FBI raids Cohen's office, seizes Stormy Daniels documents

[James Madison]

This whole thing is iffy to me because of attourney client privilege.

Iffy was caught doing something illegal, not so much. A judge had to sign off on this, and judges are most often former attorneys and thus very aware of the ramifications of raiding a lawyer's office. This tells me that the FBI went to the judge, showed them what they had already, and the judge said "wow...okay...approved."

The judge approved the seizure of documents and other evidence. However, the seizure of documents and other evidence is not the equivalent of a judge declaring what was seized is admissible or may be used as evidence by the government.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This whole thing is iffy to me because of attourney client privilege.

Iffy was caught doing something illegal, not so much. A judge had to sign off on this, and judges are most often former attorneys and thus very aware of the ramifications of raiding a lawyer's office. This tells me that the FBI went to the judge, showed them what they had already, and the judge said "wow...okay...approved."

The judge approved the seizure of documents and other evidence. However, the seizure of documents and other evidence is not the equivalent of a judge declaring what was seized is admissible or may be used as evidence by the government.

Yes, but the signing of the warrant would seem to indicate that the Judge expects the search to find something that would likely be admissible. Certainly Cohen's lawyer (this is getting surreal) will argue it is inadmissible and some other judge will (appellate judge, appellate justices, SCOTUS?) will need to rule on that.

But the execution of the warrant by a Judge... there is something of great significant that is already known and likely to be found in the search.

 

[RVonse]

There should be no question in anyone's mind that we all are living in a police state at this point.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There should be no question in anyone's mind that we all are living in a police state at this point.

If the search was unwarranted, Cohen's lawyer will have a field day getting the evidence tossed out.

Also, you don't apparently understand what a "police state" is.

 

[James Madison]

The judge approved the seizure of documents and other evidence. However, the seizure of documents and other evidence is not the equivalent of a judge declaring what was seized is admissible or may be used as evidence by the government.

Yes, but the signing of the warrant would seem to indicate that the Judge expects the search to find something that would likely be admissible. Certainly Cohen's lawyer (this is getting surreal) will argue it is inadmissible and some other judge will (appellate judge, appellate justices, SCOTUS?) will need to rule on that.

But the execution of the warrant by a Judge, as submitted by a Trump appointee and supporter District Attorney... there is something of great significant that is already known and to be found.

Yes, but the signing of the warrant would seem to indicate that the Judge expects the search to find something that would likely be admissible.

Speculative. In addition, your claim is doubtful, in fact I will say entirely false based on my experience. The only legal consideration for a judge to sign a search warrant is whether there is probable cause to believe evidence of a crime exists and probable cause to believe the evidence is kept in a certain location. There is not any legal consideration as to whether the evidence is admissible before issuance of a search warrant by a judge.

I have written over 500 search warrants and at no time did any judge, federal or state, inquire as to the admissibility of the evidence. Why? Because the focus at this moment is not upon admissibility but whether there is probable cause to believe evidence of a crime exists and probable cause exists to believe the evidence is at some specific location.

The question of admissibility is adjudicated, if at all, at a later time.

Your speculative attestation to the contrary notwithstanding.

But the execution of the warrant by a Judge, as submitted by a Trump appointee and supporter District Attorney... there is something of great significant that is already known and to be found.

Thank you Captain Speculation. You must be directly involved with the investigation itself to possess such intimate knowledge. I am glad you are here to tell these things.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Yeah, I guess we lived in a "police state" when Monica's dress was seized. Sheeeeesh.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yes, but the signing of the warrant would seem to indicate that the Judge expects the search to find something that would likely be admissible.

Speculative.

Sure.

In addition, your claim is doubtful, in fact I will say entirely false based on my experience. The only legal consideration for a judge to sign a search warrant is whether there is probable cause to believe evidence of a crime exists and probable cause to believe the evidence is kept in a certain location. There is not any legal consideration as to whether the evidence is admissible before issuance of a search warrant by a judge.

If they weren't raiding the President's lawyer's office, I would generally agree.

I have written over 500 search warrants and at no time did any judge, federal or state, inquire as to the admissibility of the evidence.

And I'm certain you are well versed in this stuff... but you haven't tried to raid the POTUS's lawyer's office, have you?

Why? Because the focus at this moment is not upon admissibility...

Isn't the warrant obtained in part to help with the admissibility part? It isn't a guarantee, but it is one of the huge reasons the warrants is sought by investigators.

The question of admissibility is adjudicated, if at all, at a later time.

Yeah, I mentioned that. Very likely many courts could rule on it.

But the execution of the warrant by a Judge, as submitted by a Trump appointee and supporter District Attorney... there is something of great significant that is already known and to be found.

Thank you Captain Speculation. You must be directly involved with the investigation itself to possess such intimate knowledge. I am glad you are here to tell these things.

Actually this is irrelevant as it seems that Trump's appointee recused himself so it wasn't accurate statement to say he acted on it.

 

[Elixir]

There should be no question in anyone's mind that we all are living in a police state at this point.

Nah - when Cheato declares martial law, THEN we'll be living in a police state.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Yeah, I guess we lived in a "police state" when Monica's dress was seized. Sheeeeesh.

That was different because President Clinton wasn't as adept at criminal shenanigans as President Trump. If Bill Clinton were as adept, then he would have given the dress to his lawyer with words plastered all over it as part of a private communication. Then, his lawyer would have burned it and then given the remains to his own lawyer as some kind of payment and obfuscation. After that, Trump under an alias would have had the lawyer's lawyer sign an NDA which would bankrupt him if he ever took the burnt remains out of the safe in the middle of the Arctic Ocean. So, when I wrote things were kind of "iffy" I know Trump is clearly guilty of shenanigans but he seems to have put such Better Call Saul kind of obfuscation in place to protect himself. Maybe it won't work or maybe it will. I don't have enough expertise to know.

 

[James Madison]

Sure.

In addition, your claim is doubtful, in fact I will say entirely false based on my experience. The only legal consideration for a judge to sign a search warrant is whether there is probable cause to believe evidence of a crime exists and probable cause to believe the evidence is kept in a certain location. There is not any legal consideration as to whether the evidence is admissible before issuance of a search warrant by a judge.

If they weren't raiding the President's lawyer's office, I would generally agree.

I have written over 500 search warrants and at no time did any judge, federal or state, inquire as to the admissibility of the evidence.

And I'm certain you are well versed in this stuff... but you haven't tried to raid the POTUS's lawyer's office, have you?

Why? Because the focus at this moment is not upon admissibility...

Isn't the warrant obtained in part to help with the admissibility part? It isn't a guarantee, but it is one of the huge reasons the warrants is sought by investigators.

The question of admissibility is adjudicated, if at all, at a later time.

Yeah, I mentioned that. Very likely many courts could rule on it.

But the execution of the warrant by a Judge, as submitted by a Trump appointee and supporter District Attorney... there is something of great significant that is already known and to be found.

Thank you Captain Speculation. You must be directly involved with the investigation itself to possess such intimate knowledge. I am glad you are here to tell these things.

Actually this is irrelevant as it seems that Trump's appointee recused himself so it wasn't accurate statement to say he acted on it.

If they weren't raiding the President's lawyer's office, I would generally agree...you haven't tried to raid the POTUS's lawyer's office, have you?

Ya know, you are so smart, I forgot the "raiding the President's lawyer's office" for the issuance of a search warrant by a judge. Yes, I also forgot the admissibility of evidence standard for the issuance of a search warrant. I am so glad you are here to tell us these things professor. Who knew? Apparently, only you, as the rest of the legal field is entirely unaware of what you are blabbing on about.

Isn't the warrant obtained in part to help with the admissibility part?

No. A search warrant is sought for the purpose of procuring evidence. Admissibility is entirely different.

It isn't a guarantee, but it is one of the huge reasons the warrants is sought by investigators.

Wrong.

You do not know what you are talking about. You are just making a fool of yourself now.

 

[ZiprHead]

#MAGA My Attorney Got Arrested

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Ya know, you are so smart, I forgot the "raiding the President's lawyer's office" for the issuance of a search warrant by a judge. Yes, I also forgot the admissibility of evidence standard for the issuance of a search warrant. I am so glad you are here to tell us these things professor. Who knew? Apparently, only you, as the rest of the legal field is entirely unaware of what you are blabbing on about.

You had me at 'you are so smart'.

Isn't the warrant obtained in part to help with the admissibility part?

No. A search warrant is sought for the purpose of procuring evidence. Admissibility is entirely different.

I love watching someone split hairs so they can try and make a "point".

It isn't a guarantee, but it is one of the huge reasons the warrants is sought by investigators.

Wrong.

You do not know what you are talking about. You are just making a fool of yourself now.

Yes, you like saying that.

 

[James Madison]

You had me at 'you are so smart'.

No. A search warrant is sought for the purpose of procuring evidence. Admissibility is entirely different.

I love watching someone split hairs so they can try and make a "point".

It isn't a guarantee, but it is one of the huge reasons the warrants is sought by investigators.

Wrong.

You do not know what you are talking about. You are just making a fool of yourself now.

Yes, you like saying that.

My goodness Higgins. There's a difference between probable cause to issue a search warrant and whether what was seized pursuant to executing the search warrant is admissible. The two are not the same.

I love watching someone split hairs so they can try and make a "point".

The problem is your treatment of two different concepts as being the same. It's pathetic. Procuring evidence has nothing to do with whether that which was procured is admissible. A search warrant is obtained from investigators in an effort to keep it from being suppressed under the 4th Amendment. However, contrary to your attestations, a judge does not determine whether that which is sought in the search warrant is admissible in determining whether to sign the warrant but instead determines whether there is PC to issue the search warrant.

However, evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant can still be suppressed and/or inadmissible for a plethora of reasons unrelated to and having nothing to do with the issuance of the search warrant itself.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

This whole thing is iffy to me because of attourney client privilege.

Iffy was caught doing something illegal, not so much. A judge had to sign off on this, and judges are most often former attorneys and thus very aware of the ramifications of raiding a lawyer's office. This tells me that the FBI went to the judge, showed them what they had already, and the judge said "wow...okay...approved."

The judge approved the seizure of documents and other evidence. However, the seizure of documents and other evidence is not the equivalent of a judge declaring what was seized is admissible or may be used as evidence by the government.

I have no problem waiting for the documents to be reviewed and for admissibility to be argued. I’ve got plenty of popcorn.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

James Madion, what do you think of Tom Sawyer's response to what I had written?

Nonexistent when colluding in a crime.

 

[James Madison]

James Madion, what do you think of Tom Sawyer's response to what I had written?

Nonexistent when colluding in a crime.

He's correct. The attorney-client privilege cannot attach regarding communications about a crime "jointly undertaken" by attorney and client.

- - - Updated - - -

The judge approved the seizure of documents and other evidence. However, the seizure of documents and other evidence is not the equivalent of a judge declaring what was seized is admissible or may be used as evidence by the government.

I have no problem waiting for the documents to be reviewed and for admissibility to be argued. I’ve got plenty of popcorn.

Well, apparently they are admissible on the mere basis a judge signed the search warrant. After all, judges only sign search warrants if the evidence to be seized under the warrant is admissible.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

He's correct. The attorney-client privilege cannot attach regarding communications about a crime "jointly undertaken" by attorney and client.

Is that what we have here?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

He's correct. The attorney-client privilege cannot attach regarding communications about a crime "jointly undertaken" by attorney and client.

Is that what we have here?

That would depend on what the seized documents indicate.

 

[James Madison]

He's correct. The attorney-client privilege cannot attach regarding communications about a crime "jointly undertaken" by attorney and client.

Is that what we have here?

Unknown at this time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Elixir]

He's correct. The attorney-client privilege cannot attach regarding communications about a crime "jointly undertaken" by attorney and client.

Is that what we have here?

That would depend on what the seized documents indicate.

Republicans top to bottom signed off on this ... I'm fairly certain that they were certain that a crime was committed and that evidence thereof would be obtained via these searches.
Or, the fact that they're all Republicans speaks to the VAST extent of the anti-trump conspiracy.