Who?



brossert is/was a 'homeland' security guy,not national security.

Commonsense said...

Apparently this is Bolton cleaning house.

Loretta said...

"brossert is/was a 'homeland' security guy,not national security."

LOL!

Roger's on top of things.

Yep, Bolton cleaning house.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

There may well be litigation concerning whether particular records seized during this search are protected by privilege. But seizing the records now allows prosecutors to ensure that the integrity of the evidence is maintained while those legal issues are sorted out.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Homeland security is being used as a weapon against the Free Press by the Tweetsedent.

Commonsense said...

There may well be litigation concerning whether particular records seized during this search are protected by privilege. But seizing the records now allows prosecutors to ensure that the integrity of the evidence

It will also ensure that any embarrassing private information will also be leaked to the press.

C.H. Truth said...

Roger -

The fourth amendment is the overriding factor. If they seized information that they knew they were not allowed to seize then it all could become "fruit of the poisonous tree." This would be especially true if their intention was to seize client/attorney information that they knew very well could be privileged.

Generally a prosecutor gives a pretty serious amount of leeway to the attorneys for this specific reason. Think of how "little" Clinton and her attorneys turned over. That is "either" a legal standard, or they were letting Clinton off the hook? (Which do you believe it was?)

In other words, they have an obligation to be 100% legal 100% of the time. They cannot "sort out" later what was and what wasn't legal, and just go ahead and use the legal portions. If any part of it was considered to be an illegal seizure, the rest very well could be squelched.

Loretta said...

"Homeland security is being used as a weapon against the Free Press by the Tweetsedent."

Get back to us at a later date, hypocrite.

"When the Justice Department began investigating possible leaks of classified information about North Korea in 2009, investigators did more than obtain telephone records of a working journalist suspected of receiving the secret material.

They used security badge access records to track the reporter’s comings and goings from the State Department, according to a newly obtained court affidavit. They traced the timing of his calls with a State Department security adviser suspected of sharing the classified report. They obtained a search warrant for the reporter’s personal e-mails."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/a-rare-peek-into-a-justice-department-leak-probe/2013/05/19/0bc473de-be5e-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_story.html?tid=pm_pop

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

The history on Clinton's alleged violations are irrelevant in this case.

But your comment below is incorrect. Sorting out illegal activities separately from the client security privileges are not a violation of the law and therefore cannot be squelched.



Commonsense said...

There goes that unconstitutional bipartisan bill Schumer was hoping for.

Sen. Paul: FBI Raid on Trump's Attorney Was 'Great Overstep' by Mueller

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Grasping at leaves

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Cohen asserts it was not a campaign contribution, but that does not make his denial true. The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) broadly defines campaign contribution at 52 U.S.C. 30101(8) as “any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office.” Cohen admits he made the payment to influence the election, stating he sought to avoid the harm the porn star’s allegations might cause the campaign. Cohen told CNN “Just because something isn’t true doesn’t mean that it can’t cause you harm or damage. I will always protect Mr. Trump.”

Loretta said...

Rog, you're in over your head again.

Commonsense said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Commonsense said...

The key point is that Cohen making a private deal didn't materialy benefit the campaign.

If will certainly be difficult to prove a connection.

It would be a lot easier for the FBI to jail Zuckerberg on those same charges.

There you can prove a material benefit to the Obama campaign.

Loretta said...

Here's Roger's plagiarized link...

https://medium.com/@KeithDB/presidential-hush-money-possible-legal-issues-of-the-payoff-to-stormy-daniels-c4cdbb2ace3a

Myballs said...

So much for Trump's sit down with mueller now.

And I like how alleged process crimes are relevant but alleged process abuses are not.

C.H. Truth said...

The history on Clinton's alleged violations are irrelevant in this case.

It's relevant to normal law?

So in your opinion...

Was the fact that the FBI/DOJ allowed Clinton and her attorneys to determine which information to turn over and which not to turn over (based on their own discretion of relevance and privilege)...

A) Standard FBI/DOJ practice
B) Favoritism provided specifically for Clinton

Anonymous said...


Blogger Loretta said...

Rog, you're in over your head again.



he is whenever he runs out of copy/paste content and tries to put his own thoughts into words.


Anonymous said...

BREAK G NEWS TRUMP RESIGNS.

dow Soars 380 points

caliphate4vr said...

uh oh

Climate Change: Scientists just discovered a massive, heretofore unknown, source of nitrogen. Why does this matter? Because it could dramatically change those dire global warming forecasts that everybody claims are based on "settled science."

The researchers, whose findings were published in the prestigious journal Science, say they've determined that the idea that the only source of nitrogen for plant life came from the air is wrong. There are vast storehouses in the planet's bedrock that plants also feed on.

This is potentially huge news, since what it means is that there is a vastly larger supply of nitrogen than previously believed.

University of California at Davis environmental scientist and co-author of the study, Ben Houlton, says that "This runs counter the centuries-long paradigm that has laid the foundation for the environmental sciences."

Pay close attention to the word "paradigm."

If Houlton's finding about these vast, previously unknown nitrogen stores holds true, then it would have an enormous impact on global warming predictions.

Anonymous said...


Blogger Loretta said...

Rog, you're in over your head again."

He is standing in a single drop of rain.

Anonymous said...

Two Sundays in a Row we have had new lows and snow. This weekend more of the same.

Myballs said...

So this Ukrainian gives a trump charity 150k and its s big deal. Same guy gives clintons 13M and it's a big nothingburger.

Got it.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

You are over your head again because of this shit.

A) Standard FBI/DOJ practice
B) Favoritism provided specifically for Clinton

Commonsense said...

You won't answer the question, that's all we need to know.

Myballs said...

Yoohoo.......ACLU....... Anyone in the office today?

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

The FBI and Justice department had to be very specific. If they wrote the request to the Judge clearly and specific evidence the sour evidence exemptions is not valid.

Anonymous said...

You won't answer the question, that's all we need to know." CS

You see why he sticks to cut n paste

Anonymous said...

Good to know that the FBI conducted an Armed Raid for records on two whores for hire.

C.H. Truth said...

Until Roger answers the question:

A) Standard FBI/DOJ practice
B) Favoritism provided specifically for Clinton

I will simply delete all of his comments.

wphamilton said...

The FBI is investigating possible bank fraud by Cohen. Which I DID "name" as the crime by the way. Also possibly campaign finance violations.

"Typical" is right - you folks don't even read a person's posts before firing away, and beyond that your demands to "name a crime" would have been answered by any of a number of news reports. But you don't bother, and you laugh at your own ignorance. Typical.

wphamilton said...

I'll answer for him:

"A) Standard FBI/DOJ practice
B) Favoritism provided specifically for Clinton"

B, obviously. You'll need something else to rationalize deleting his comments now.

Loretta said...

"You won't answer the question, that's all we need to know."

He CAN'T answer the questions.

LOL!

C.H. Truth said...

WP...

The problem with the "bank fraud" argument is that all the relevant information regarding bank transactions could be subpoenaed to both the bank(s) and Cohen.

They didn't need to raid someone's home to garner banking records.

Seems to me that they have a suspicion (rather than any evidence) that Cohen might have committed bank fraud.

But like everything else with the Trump investigation, everything Cohen did was probably technically 100% legal, but they wish to "prove" it illegal by attempting to find some nugget of "intent" that it was illegal. So they simply want to go through all of his personal information (even though they have no evidence of a crime) in order to hopefully find the evidence that they lack.

If that is the case (and of course we don't know it is) - then we provided a search warrant based on somebody's "hunch". Not justifiable in my humble opinion. I don't want the police coming to my home, office, hotel, tearing everything apart, taking my private information... all because I did something "legal" that someone would like to show is illegal.

Loretta said...

"You'll need something else to rationalize deleting his comments now."

No he doesn't.

wphamilton said...

Again, I didn't realize that you were so supportive of overzealous law enforcement.

Who said that I support it? I have explained how it could be legal, and why and how the FBI can legitimately use it. That doesn't mean that I approve of it.

I disapprove of crooked lawyers prowling the hallways of power also, so if the FBI builds a real case against him using legal methods, I'll set aside my distaste for them.

Loretta said...

"Censorship is CH."

You're still here.

wphamilton said...

The problem with the "bank fraud" argument is that all the relevant information regarding bank transactions could be subpoenaed to both the bank(s) and Cohen.

Hardly true. Those documents "may" provide proof, but there are *many* elements which can be, or need to be, documented by other methods. Absolutely, "all the relevant information" could come from the bank is unambiguously false.

Regarding Cohen himself, the guilty party isn't likely to deliberately provide proof of his own malfeasance is he? Any legal expert will tell you, and many likely already have through various media, that the FBI has already convinced a Judge that subpoenas served on Cohen are insufficient to gather this information. Standard, normal argument that must be made prior to obtaining a warrant. An absurd argument on your part.

Loretta said...

ABC News has learned that Geoffrey Berman, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, is recused from the Michael Cohen investigation.

Two sources familiar with the matter tell ABC News Berman was not involved in the decision to raid Cohen's office because of the recusal."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-attorney-trump-appointee-recused-michael-cohen-investigation/story?id=54365546

Another lie bites the dust, lol. Poor Dennis.

Loretta said...

"If Houlton's finding about these vast, previously unknown nitrogen stores holds true, then it would have an enormous impact on global warming predictions."

Poor Dennis.

Anonymous said...

Alky, it is not censorship.

You are as stupid as jane, maybe dumber

Anonymous said...

Did you hear Dennis is "green". All except for ever polluting aspect of his dull life.

Anonymous said...

malfeasance , odd choice of words.

Anonymous said...

Can't win at the ballot box just "Dream" it happened.

Missouri Gov. Greitens' ex-lover said illicit photo may have been 'a dream ...
www.foxnews.com › 2018/04/09
22 hours ago · Attorneys for Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens have accused prosecutors of withholding exculpatory testimony from a woman who has accused Greitens of invading her privacy by taking a nonconsensual photo of her while she was partially nude.
."

C.H. Truth said...

WP...

If you trust the sources, they claim that Mueller and the FBI are suspicious because of the timing of the transaction.

Commonsense said...

your demands to "name a crime" would have been answered by any of a number of news reports.

Then it should have been easy for you to name one but you didn't.

So I can only assume that the number of news reports specifying that a there was a actual crime is zero.

Of course to you, when it come to Trump, the speculation that maybe there is a crime is just as good as an actual reported crime.

Except when you are challanged.

Commonsense said...

Absolutely, "all the relevant information" could come from the bank is unambiguously false.

The only relevant document is the application for the equity line.

And you could subpoena the bank for their copy.

wphamilton said...

re: "vast new stores of nitrogen", it's not the panacea for global warming that one would think from reading those articles, because all that nitrogen is fixed into the rocks and soil and has to get out somehow for the plants to use. As I understand it, "the gap" is that there was MORE nitrogen in the atmosphere than scientists could account for - not less - and it comes from the chemical weathering of rocks, and tectonic events. Maybe a tiny bit of plants' nitrogen comes from the soil ... I recall something about that from elementary school almost 60 years ago, but I don't quite trust it. The scientists are telling us that plants take it from the atmosphere.

So anyone expecting that plants can just tap this "vast store", sequester more carbon and all is golden is going to be disappointed.

wphamilton said...

The only relevant document is the application for the equity line.

So ... according to you ... every investigator who has ever gotten a warrant to investigate banking fraud, and every judge who issued one, and every court that admitted that data, and every lawyer who didn't have it struck from evidence, ALL of them simply weren't aware that it was completely unnecessary.

You should hang out a shingle. I'm sure that all of these professionals, being so wrong in their practice, will be beating a path to your doorstep.

wphamilton said...

If you trust the sources, they claim that Mueller and the FBI are suspicious because of the timing of the transaction.

I would be flabbergasted if any judge in the USA would issue a warrant for a legal office based on nothing more than the timing of a transaction. Therefore I am very confident that your information is incomplete.

pol wire said...

politicalwire.com

wphamilton said...

Then it should have been easy for you to name one but you didn't.

Anyone willing and capable of reading can quickly ascertain that you are mistaken. I "named the crime" of banking fraud from my very first post, and several times subsequently.

Are you just repeating this allegation in some kind of trolling attempt, to spam over the evidence of your mistake for example?

C.H. Truth said...

WP...

Most fraud is an obvious sort of fraud. Such as using fake (or overstating) collateral to get a loan. Or perhaps (in the case of a home equity) getting a home equity loan to pay for home improvements that would create the equity needed to secure the loan, then not doing the improvements.

Sources are suggesting that the "fraud" in this case is that Cohen was not disclosing the payment as a "campaign contribution" and not providing the bank with what he was using the equity loan for.

The problem is that without proving some sort of "intent" of this, neither the loan or the payout to Stormy would be illegal. Again, with the accusation that the "legal action" is illegal based on some nefarious intent (that they cannot actually prove).

Seems that is the M.O. of Mr Mueller's probe so far.

C.H. Truth said...

I would be flabbergasted if any judge in the USA would issue a warrant for a legal office based on nothing more than the timing of a transaction.

Sort of how you would be amazed if the Schiff rebuttal (to the claim of no evidence of collusion) only included publicly known information.

Anonymous said...



I "named the crime" of banking fraud from my very first post, and several times subsequently.


so what?

in all those news reports you name no crime was reported. only that cohen's office was raided 'based partly on a referral from mueller.'

once again this investigation veers off on another tangent in search of a crime.



Commonsense said...

So ... according to you ... every investigator who has ever gotten a warrant to investigate banking fraud

No, just an attorney's office. One of the requirements to obtaining a warrant that puts attorney/client privilege in jeopardy is the inability to get the information from other sources.

In this they failed that test.

Obtaining the application from the bank would have conclusively prove whether there was even a case for bank fraud.

If Cohen didn't lie or (more likely) the question was never asked than it should have ended that line of inquiry there and then.

wphamilton said...

Cohen paying Stormy off for the campaign would be illegal. Paying off for a client would be an ethical violation, possibly disbarment but that's probably beside the point.

Misleading the bank about any of several material factors to obtain a load is illegal. These are statutory crimes.

Regarding Schiff's memo, it was 1, a preliminary public statement not the rebuttal, and 2, contained information that you for one, certainly weren't aware of.

Anonymous said...



The problem is that without proving some sort of "intent" of this, neither the loan or the payout to Stormy would be illegal.


the only way i see them getting there is by calling the skank's hush money some sort of 'in kind' campaign donation.

the only consistent pattern mueller has shown throughout this entire ordeal is his penchant for financially ruining his targets to the point that they capitulate to a process crime charge.

and here we go again with cohen.

wphamilton said...

so what?

So ask commonsense, he's the one who keeps spamming that I "didn't name a crime". Read my first post to him.

in all those news reports you name no crime was reported.

Did *I* name any news reports? Just google it for crying out loud, it's not that hard to find. Jeeze, you guys are so trigger-happy that you're not even trying to verify your claims before posting them. I'd be embarrassed and slink off if I pulled something like that ...

Commonsense said...

I "named the crime" of banking fraud

No that was speculation of a crime. There was no criminal complaint of bank fraud.

Usually it's the bank that would lodge the complaint.

In this case there was no complaint.

Anonymous said...



No that was speculation of a crime. There was no criminal complaint of bank fraud.


precisely.

not one of wp's better trolls.

wphamilton said...

the only consistent pattern mueller has shown throughout this entire ordeal is his penchant for financially ruining his targets to the point that they capitulate to a process crime charge.

That actually sounds more like Cohen's legal strategy. But you want to defend Cohen so badly that you overreach to attack Mueller, who didn't even have the warrant served?

Mueller is just doing his job, and he's charged a lot more than just "process crimes".

wphamilton said...

No that was speculation of a crime. There was no criminal complaint of bank fraud.

Now you two are just being ignorant. You think charges are filed BEFORE a search warrant is served?

Anonymous said...

But you want to defend Cohen so badly that you overreach to attack Mueller, who didn't even have the warrant served?


first of all, i have no interest in defending cohen specifically. only the process. second, the office was raided "partly on a referral from mueller."

and third, mueller is casting such a wide net that the head greenskeeper at mar-a-lago probably has a lot to worry about.

in an effort to save time subpoenas should be issued and all assets seized for every living associate and acquaintance trump has ever had. i mean, why the fuck not? rosenstein will sign off on it.

Commonsense said...

Cohen paying Stormy off for the campaign would be illegal.

Again you would have to prove intent and a connection to the campaign. Not possible unless you read minds.

Misleading the bank about any of several material factors to obtain a load is illegal.

The only relevant facts for obtaining an equity line is the value of the collateral property and the amount of any outstanding mortgage.

Both facts are verify by public record and a property appraisal.

And since an equity line is usually a revolving credit line, the purpose of the loan is not asked.

So unless you can prove the appraisal or the mortgage information is fraudulent, you don't have much of a case.

Certainly all this information can be obtain through the bank and public record without the necessity of a search warrant.

This is just an excuse for a fishing expedition into confidential communications.

Anonymous said...

You think charges are filed BEFORE a search warrant is served?

no, but there is a suspicion of a specific crime. in this case we don't even have that. at least name "campaign finance allegation" as a possible crime. or are we past that now and everyone who's ever walked past trump tower a suspect now?

good gawd, we are ass-deep in the theatre of the absurd.

Anonymous said...

Mueller is just doing his job, and he's charged a lot more than just "process crimes".

sure he has. he indicted 13 russians he knew would never step foot on US soil again. all the others? PROCESS CRIMES.

he didn't even have the smarts, the courage, or both, to charge those 13 under sealed indictment and snag them as they came back into the US.

that's when i knew for certain he wasn't really serious.

C.H. Truth said...

Cohen paying Stormy off for the campaign would be illegal. Paying off for a client would be an ethical violation, possibly disbarment but that's probably beside the point.

WP...

Are you saying that a non-disclosure agreement is illegal if the information involved happens to be about a politician? Or are you saying that non-disclosure agreements are illegal in general?

Because I am pretty sure that the are simply contracts, mutually entered into by two people. I have never heard of a non-disclosure agreement being considered "illegal" you know... just because.

You have this habit of making statements such as this as if the claim is just so obvious that everyone must see it. I guess I don't see how a non-disclosure agreement is illegal in and of itself. Obviously neither Mueller or the FBI believes so, or they would just charge him with signing a non-disclosure agreement.

They are claiming bank fraud precisely because the contract is perfectly legal. But I am not sure how it becomes bank fraud without someone jumping through some serious legal hoops and playing some serious legal twister.

C.H. Truth said...

Serious Question WP...

Do you simply repeat this stuff as if it is fact...

Simply because you are 100% sure that no prosecutors are ever wrong and you believe that if they claim something, then it must be true and they must have evidence that it is?


Because certainly we have seen this particular investigation branch out into about a 100 different directions, and not much has come back other than process crimes.

wphamilton said...

Again you would have to prove intent and a connection to the campaign. Not possible unless you read minds.

Or by serving a warrant on his office.

BTW, establishing intent is not necessarily a statutory requirement. Depending on the specific statutes.

Anonymous said...

I have never heard of a non-disclosure agreement being considered "illegal" you know... just because.


you have now because... this is what mueller's "investigation" has been reduced to.

Anonymous said...

Well one thing is for sure.

The 4 liberal Stooges of CHT are all in that "this is it".

Anonymous said...

this is what mueller's "investigation" has been reduced to."

Legendary Sex Life of JFK, err, Doald Trump.

Anonymous said...

BTW, establishing intent is not necessarily a statutory requirement. Depending on the specific statutes.


ah yes.

i believe they call that the "H. R. Clinton Precedent."

wphamilton said...

You have this habit of making statements such as this as if the claim is just so obvious that everyone must see it.

Well it IS obvious, if the payoff is material aid provided to the campaign. And it's also pretty obvious that it could be a material aid.

OF COURSE NOT, the NDA. They're talking about the payment. Why do you make these absurd arguments, in such condescending tones? The only person embarrassed by that ... is you.

Anonymous said...

Get on that bike and ride fat bottom girls

Anonymous said...

Lol, @ rich


" do you make these absurd arguments, in such condescending tones? "

Anonymous said...

mens rea, is not a requirement . Really. Ok.

C.H. Truth said...

OF COURSE NOT, the NDA. They're talking about the payment.

So the payment is not part of the non-disclosure?

Again. Your allegation is that providing a payment for silence is illegal. In that case, your suggestion is that one attorney entered into an agreement with another person (represented by another attorney) and that they were all breaking the law?

Unless there is specific language in the contract that suggests it's a campaign deal, or that she was only obligated to be quiet till after the election, or something such as that...

It sounds like a simple legal contract.

commie said...

Legendary Sex Life of JFK

The stooge of Kansas brings up the exploits of a Potus that was killed in 1963 and thinks it is relevant to the current pig in the oval orafice....sorry office,..The only requirement for your stupidity is your unabashed fellation of trump and his most corrupt administration evah....this is not going to end well for you or donnie the liar.....

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

I answered your question. But you didn't like it.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

I answered your question. But you didn't like it.

Denny sweetie said...

More CH bull shit with

allegation is that providing a payment for silence is illegal

NOT A SINGLE PERSON HAS ALLEGED THAT!!!!!! Complete fabrication on your part.....The payment made by Cohen, with his own money without trump knowing it is the problem.....Is it a campaign contribution Is the question,....The prosecutor has him in the cross hairs and no matter how much you twist and spin can take that away......trump and his corrupt ways have met their match with a porn star.....how ironic is that!!!!!!

denny sweetie said...

This is great theatre CH....seeing you spin like a top with the biggest piles of guano ever posted here, even by you is greatly entertaining....Can't say donnie don't deserve it being the prick and bully he has always been, but the US of A. is not his personal playground and he needs to be stump broke, big time!!!!

The F.B.I. search of the office, home and hotel room of Mr. Trump’s attorney Michael Cohen is such a development. It’s historic, even in the lofty context of a special counsel investigation of the president.

This is what we know, in part from Mr. Cohen’s attorney: The United States attorney’s office in Manhattan, acting on a referral from Mr. Mueller, sought and obtained search warrants for Mr. Cohen’s law office, home and hotel room, seeking evidence related at least in part to his payment of $130,000 in hush money to the adult actress Stephanie Clifford, who goes by her stage name, Stormy Daniels. There are reports that the warrant sought evidence of bank fraud and campaign finance violations, which is consistent with an investigation into allegations that the Daniels payment was illegally sourced or disguised. (For example, routing a payment through a shell company to hide the fact that the money came from the Trump campaign — if that is what happened — would probably violate federal money-laundering laws.)

What does this tell us? First, it reflects that numerous officials — not just Mr. Mueller — concluded that there was probable cause to believe that Mr. Cohen’s law office, home and hotel room contained evidence of a federal crime. A search warrant for a lawyer’s office implicates the attorney-client privilege and core constitutional rights, so the Department of Justice

Anonymous said...

oPie.

Apr 2, 2018 · On Saturday, CNN pitched its new special, The Kennedys, by praising JFK's love life thusly: JFK had a legendary love life. "

Anonymous said...

oPie. Let me correct you, again. If you get Trump.
We get President Pence.

Anonymous said...

Hogg will not be going to college this fall. He has decided to extend his adolescent.

Commonsense said...

JFK had a legendary love life.

Today he would be looking at jail time.

Commonsense said...

Hogg will not be going to college this fall. He has decided to extend his adolescent.

When Hogg turns 18 he will not have the protection of adolescents.

C.H. Truth said...

WP...

Tell us what you believe the FBI is specifically looking for with their raids of Cohen property?

Anonymous said...

He does that some time this Month.

Lenny said...

Hogg will not be going to college this fall. He has decided to extend his adolescent

Good for him....I couldn't because of the Viet Nam draft. I took 2 years off between my BS and Masters......

Anonymous said...

Epic Fail

"Back in January, SpaceX successfully pushed the Northrop Grumman Zuma spy satellite into orbit. Shortly after Zuma entered orbit it was announced that it was thought that the satellite was a complete loss. SpaceX began immediately saying that it was not at fault for the failure of the satellite.

A new report has now surfaced that claims Northrop Grumman was at fault for the loss of the satellite. Two independent investigations point to the payload adapter Northrop used as being the cause of the satellite loss. The payload adapter is a key component in deploying a satellite and connects the satellite to the upper stage of the rocket.."

Anonymous said...

Epic Fail

"Back in January, SpaceX successfully pushed the Northrop Grumman Zuma spy satellite into orbit. Shortly after Zuma entered orbit it was announced that it was thought that the satellite was a complete loss. SpaceX began immediately saying that it was not at fault for the failure of the satellite.

A new report has now surfaced that claims Northrop Grumman was at fault for the loss of the satellite. Two independent investigations point to the payload adapter Northrop used as being the cause of the satellite loss. The payload adapter is a key component in deploying a satellite and connects the satellite to the upper stage of the rocket.."

commie said...

Today he would be looking at jail time.

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!! You mean like donnie ?????? LOLOLOL

Anonymous said...

C.H. TruthApril 10, 2018 at 3:30 PM
WP...

Tell us what you believe the FBI is specifically looking for with their raids of Cohen property?"

Waldo.

Denny said...

Epic Fail

EPIC IDIOT !!!!!!!!

Denny Sweetie said...

The next trouble for the most corrupt administration evah!!!!!!

WASHINGTON — The special counsel is investigating a payment made to President Trump’s foundation by a Ukrainian steel magnate for a talk during the campaign, according to three people briefed on the matter, as part of a broader examination of streams of foreign money to Mr. Trump and his associates in the years leading up to the election.

Investigators subpoenaed the Trump Organization this year for an array of records about business with foreign nationals. In response, the company handed over documents about a $150,000 donation that the Ukrainian billionaire, Victor Pinchuk, made in September 2015 to the Donald J. Trump Foundation in exchange for a 20-minute appearance by Mr. Trump that month through a video link to a conference in Kiev.

No collusion here!!!! Clean as a whistle

Commonsense said...

You mean like donnie ??????

No. More like Bill Clinton.

C.H. Truth said...

So Denny...

So now you are offering that there is some Ukrainian/Trump collusion?

Or are you just confused regarding the difference between the different Slavik Nations?


And seriously, with the hundreds of millions that flowed into the Clinton Foundation, that was discounted as perfectly legal... does anyone really want to go there because a Trump charity got $120K ?

Denny sweetie said...

No. More like Bill Clinton.

Good comparison....I do recall he was impeached!!!!! Donnie's heading down the same path except there seems to be criminal content in his stupidity....LOL

Commonsense said...

The special counsel is investigating a payment made to President Trump’s foundation by a Ukrainian steel magnate

$150,000

The same magnate gave the Clinton foundation $13,000,000.

Can you say double standard?

Denny Sweetie said...

So now you are offering that there is some Ukrainian/Trump collusion?

Liddle Scotty, I am not offering anything but another brick in trumps wall of trouble....Follow the money.....and mueller is

And seriously, with the hundreds of millions that flowed into the Clinton Foundation

Wow...desperate aren't we relying on the injun Loretta's they did it first defense....Clinton foundation is not on trial here is it....Again, you were never able to prove anything about the foundation except hollow words and months of inept investigations that yielded shit...Get back to me if you ever come up with an actual fact....

commie said...

The same magnate gave the Clinton foundation

Really??? Just another alternate fact penetrated by the right....

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jul/07/fact-checking-donations-clinton-foundation/

Commonsense said...

Not really.

Mueller Investigating Trump Over $150K Donation From Ukrainian Who Gave Clintons $13 Million

The special counsel’s office is investigating a $150,000 donation a Ukrainian businessman made to President Donald Trump’s charity in 2015, according to a new report.

The donation, from steel magnate Victor Pinchuk, pales in comparison to contributions he gave to the charity Bill and Hillary Clinton set up. The billionaire has contributed $13 million to the Clinton Foundation since 2006 and had access to Hillary Clinton while she served as secretary of state.

commie said...

like I said, actual proof....the daily caller has nothing but words since the Clinton Foundation was not very free on giving details of their donors....read my link, idiot...Nice try though, desperate, but nice...LOL

commie said...

The FBI reportedly investigated the Clinton Foundation over its foreign donations.

From your link asshole...

C.H. Truth said...

The FBI reportedly investigated the Clinton Foundation over its foreign donations.

And determined that there was nothing wrong with the 100's of millions being donated while Clinton was Secretary of State or running for President.

So why would there be something wrong with $120K

wphamilton said...

Again. Your allegation is that providing a payment for silence is illegal

This is reminiscent of your telling me that firing Comey is legal - you seem to reason that if something is legal under some circumstances, it must be legal under all circumstances.

I do not believe that you fail to understand how campaign finance law could apply here, Coldheart. But if you do understand, it's not at all clear why you're making this argument.

wphamilton said...

"Blogger C.H. Truth said...WP...Tell us what you believe the FBI is specifically looking for with their raids of Cohen property?"

I think I already did tell you. "Most likely Cohen setting up a payment by bank draft so as to obscure the source" although as I also said, I don't know of any specifics. With regards to campaign finance violations, I'd say that the banking fraud is pretty much a prerequisite, that they'd need to show first before charging something in campaign finance. The FBI may be looking for communications between Cohen and Trump or his campaign regarding the payoff, which is reasonable since Cohen is going to want compensation in some form for that $130K and, being a cut-throat lawyer, he'd likely want that nailed down before the outlay.

pol wire said...

White House Says Trump Has Power to Fire Mueller

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said that President Trump “believes he has the power to” fire special counsel Robert Mueller, CNN reports.

Said Sanders: “He certainly believes he has the power to do so.”
_________________

Most Voters Would Reject Attempt to Fire Mueller

A new Quinnipiac poll finds that American voters say by 69% to 13% that President Trump should not fire special counsel Robert Mueller.

Even Republicans say by 55% to 22% that he shouldn’t move to dismiss Mueller.

ibid. said...

Why the FBI Raid Is Perilous for Donald Trump

Ken White: “The Stormy Daniels payout may be outside the scope of the Russia investigation, but it’s possible that Mr. Cohen’s records are full of materials that are squarely within that scope. And the law is clear: If investigators executing a lawful warrant seize evidence of additional crimes, they may use that evidence. Thus Mr. Trump and Mr. Cohen, with their catastrophically clumsy handling of the Daniels affair, may have handed Mr. Mueller devastating evidence.

“It’s easy to conclude that after so many bombshells, this is just another overfrantic news cycle. It’s not. It’s highly dangerous, and not just for Mr. Cohen. It’s perilous for the president, whose personal lawyer now may face a choice between going down fighting alone or saving his own skin by giving the wolves what they want.”

Ibid. etc. etc. etc. said...

“It would be suicide for the president to want to talk about firing Mueller.”
— Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA), quoted by Politico.
Read More »
__________________

Republicans Warn Trump Against Axing Mueller

“Republicans are mounting an urgent defense of special counsel Robert Mueller in the face of President Trump’s latest attacks, with one key senator leading a renewed push to protect him and other GOP lawmakers arguing the special counsel’s report should become public when Mueller
finishes his work,” Politico reports.

“The GOP alarm was palpable on Tuesday in the wake of Trump leaving the door open to canning Mueller.”
_____________

FBI Raid Sought Info on Payments to Two Women

“The FBI agents who raided the office of President Trump’s personal lawyer were looking for records about payments to two women who claim they had affairs with Mr. Trump, and information related to the publisher of The National Enquirer’s role in silencing one of the women,” the New York Times reports.
_______________

Raid Also Sought Info on Taxi Medallions

“The search warrant behind Monday’s raids on the office and hotel room of President Trump’s personal attorney, Michael Cohen, included a request for documents related to Cohen’s ownership of taxi medallions,” CNN reports.

“The search was also related to porn star Stormy Daniels, with whom Cohen is in a legal dispute over a hush agreement Daniels signed before the 2016 campaign to keep quiet about an alleged affair between her and Trump… In addition, the warrant said it related in part to election laws.”

Ibid. said...

Rosenstein Signed Off On Raid of Trump’s Attorney

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein personally signed off on Monday’s FBI decision to raid the office of Michael Cohen, President Trump’s personal attorney and longtime confidant, the New York Times reports.

“The early-morning searches enraged Mr. Trump, associates said, setting off an angry public tirade Monday evening that continued in private at the White House as the president fumed about whether he should fire Mr. Rosenstein. The episode has deeply unsettled White House aides, Justice Department officials and lawmakers from both parties, who believe the president may use it as a pretext to purge the team leading the investigation into Russia meddling in the 2016 election.”
_______________

Trump ‘Less Inclined’ to Meet with Mueller

“In the wake of an early morning FBI raid on his personal attorney, sources close to President Trump and his legal team say the president is ‘less inclined’ to sit down for an interview with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team,” ABC News reports.

One source said Trump is now “understandably less trusting” of Mueller and his team.

“Multiple sources say advisers don’t know how to deal with the president’s frustration and are bracing for what he may do next.”

commie said...

So why would there be something wrong with $120K

And you comparing apples and tennis shoes is about as silly as the above tenet.....Seems you think like the perjury sentence of only 30 days is any less of a crime than if he was sentenced for a year...Oh well....keep digging I am enjoying this...

JAMES'S FUCKING DADDY said...

looks like pastor parrot is back

sure wasn't missed

ROFLMFAO !!!

C.H. Truth said...

This is reminiscent of your telling me that firing Comey is legal - you seem to reason that if something is legal under some circumstances, it must be legal under all circumstances.

And you seem to assume since something "could" be illegal under exceptional conditions, that it must be illegal whenever someone suggests it is so?

You do realize that in our justice system, you are innocent until proven guilty, so that would make legal actions considered legal actions until proven otherwise.

There is no proof that either the firing of Comey or the payment to the porn star is illegal.


Also... you act as if Cohen was concealing or denying the non-disclosure agreement. He freely and openly suggests that such an agreement was drawn and even sued "Stormy" for violating the agreement. This isn't some clandestine affair that is being denied and otherwise hidden. It was a legal agreement struck between Cohen, and the porn star's legal representation (attorney).

Commonsense said...

So why would there be something wrong with $120K

Because Trump!!

ibid. said...

Cohen Says FBI Was Respectful During Raid

In his first comments since the FBI raid on his home and office, Michael Cohen told CNN that the FBI agents “were extremely professional, courteous and respectful.”

The comments contrast with President Trump who complained that agents “broke into the office of one of my personal attorneys.”

Asked whether he is worried about where this could be headed, Cohen said: “I would be lying to you if I told that I am not. Do I need this in my life? No. Do I want to be involved in this? No.”
____________________

British Investigators Raid Murdoch’s Offices

The British offices of the Murdoch entertainment empire 21st Century Fox have been raided by investigators from the European Commission, the Daily Telegraph reports.

“It is understood that competition watchdogs gained access to the company’s offices in Hammersmith, west London, early today to seize documents and computer records.

“The full details of the confidential investigation, which is believed to be in its early stages, are unclear.”

______________

Stormy Daniels Cooperating with Federal Investigators

Stormy Daniels is cooperating with federal investigators probing the 2016 non-disclosure agreement and $130,000 payment she received from President Trump’s longtime personal attorney, Michael Cohen, NBC News reports.

Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal reports federal prosecutors asked the Trump Organization for records relating to the $130,000 payment as well. The request came in connection with yesterday’s FBI raids on Cohen’s home and office.

Anonymous said...

US Earnings are starting to come in for first quarter. They are spectacular.

JAMES'S FUCKING DADDY said...


DOES COHEN GET A HAMMER TO DESTROY EVIDENCE, NO TRANSCRIPT, NOT UNDER OATH and INTERVIEWED BY A SUPPORTER IN SECRET, THEN LET GO BECAUSE HIS INTENT WAS NOT CRIMINAL, MAYBE NAIVE?

ROFLMFAO !!!

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Trump is in a panic mode. Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said on the Fox Business Network on Tuesday that he had "confidence" in the special counsel and that "it would be suicide for the president to fire Mueller."

This story is more than a few opinions. On the admissabilty of evidence. He's flirting with the possibility that he will be the first President to be impeached and removed from office.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

Can he directly fire Muller for reasons.
Sounds very simple, but this would be “extra-legal,” Rosenzweig says. The rules governing (pdf) the employment of a special counsel—put in place in 1999—say the special counsel can be “removed from office only by the personal action of the attorney general.” Since attorney general Jeff Sessions has recused himself from the Russia probe, that would have to be deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein. So, under current rules, Trump can’t legally fire Mueller without going through Rosenstein.

Rosenstein will not proceed with the firing of Muller.

Commonsense said...

Five Catastrophic Decisions

1) The Obama administration’s invitation to Vladimir Putin to come into Syria ostensibly to stop the use of weapons of mass destruction.
2) The Ben Rhodes/John Kerry/Barack Obama Iran Deal.
3) The FBI and DOJ blanket exemptions given to Clinton skullduggery over the Obama administration.
4) The panicked appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller.
5) Assassination chic.


You can follow the link to read the reasons.

Anonymous said...

Secretary of State John Kerry. Kerry said in a television interview that in Syria, "we got 100 percent of the chemical weapons out." .

Anonymous said...

He's flirting with the possibility that he will be the first President to be impeached and removed from office."

Ever since 3 amNov. 9th, 2016.

Anonymous said...

This has long ago stop being the "Russian" anything. When this got going we where assured Muller was going to investigate the Democrats as well. When does that get started?

Anonymous said...

Alky April.2nd 2018, " President Trump Crashing Dow"
Dow closed @ 23,644
Dow Closed today 24,408

Alky big hat no cattle

wphamilton said...

"This isn't some clandestine affair that is being denied and otherwise hidden."

That is exactly what it was, until someone opened his/her mouth about it. And, possibly, hidden from the bank as well. One thing you can bank on: Cohen has a serious problem now.

That he's still representing Trump raises the question, why? Is it a case of fates tied together come hell or high water? Whatever you may think about that, it's gotten a lot more interesting.

Commonsense said...

Attorney/Client privilege is still in effect even after an attorney stops representing a client.

So what would be your point?

wphamilton said...

The point has zip to do with attorney/client privilege CS.

Would you, personally, WANT an attorney representing you when he was being investigated for crimes, some of which would allegedly intersect with your own personal interests? Not if you had any sense. You'd hire another attorney, and at most keep Cohen on the team for his subject matter knowledge and for continuity. But even that would be a stretch. Think about it: you'd fire him in a heartbeat, and BECAUSE privilege is still in effect you wouldn't worry about it.

At least, any person confident in the legitimacy of his business and other dealings would. Someone afraid of what the attorney knows, maybe not ...