Page 7 of 16 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 152
Thanks Tree130Thanks

Thread: FBI may have seized recorded conversations from

  1. #61
    Franken-Stein DemoKKKrats excalibur's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    10,025
    Thanks
    3281

    From
    The Milky Way
    Quote Originally Posted by Dangermouse View Post
    It's not illegal and arrangements have been made for different teams to assess any material found for relevance to the case or otherwise. If the sifting should turn up a crime, what then?


    It is a vile act as they could have subpoenaed records they were seeking. Further, as already posted, the team they assemble to view this material is all government employees, or can you say conflicts of interest.

    The records need to be sealed and at minimum a special master appointed from outside the government to go over the material. This has been done in previous cases.

  2. #62
    Veteran Member Dragonfly5's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2007
    Posts
    16,001
    Thanks
    12654

    From
    Houston, Texas
    Quote Originally Posted by excalibur View Post
    Seizing lawyer-client privileged information is vile. They are in court now fighting this illicit action. At minimum a special master needs to be appointed to go over the seized material, this has occurred in other similar cases in the past, who is from outside the government. The special team assembled in such cases to go over such seized material are merely people who work for the FBI/DoJ.
    Nope, nothing vile, they had a warrant.

    If this were Hillary Clinton, you would be as happy as can be.

  3. #63
    Franken-Stein DemoKKKrats excalibur's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    10,025
    Thanks
    3281

    From
    The Milky Way
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    The court determines what is privileged, which is an application of the rules of evidence. A lawyer does not get to use lawyer-client privilege to cover up his own wrongdoing.


    Source law?

    The court relies strongly on a government team, which team has conflicts of interest.

    The privilege belongs to the client, as you pointed to in a recent post.

  4. #64
    Veteran Member Eve1's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    18,415
    Thanks
    12535

    From
    My own world
    Quote Originally Posted by Crusher View Post
    That is called a FISHING EXPEDITION. They purposely went down roads that weren't in the mandate.
    No fishing needed. Warrants by judges are not issued to go fishing. A judge was given evidence that gave rise to probable cause that material evidence would go missing with advance notice to the subject of the warrant. There already had to be evidence of a crime been commited.

    By the way reports are coming out that none of Cohen's work the last few years is considered legal work. Hard to claim client/attorney privilege if no legal work is done or legal advice given. Just because Cohen has a legal license doesn't mean he can claim privilege if the work isn't of a legal nature. Making business deals (not having a story published in exchange for cash without your supposed clients consent or knowledge)is not the job a lawyer but a fixer. Calling news sources to spin a story your way is not the job of a lawyer. You can hire a lawyer to do it but your conversations are not privileged.
    Last edited by Eve1; 13th April 2018 at 01:27 PM.
    Thanks from Madeline

  5. #65
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    58,535
    Thanks
    28624

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by excalibur View Post
    ... they could have subpoenaed records they were seeking.
    Not necessarily. If the judge is satisfied the target of the warrant might well destroy or otherwise conceal the evidence, then a subpoena would not result in obtaining the information. Furthermore, the attorney would be required to resist the subpoena, at least in the initial instance, pending an order of the court, and appeals alone could extend the matter for years - giving the attorney more time to "misplace" the information. Finally, if the information sought concerns evidence of wrongdoing by the lawyer, then he cannot be required to turn it over, but it can be seized. Hence the validity of the warrant.
    Thanks from Friday13 and Madeline

  6. #66
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    58,535
    Thanks
    28624

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by excalibur View Post
    The court relies strongly on a government team, which team has conflicts of interest.
    There is no conflict of interest.

    Quote Originally Posted by excalibur View Post
    The privilege belongs to the client, as you pointed to in a recent post.
    But it does not belong to the attorney, and it cannot be used to cover up illegal acts by the attorney and the client together with each other.

    Oh, and you did not answer the question:

    Quote Originally Posted by excalibur View Post
    At minimum a special master needs to be appointed to go over the seized material, this has occurred in other similar cases in the past, who is from outside the government.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    Source law?
    Thanks from Friday13 and Madeline

  7. #67
    Franken-Stein DemoKKKrats excalibur's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    10,025
    Thanks
    3281

    From
    The Milky Way

  8. #68
    Veteran Member Eve1's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    18,415
    Thanks
    12535

    From
    My own world
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    There is no conflict of interest.


    But it does not belong to the attorney, and it cannot be used to cover up illegal acts by the attorney and the client together with each other.

    Oh, and you did not answer the question:
    Alan Dershowitz is saying that is the way the law should be and is in the process of trying to convince Legislators to change the existing law. That is all well and good but at the moment they need only a taint team which has been assigned in the Cohen case to review all the evidence gathered. **It doesn't stop Trump's lawyer or Cohen's from petititioning the court to get a judge assigned to do the vetting but as far as we know neither has not done so.

    Trump has terrible lawyers but that is his own fault. Trump has a long history of ignoring legal advice and then not paying his lawyers or at least not paying them what was agreed to before the start of the legal work.I wouldn't work for the guy either.

    **I stand corrected it seems that Trump has found at least one lawyer who knows what she is doing as she is asking for time to put together a brief to ask for that very thing.

    The judge also heard from a new lawyer for Trump, Joanna Hendon, who said the president had "an acute interest" in the case. Hendon, who said Trump hired her on Wednesday evening, urged Wood not to decide who gets first shot to review seized documents until after she files a brief by Sunday night.

    "I'm not trying to delay anything but nor do I see a particular rush," Hendon said.

    In Friday's filing, prosecutors accused Cohen's lawyers of making the "unprecedented" claim that they should decide which documents are privileged, or else leave the decision to a court-appointed special master.

    https://www.compuserve.com/news/stor...13/KBN1HK1VX_6
    Last edited by Eve1; 13th April 2018 at 01:53 PM.
    Thanks from Friday13

  9. #69
    Franken-Stein DemoKKKrats excalibur's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    10,025
    Thanks
    3281

    From
    The Milky Way
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    There is no conflict of interest.

    They most certainly are. The 'taint team' is made up of governmnet people, they are conflicted.


    But it does not belong to the attorney, and it cannot be used to cover up illegal acts by the attorney and the client together with each other.

    Who argued otherwise here?


    Oh, and you did not answer the question:


    I am not here to do legal research for you.

  10. #70
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    58,535
    Thanks
    28624

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by excalibur View Post
    They most certainly are. The 'taint team' is made up of governmnet people, they are conflicted.
    Merely being employed by the government does not create a conflict of interest. What, specifically, is the conflict you are claiming?

    Quote Originally Posted by excalibur View Post
    I am not here to do legal research for you.
    You made a claim that:

    Quote Originally Posted by excalibur View Post
    At minimum a special master needs to be appointed to go over the seized material, this has occurred in other similar cases in the past, who is from outside the government.
    What is the source of your claim? If you know, then you would not be "do[ing] my legal research for me," because you would have already done it. If you do not know, then there is no basis for your claim to begin with and there is no research necesssary.
    Thanks from OldGaffer

Page 7 of 16 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Our National Conversations
    By Friday13 in forum Political Humor
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 1st July 2015, 08:35 PM
  2. Big Brother's FBI can record your phone conversations....
    By Taylor2012 in forum Current Events
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 4th August 2013, 04:01 PM
  3. Rahm Emanuel, how many conversations?
    By justoneman in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 86
    Last Post: 1st January 2009, 04:39 PM
  4. Flowers Putting Clinton Phone Conversations Up For Bid
    By Coolio in forum Current Events
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 4th March 2008, 06:27 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed