Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mueller as Special Counsel

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by BlueK View Post
    Because Cohen most of the time is not operating as an attorney. You don't get to break the law just because you're an attorney, and attorney-client privlege doesn't cover that. Maybe you should read up more about what's going before commenting.
    I admitted not having read up on it, because I'm not interested in the sideshow act, but am wondering about the aftermath. Lawyers have trust funds and can make payments at the direction of clients, so long as the payment is for a lawful purpose. Making a payment on a settlement agreement is often deemed a lawful purpose. Now, I've seen the claim that it wasn't directed, so that would mean he's acting on his own for that purpose, but you appear to be stating, if a lawyer acts in one purpose all of his records are therefore subject to search and seizure, that still bothers me.

    If all of his records were searched and seized, there would be a lot of attorney-client records that are now exposed. That's troubling.

    What crime was he supposed to have committed?
    "Guitar groups are on their way out, Mr Epstein."

    Upon rejecting the Beatles, Dick Rowe told Brian Epstein of the January 1, 1962 audition for Decca, which signed Brian Poole and the Tremeloes instead.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Topper View Post
      I admitted not having read up on it, because I'm not interested in the sideshow act, but am wondering about the aftermath. Lawyers have trust funds and can make payments at the direction of clients, so long as the payment is for a lawful purpose. Making a payment on a settlement agreement is often deemed a lawful purpose. Now, I've seen the claim that it wasn't directed, so that would mean he's acting on his own for that purpose, but you appear to be stating, if a lawyer acts in one purpose all of his records are therefore subject to search and seizure, that still bothers me.

      If all of his records were searched and seized, there would be a lot of attorney-client records that are now exposed. That's troubling.

      What crime was he supposed to have committed?
      I don't think law enforcement is in the habit of discussing with the public what the subject of the search is thought to have done. I wouldn't expect them to be laying their cards on the table right now. But, that's why they have a judge to review the request for a warrant.
      Ain't it like most people, I'm no different. We love to talk on things we don't know about.

      "The only one of us who is so significant that Jeff owes us something simply because he decided to grace us with his presence is falafel." -- All-American

      GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

      Comment


      • Originally posted by falafel View Post
        I don't think law enforcement is in the habit of discussing with the public what the subject of the search is thought to have done. I wouldn't expect them to be laying their cards on the table right now. But, that's why they have a judge to review the request for a warrant.
        yes. Topper's concerns are shared by many, but it is also those same concerns that make most people believe that there was a good reason for the judge to issue the warrant. It will be interesting to see what comes out of this. It could be yuuuuuge and probably not a Tedbot nothing burger.
        Dyslexics are teople poo...

        Comment


        • Originally posted by falafel View Post
          I don't think law enforcement is in the habit of discussing with the public what the subject of the search is thought to have done. I wouldn't expect them to be laying their cards on the table right now. But, that's why they have a judge to review the request for a warrant.
          But some judges just rubberstamp whatever the prosecution requests. In the state system, the prosecutors know how to massage the system so that virtually nothing gets denied. I'm unfamiliar with warrants under the federal system.

          Imagine you are representing some business that gets involved in a public fight, you represent the company in a settlement and then make a payout. Somebody who disagrees with your company exercises political power to have you investigated, your files yanked and reviewed by the FBI.

          I'm familiar with one case where that was done, and after all was said and done, nothing was found or charged, but the lawyer's practice was destroyed. I'm worried about the checks and balances because prosecutorial misconduct is not as imaginary as you might wish or believe. These precedents are troubling at least to me.
          "Guitar groups are on their way out, Mr Epstein."

          Upon rejecting the Beatles, Dick Rowe told Brian Epstein of the January 1, 1962 audition for Decca, which signed Brian Poole and the Tremeloes instead.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Topper View Post
            I admitted not having read up on it, because I'm not interested in the sideshow act, but am wondering about the aftermath. Lawyers have trust funds and can make payments at the direction of clients, so long as the payment is for a lawful purpose. Making a payment on a settlement agreement is often deemed a lawful purpose. Now, I've seen the claim that it wasn't directed, so that would mean he's acting on his own for that purpose, but you appear to be stating, if a lawyer acts in one purpose all of his records are therefore subject to search and seizure, that still bothers me.

            If all of his records were searched and seized, there would be a lot of attorney-client records that are now exposed. That's troubling.

            What crime was he supposed to have committed?
            Obviously it's not to be taken lightly to raid an attorney's office. A warrant was obtained from a federal judge, of course, after evidence was presented. The standard would have been way higher in this case given it's an attorney who works for the president. Also, this was conducted by the US attorney of the Southern District of NY, who is a handpicked, Republican, Trump-interviewed appointee who he hired after firing the previous US Attorney for that district. From what I understand it's highly unusual for a president to actually personally interview someone appointed to that position. And Trump would not knowingly hire someone he doesn't think he got some loyalty pledge from. And then don't discount the fact that the feds don't want to botch this. There is something pretty serious there that really must have grabbed the attention of this US attorney and the federal magistrate to even allow this to happen. Otherwise it would have been super easy to just say no. The Mueller team isn't leaking information, so no one would otherwise know.

            -- Also, The court is appointing a completely independent party to examine every item taken first to make sure nothing that is handed over to the prosecutor involves attorney-client privilege.

            --Alleged to have committed bank fraud, wire fraud, tax evasion, I think, among others. If they're true, real crimes, not just frivolous breaking of campaign finance laws, which is probably also included.

            Also, most of the work he does is not really practicing law. He has a grand total of three clients: Trump, some rich GOP donor whose name escapes me who needed help one time with an NDA to pay off a mistress, and Sean Hannity,which makes this funny, but who actually is trying to insist he wasn't a client.

            There are a lot of smart people out there who are assuming there can't be anything going on because they're not really paying attention. That's fine. Not everyone will be interested.
            Last edited by BlueK; 04-20-2018, 10:53 AM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Topper View Post
              But some judges just rubberstamp whatever the prosecution requests. I'm unfamiliar with warrants under the federal system.
              Yeah, not likely in this case. It's the attorney of the president of the US who is essentially that attorney's only client. No one in the judicial system wants to embarrass themselves by issuing a frivolous warrant that will eventually come back to make the entire judicial branch look really bad and help Trump to show his childish rants against the system are valid. This isn't some podunk state case no one will care about.
              Last edited by BlueK; 04-20-2018, 10:55 AM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by BlueK View Post
                Yeah, not likely in this case. It's the attorney of the president of the US who is essentially that attorney's only client. No one in the judicial system wants to embarrass themselves. Obscure state cases no one cares about.
                Yeah, I agree. I don't see how this gets rubber-stamped. This might be one of the most scrutinized cases ever. You're not just going to let the prosecutors do whatever they want.
                Ain't it like most people, I'm no different. We love to talk on things we don't know about.

                "The only one of us who is so significant that Jeff owes us something simply because he decided to grace us with his presence is falafel." -- All-American

                GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

                Comment


                • Originally posted by BlueK View Post
                  Yeah, not likely in this case. It's the attorney of the president of the US who is essentially that attorney's only client. No one in the judicial system wants to embarrass themselves by issuing a frivolous warrant that will eventually come back to make the entire judicial branch look really bad and help Trump to show his childish rants against the system are valid. This isn't some podunk state case no one will care about.
                  But this case could set precedent in cases which are not scrutinized. That's my concern. Whatever happens to Trump and his entourage is beyond my control and my other passing interest. I'm worried that some statements authorizing prosecutors might be worded too broadly which could affect lower profile cases.
                  "Guitar groups are on their way out, Mr Epstein."

                  Upon rejecting the Beatles, Dick Rowe told Brian Epstein of the January 1, 1962 audition for Decca, which signed Brian Poole and the Tremeloes instead.

                  Comment


                  • What is the legal basis for setting aside settlement agreements with confidentiality clauses, or are these work agreements with confidentiality clauses and no work provided? I can see a difference in the two, but I can't imagine the legal precedent that has a good faith confidentiality clause for settlement of a disputed claim that allows one to breach the confidentiality clause, retain the settlement payment and continue to entertain other offers.
                    "Guitar groups are on their way out, Mr Epstein."

                    Upon rejecting the Beatles, Dick Rowe told Brian Epstein of the January 1, 1962 audition for Decca, which signed Brian Poole and the Tremeloes instead.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Topper View Post
                      What is the legal basis for setting aside settlement agreements with confidentiality clauses, or are these work agreements with confidentiality clauses and no work provided? I can see a difference in the two, but I can't imagine the legal precedent that has a good faith confidentiality clause for settlement of a disputed claim that allows one to breach the confidentiality clause, retain the settlement payment and continue to entertain other offers.
                      Because Trump's official position is that the affairs never happened and he didn't know about the money. Legally that means there was no agreement, right?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by BlueK View Post
                        Because Trump's official position is that the affairs never happened and he didn't know about the money. Legally that means there was no agreement, right?
                        If consideration was paid by somebody the payee has a duty to the payer. I dont lnow how one enters a confidential settlement with these cases. I am certainly bolstering my confidentiality provisons in the future.
                        "Guitar groups are on their way out, Mr Epstein."

                        Upon rejecting the Beatles, Dick Rowe told Brian Epstein of the January 1, 1962 audition for Decca, which signed Brian Poole and the Tremeloes instead.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Topper View Post
                          If consideration was paid by somebody the payee has a duty to the payer. I dont lnow how one enters a confidential settlement with these cases. I am certainly bolstering my confidentiality provisons in the future.
                          Trump says he knows nothing about the money but he's trying to get the agreement enforced for an affair that he insists never happened. I'm admittedly not a lawyer, but that makes zero sense to a normal person. If he's saying he didn't know about the money being paid then he can't claim to have an agreement. Maybe he just needs to come clean and admit the affair and the money. Can't do both.

                          But then Cohen says he paid the money, and it came from a home equity loan. If that's true there must be a loan application where he wrote that the purpose was to pay off a porn star to keep quiet about an affair his client never had, right? The only thing that isn't laughable about this story is that he probably lied on the application to say it was for something that sounded more legit so the bank would give him the money -- thus, bank fraud. And he probably did it more than once. I bet he's regretting his "I'd take a bullet for Trump" mindset right now. We'll see what happens, but it's becoming more clear by the day that things are not going to end well for Trump.
                          Last edited by BlueK; 04-20-2018, 07:50 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by BlueK View Post
                            Trump says he knows nothing about the money but he's trying to get the agreement enforced for an affair that he insists never happened. I'm admittedly not a lawyer, but that makes zero sense to a normal person. If he's saying he didn't know about the money being paid then he can't claim to have an agreement. Maybe he just needs to come clean and admit the affair and the money. Can't do both.

                            But then Cohen says he paid the money, and it came from a home equity loan. If that's true there must be a loan application where he wrote that the purpose was to pay off a porn star to keep quiet about an affair his client never had, right? The only thing that isn't laughable about this story is that he probably lied on the application to say it was for something that sounded more legit so the bank would give him the money -- thus, bank fraud. And he probably did it more than once. I bet he's regretting his "I'd take a bullet for Trump" mindset right now. We'll see what happens, but it's becoming more clear by the day that things are not going to end well for Trump.

                            You are not listening. If Cohen paid X for a settlement and it includes a confidentiality clause in normal circumstances you can’t disclose even if you want to disclose. Cohen can enforce if it weren’t a political case where rules of law don’t govern. What doesn’t make sense?
                            "Guitar groups are on their way out, Mr Epstein."

                            Upon rejecting the Beatles, Dick Rowe told Brian Epstein of the January 1, 1962 audition for Decca, which signed Brian Poole and the Tremeloes instead.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Topper View Post
                              You are not listening. If Cohen paid X for a settlement and it includes a confidentiality clause in normal circumstances you can’t disclose even if you want to disclose. Cohen can enforce if it weren’t a political case where rules of law don’t govern. What doesn’t make sense?
                              What if the funds to pay the settlement were obtained fraudulently?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by BlueK View Post
                                What if the funds to pay the settlement were obtained fraudulently?
                                A loaned against one’s house is fraudulent?

                                Let’s say for a moment that were true. That would be between the lender and the borrower not the payer and payee. You are trying to force it to get a result. That is what happens in political cases, legal principles are thrown out the window.
                                "Guitar groups are on their way out, Mr Epstein."

                                Upon rejecting the Beatles, Dick Rowe told Brian Epstein of the January 1, 1962 audition for Decca, which signed Brian Poole and the Tremeloes instead.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X