- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Question for the Lawyers
Posted on 4/9/18 at 6:43 pm to IrishTiger89
Posted on 4/9/18 at 6:43 pm to IrishTiger89
0
Posted on 4/9/18 at 6:53 pm to CorporateTiger
Yes but crime has to identified in warrant. What crime is muller pursuing in raiding Cohens offices. Pure witch hunt looking for any kind of angle. This is treason against a sitting president perpetrated by deep state. Period
Posted on 4/9/18 at 6:55 pm to Humanelement
quote:
Yes but crime has to identified in warrant. What crime is muller pursuing in raiding Cohens offices.
FEC regulations, bank fraud, wire fraud. I thought that was covered on page 1.
Posted on 4/9/18 at 6:55 pm to Humanelement
quote:
Yes but crime has to identified in warrant. What crime is muller pursuing in raiding Cohens offices. Pure witch hunt looking for any kind of angle. This is treason against a sitting president perpetrated by deep state. Period
FEC Violations, Money Laundering, Bank Fraud???
Seriously dude?
This post was edited on 4/9/18 at 6:58 pm
Posted on 4/9/18 at 6:58 pm to Humanelement
quote:
Yes but crime has to identified in warrant. What crime is muller pursuing in raiding Cohens offices. Pure witch hunt looking for any kind of angle. This is treason against a sitting president perpetrated by deep state. Period
No, a crime doesn't have to be listed on the warrant. That's not the purpose of a warrant.
An affidavit presents evidence that a warrant could collect MORE evidence and then the warrant simply outlines what may be searched and seized and from where.
A warrant would never list a crime, because that would limit any evidence in that warrant to being used ONLY in an investigation of that specific crime.
A warrant merely lists the target of the warrant. the address authorized , any limits on what may be searched for , and other such guidelines.
Posted on 4/9/18 at 6:58 pm to AUstar
quote:
Question I have is what CRIME are they pursuing?
Total fishing expedition. This whole SC bullshite was designed to find SOMETHING, ANYTHING. Just think, at one point they were looking for the KGB rigging the election. Now they’re down to a donation violation that no one would ordinarily care about.
This post was edited on 4/9/18 at 7:08 pm
Posted on 4/9/18 at 7:01 pm to biglego
quote:
Total fishing expedition. This while SC bull shite was designed to find SOMETHING, ANYTHING. Just think, at one point they were looking for the KGB rigging the election. Now they’re down to a donation violation that no one would ordinarily care about.
You cannot honestly admit that a $130k payment to a porn star two weeks before the election doesn't look fishy as hell.
Posted on 4/9/18 at 7:04 pm to IrishTiger89
Cohen also handled this exactly wrong from a PR perspective.
Posted on 4/9/18 at 7:05 pm to IrishTiger89
quote:
You cannot honestly admit that a $130k payment to a porn star two weeks before the election doesn't look fishy as hell.
It's $130K bro, yeah for sure that justifies this investigation.
Posted on 4/9/18 at 7:06 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:
Pretty rare, but not everything in a lawyer's office is covered by attorney client privilege.
Would other clients have a case because their files were taken? Does the FBI have the right to read other clients personal information?
Posted on 4/9/18 at 7:07 pm to AUstar
quote:
Question I have is what CRIME are they pursuing? Paying off a porn star in a mutual agreement is not a crime. There is no evidence any campaign funds were used.
Exactly. That what establishes it as a fishing expedition.
Posted on 4/9/18 at 7:09 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:
It's being reported that they are investigating FEC violations and bank fraud.
How did they get there from "Russian collusion"?
Posted on 4/9/18 at 7:09 pm to TrueTiger
quote:
NONE of them DID do it for Hillary's lawyers.
FIFY.
Posted on 4/9/18 at 7:11 pm to IrishTiger89
quote:
You cannot honestly admit that a $130k payment to a porn star two weeks before the election doesn't look fishy as hell.
Yeah, it looks like hush money to a porn Star.
I just can’t bring myself to think this is important in any way. And no, I didn’t think Clinton should’ve been impeached either. All nonsense I
Posted on 4/9/18 at 7:11 pm to Dale51
quote:
Would other clients have a case because their files were taken? Does the FBI have the right to read other clients personal information?
well in this case Trump is the ONLY client. But let's explain the process.
When you collect information via a warrant that may include material that is covered by attorney client privelege then that material must go through a cleaning process as it is known that separates material the investigative team shouldn't be able to see.
Now here's the funny thing, in the email investigation, Hillary's own lawyers were allowed to decide which files on her computer were protected by attorney client privilege, that's not normal. In normal circumstances either a separate team of investigators or a federal magistrate will go through the material and decide what is and what is not to be made available to investigators.
Posted on 4/9/18 at 7:11 pm to Dale51
quote:
How did they get there from "Russian collusion"?
This isn't being handled by Mueller. It is a known fact that Stormy Daniels was paid $130k in hush money 2 weeks before the election.
Posted on 4/9/18 at 7:12 pm to CorporateTiger
quote:
FEC regulations, bank fraud, wire fraud. I thought that was covered on page 1.
By the lawyer..not Trump?
Posted on 4/9/18 at 7:12 pm to IrishTiger89
quote:
You cannot honestly admit that a $130k payment to a porn star two weeks before the election doesn't look fishy as hell.
So does paying a British spy to use his Russian contacts to gather phony opposition research on a candidate, fail to report said expenditures to the FEC and lie about it for over a year.
This post was edited on 4/9/18 at 7:14 pm
Posted on 4/9/18 at 7:13 pm to Dale51
quote:
By the lawyer..not Trump?
Correct.
Posted on 4/9/18 at 7:13 pm to SCLibertarian
quote:
So does paying British spy to use his Russian contacts to gather phony opposition research on a candidate, fail to report said expenditures to the FEC and lie about it for over a year.
Correct
Page 2 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News