Trump's lawyer gets raided

[Droshki]

What is the process for pleading guilty in a federal criminal case?

Although the terms of a plea agreement will vary from case to case, federal plea agreements will generally contain at least the following provisions:

A list of the charges that the defendant will plead guilty to, and, if applicable, the charges that will be dismissed by the prosecution;
A statement about the factual basis for the plea, which typically incorporates a separate “Statement of Facts” signed by the defendant. The “Statement of Facts” constitutes a written admission by the defendant about key facts that prove his or her guilt;
One or more paragraphs setting forth the defendant’s Sentencing Guidelines calculations, including the applicability of specific enhancements or departure provisions;
A statement that the Court is not bound by the parties’ guidelines calculations, and can sentence the defendant above, below, or within the guidelines;
A list of trial rights that the defendant will waive by pleading guilty (including, for example, the right to confront witnesses, have an attorney, etc.); and
An appeal waiver provision that provides that the defendant will lose the right to appeal his or her sentence except under specific circumstances.

 

[Droshki]

Since you are not going to believe anyone, it is futile to continue this interchange. However, maybe you should read what a true constitutional lawyer of great repute has to say about this whole matter. Have a great day.

Dershowitz responded by saying there had been "no probable cause" of crimes committed by Trump and that meant a special counsel was not necessary.

"First of all, the president is 100 percent right. There never should have been an appointment of special counsel and there was no probable cause that crimes were committed," said Dershowitz. "I’ve seen no credible evidence that crimes were committed by the president."

"The investigation should never have begun. The question is how does he deal with it. He’s playing good cop, bad cop. He has some lawyers cooperating and some attacking Mueller because he wants to be ready to attack in the event there are recommendations that are negative to the president."

The Harvard law professor emeritus went on to describe the Mueller investigation as a "legal colonoscopy" that is looking at "every conceivable aspect" of Trump's business life.

"Who knows how many people can survive that kind of an inquiry," Dershowitz said. "I think on the public things being the Russia thing and obstruction of justice these are safe grounds, but on the material of his business dealings there’s no way to know."

So youre of the belief that Dershowitz has access to all of Mueller's work product and the evidence from all the related search warrants, and therefore able to render such an opinion? Because it just sounds like an uninformed opinion to me otherwise. What factual basis is he basing his opinion on? Has he conducted an investigation and interviewed witnesses, and reviewed relevant evidence to arrive at this opinion? Did he do this alone, or with a team of investigators?

Wasn't the special counsel appointed by a republican deputy attorney general, appointed by Trump himself? Because the republican attorney general also appointed by Trump had to recuse himself for lying to congress about meeting with Russians?

 

[Droshki]

"First of all, the president is 100 percent right. There never should have been an appointment of special counsel and there was no probable cause that crimes were committed," said Dershowitz. "I’ve seen no credible evidence that crimes were committed by the president."

So why doesn't Trump just fire Rosenstein for doing it, if it was wrong?

he wants to be ready to attack in the event there are recommendations that are negative to the president.

Shouldn't he just want the truth to come out, nothing more, nothing less??

 

[Droshki]

Wait, sorry, I just noticed this:

"Who knows how many people can survive that kind of an inquiry," Dershowitz said. "I think on the public things being the Russia thing and obstruction of justice these are safe grounds, but on the material of his business dealings there’s no way to know."

Are you saying that its quite possible that Trump's business dealings included some criminal activity, and you're going with the Manafort defense of "Yea, I probably broke some laws, but you shouldn't have been looking there, and so you shouldn't have been able to catch me"? Because Manafort just tried that with his judge, and he basically got laughed out of court.

What kinda crimes are we talking about here? Tax fraud maybe? Because Trump, you know seems awfully fidgety about his tax returns. Maybe its tax fraud. I'm going with tax fraud.

 

[Jeb21]

Trump brought this on himself when he fired Comey. Which, just to remind folks, Trump admitted he did it because of the Russia investigation that Comey was leading. He made this admission live during an interview. Then a day or so later, when Trump was hosting a "Russian only allowed" meeting at the White House (no kidding) he told the Russian Ambassador that by firing Comey Trump had taken a great deal of pressure off of himself. The two men then celebrated by having Trump disclose to Russia top secret information about events in Syria. Information that had been provided to us by our allies. Russia thanked Trump by having Russian "mercenaries" attack US troops in Syria. By last count over a hundred of these "mercenaries" were killed.

As you might expect our President did nothing in response to this massive attack by the Russians on an American base.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...war-mercenaries-deir-ezzor-isis-a8268691.html
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...killed-hundreds-of-russians-in-massive-battle

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-spies-sergei-lavrov-kislyak-us-a8071086.html

 

[Jeb21]

As for Alan D. He has made a good living representing guilty men for example:

Claus von Bülow (1984)
Further information: Reversal of Fortune
Dershowitz represented Claus von Bülow, a British socialite, at his appeal for the attempted murder of his wife, Sunny von Bülow, who went into a coma in Newport, Rhode Island, in 1980 (and later died in 2008). He had the conviction overturned, and von Bülow was acquitted in a retrial.[25] Dershowitz told the story of the case in his book, Reversal of Fortune: Inside the von Bülow case (1985), which was turned into a movie in 1990. Dershowitz was played by actor Ron Silver, and Dershowitz himself had a cameo role as a judge.

O. J. Simpson (1995)
In the O. J. Simpson murder case, Dershowitz acted as an appellate adviser to O. J. Simpson's defense team during the trial, and later wrote a book about it, Reasonable Doubts: The Criminal Justice System and the O. J. Simpson Case (1996). He wrote: "the Simpson case will not be remembered in the next century. It will not rank as one of the trials of the century. It will not rank with the Nuremberg trials, the Rosenberg trial, Sacco and Vanzetti. It is on par with Leopold and Loeb and the Lindbergh case, all involving celebrities. It is also not one of the most important cases of my own career. I would rank it somewhere in the middle in terms of interest and importance."[29] The case has been described as the most publicized criminal trial in American history.[30]

Jeffrey Epstein (2006)
Dershowitz provided legal assistance to millionaire Jeffrey Epstein, who was investigated following accusations that he had repeatedly solicited sex from minors. Dershowitz investigated some of Epstein's accusers and provided both the police and the State attorney’s office with a dossier containing information about plaintiffs' behavior, which had been obtained from their personal MySpace pages, including allegations of alcohol and drug use. Epstein eventually pleaded guilty in 2008 to a single state charge of soliciting prostitution and began serving an 18-month sentence.[31][32]

Having Dershowitz on your side is akin to pleading the 5th -i.e. pretty sure you did something wrong.

 

[Droshki]

Meanwhile at his rally the other night, Trump apparently decided to say that the Russian agent who Donald Jr. was told was a Russian agent before he met with her wasn't actually a Russian agent when she met with Donald Jr. but is now lying about being a Russian agent then because she's a Russian agent now and Putin wants to push the Russian Collusion Fake News because Trump is too tough on Russia:

 

[Droshki]

The thing is that the argument that Russia intentionally set traps of secret meetings with his campaign as kompromat isn't completely out of the realm of possibility. The problem is that Trump denied/actively promoted skepticism of Russian involvement with the DNC hacking, kept actively pushing for a thawing of relations with Russia, and attempted to hide these meetings from authorities to the point where if the campaign really was innocent they did exactly all the wrong things to avoid the appearance of impropriety up to this point.

 

[Jeb21]

Meanwhile at his rally the other night, Trump apparently decided to say that the Russian agent who Donald Jr. was told was a Russian agent before he met with her wasn't actually a Russian agent when she met with Donald Jr. but is now lying about being a Russian agent then because she's a Russian agent now and Putin wants to push the Russian Collusion Fake News because Trump is too tough on Russia:

The logic is mind boggling.

 

[Jeb21]

The thing is that the argument that Russia intentionally set traps of secret meetings with his campaign as kompromat isn't completely out of the realm of possibility. The problem is that Trump denied/actively promoted skepticism of Russian involvement with the DNC hacking, kept actively pushing for a thawing of relations with Russia, and attempted to hide these meetings from authorities to the point where if the campaign really was innocent they did exactly all the wrong things to avoid the appearance of impropriety up to this point.

And openly called for Russia to hack Clinton's account to find the "missing emails".

 

[Droshki]

But let's get back to the topic, Cohen, for a moment.

In addition to being Trump's "personal" lawyer, Cohen has also served as an EVP of foreign development in The Trump Organization. So, looking at funds coming in through... say... Ukrainian businesses or banks, that would not have been performed as a lawyer but as an executive for The Trump Organization. In this case, attorney-client privilege would not apply as Cohen is not an attorney for The Trump Organization.

Pretty sure I know the answer here, but is this normal? A personal attorney acting as an executive for a business owned by his client?

Or is having your personal lawyer also acting as an executive in your business a lame attempt to hide shady dealings behind attorney client privilege?

 

[Stagman]

 

[Jerry]

My rant.
Why wouldn't Hillary Clinton deserve the same scrutiny? Yes, I know this is about Trump. But no one wants to delve into the pay to play antics of Hillarys side deals and the bogus Foundation.
This is arm-chair lawyering when no one has seen or heard what, if anything Mueller actually has, is in effect the same argument you guys throw up to the other side. There has been no proof Trump did anything wrong or outside the law at all.
Its all speculation at this point. I think we need to wait for the Special Counsel's report, if he ever gets through with his decidedly political journey through republicans lives. I am not aware of any spin off investigations involving Democrats where actual crimes may have been committed. Maybe I need to watch CNN and MSNBC to get my facts, oh wait, they don't report or investigate negative information on Democrats. My bad.
Yep, they got the General after they ruined him. Unless you're a billionaire you can't fight the US Government. He didn't do as much as Hammering iPhone Hillary Bleach Bit minions private server in the bathroom with classified information Clinton. They didn't
t even raid her Lawyers office! They didn't pull her out of the shower and search her home, they didn't search her computers because she destroyed the evidence after being told to hand them over. But I firmly believe Trump is the guilty party?
Ill be better only after we see equal justice under the LAW and it ain't gonna happen.
So, prosecute, I mean persecute Trump for something you don't know about, but hope he did.
Having said that, what was the actual crime that triggered the investigation in the first place. If no crime, why was the investigation started without cause? Just the facts, and please, without the partisan spin.
On another front, how many Dems could survive this kind of meddling into their lives? Could you?
This seems to me to be a "I don't like him and he isn't my President" investigation that is an attempt to drown his administration and completely stall his Presidency. Obama, Hillary, Holder, Airport Bill, the IRS, Rice, Emmanuel, and the rest couldn't survive a mean spirited inquiry into their lives by hack republicans with special council authority.
Its all a Washington game/blood sport. Everybody in Washington owns a closet.

 

[Jeb21]

But let's get back to the topic, Cohen, for a moment.

In addition to being Trump's "personal" lawyer, Cohen has also served as an EVP of foreign development in The Trump Organization. So, looking at funds coming in through... say... Ukrainian businesses or banks, that would not have been performed as a lawyer but as an executive for The Trump Organization. In this case, attorney-client privilege would not apply as Cohen is not an attorney for The Trump Organization.

Pretty sure I know the answer here, but is this normal? A personal attorney acting as an executive for a business owned by his client?

Or is having your personal lawyer also acting as an executive in your business a lame attempt to hide shady dealings behind attorney client privilege?

It is a bit unusual but there are a lot of folks with law degrees who act more like business men than lawyers. I think Cohen is one such man. As for the attorney client priv issue. Trump and Cohen are simply tying to stretch that privilege for all its worth.

 

[Jeb21]

This seems to me to be a "I don't like him and he isn't my President" investigation that is an attempt to drown his administration and completely stall his Presidency. Obama, Hillary, Holder, Airport Bill, the IRS, Rice, Emmanuel, and the rest couldn't survive a mean spirited inquiry into their lives by hack republicans with special council authority.
Its all a Washington game/blood sport. Everybody in Washington owns a closet.

I don't think this is a fishing expedition or a "witch hunt" We know that Gate, Flynn and two other Trump campaign folks have entered a guilty plea. Manifort is in serious trouble and is going to trial in a month or so. Cohen is a hot mess who is simply out of league. He will be charged soon. Eric Prince has been caught lying to congress about his "chance" meeting with a Russian billionaire on a remote island halfway across the world. Jared Kushner was caught trying to set up back door channels with Russian using their embassy. The June Meeting at Trump tower with all of the Russian national and one Russian government informant was bad but the cover up - orchestrated by Trump - was much worse (it led to one White House Staffer leaving -Hope Hick - and the White House Counsel threatening to resign). Every single intelligence agency whether Obama appointees or Trump appointee have stated that Russia tried to interfere with our elections in order to benefit Trump or hurt Clinton or both. The multiple payments to is former mistresses on the eve of the election represents possible violations of the election finance laws. Don't even get me started on Carter Page. Trumps refusal to release his tax returns - probably because of the amount of money he owes to Russian controlled banks.

Look, I agree that everyone has skeletons in their closet, but Trump's closet if so full that the extra skeletons are out and about and roaming the city. No digging or prying needed. Trump are Russia are so intertwined it is hard to see where one ends and the other begins. When Trump scratches, the itch is Russian.

The nice thing about Mueller is he is a non-partisan-no nonsense prosecutor who will find out how much is real and how much is fake news.

 

[Droshki]

My rant.
Why wouldn't Hillary Clinton deserve the same scrutiny? Yes, I know this is about Trump. But no one wants to delve into the pay to play antics of Hillarys side deals and the bogus Foundation.
This is arm-chair lawyering when no one has seen or heard what, if anything Mueller actually has, is in effect the same argument you guys throw up to the other side. There has been no proof Trump did anything wrong or outside the law at all.
Its all speculation at this point. I think we need to wait for the Special Counsel's report, if he ever gets through with his decidedly political journey through republicans lives. I am not aware of any spin off investigations involving Democrats where actual crimes may have been committed. Maybe I need to watch CNN and MSNBC to get my facts, oh wait, they don't report or investigate negative information on Democrats. My bad.
Yep, they got the General after they ruined him. Unless you're a billionaire you can't fight the US Government. He didn't do as much as Hammering iPhone Hillary Bleach Bit minions private server in the bathroom with classified information Clinton. They didn't
t even raid her Lawyers office! They didn't pull her out of the shower and search her home, they didn't search her computers because she destroyed the evidence after being told to hand them over. But I firmly believe Trump is the guilty party?
Ill be better only after we see equal justice under the LAW and it ain't gonna happen.
So, prosecute, I mean persecute Trump for something you don't know about, but hope he did.
Having said that, what was the actual crime that triggered the investigation in the first place. If no crime, why was the investigation started without cause? Just the facts, and please, without the partisan spin.
On another front, how many Dems could survive this kind of meddling into their lives? Could you?
This seems to me to be a "I don't like him and he isn't my President" investigation that is an attempt to drown his administration and completely stall his Presidency. Obama, Hillary, Holder, Airport Bill, the IRS, Rice, Emmanuel, and the rest couldn't survive a mean spirited inquiry into their lives by hack republicans with special council authority.
Its all a Washington game/blood sport. Everybody in Washington owns a closet.

Well, the topic here is not Hillary, and there are people on the forum that sometimes show up and scream about topic changes they don't personally approve of, however in an effort to not be like that, I will offer you this for your efforts:


Jeff Sessions admits there is not enough evidence for the FBI to investigate Hillary Clinton

Attorney General Jeff Sessions has said there is insufficient basis to launch a special investigation of Hillary Clinton - dashing the hopes of Republicans who believe she should face the same scrutiny as Donald Trump and his administration.

Earlier this week, it was reported Mr Sessions was considering appointing a special counsel to examine Ms Clinton's use of a private email server, various accusations levelled at the Clinton Foundation and the sale of uranium to Russia in 2010 when she was secretary of state. Many believed Mr Sessions was responding to Mr Trump, who had angrily told a radio interviewer it was "very discouraging to me" the Department of Justice was not "going after Hillary Clinton."

But appearing before the House Judiciary Committee, Mr Sessions appeared to pour cold water on the idea of establishing such a probe, saying he did not believe there was a sufficient basis for doing so.

Mr Sessions was pressed by Republican congressman Jim Jordan from Ohio, who demanded to know "what it would take to get a special counsel".

"It would take a factual basis that meets the standards of the appointment of a special counsel," Mr Sessions replied.

And that's from the Republican attorney general, who was appointed by the Republican President of the United States. So maybe we have found the problem?

 

[Droshki]

Oops.

Trump campaign has paid portions of Michael Cohen's legal fees: Sources

The Trump campaign has spent nearly $228,000 to cover some of the legal expenses for President Donald Trump’s personal attorney Michael Cohen, sources familiar with the payments tell ABC News, raising questions about whether the Trump campaign may have violated campaign finance laws.

Federal Election Commission records show three payments made from the Trump campaign to a firm representing Cohen. The “legal consulting” payments were made to McDermott Will and Emery — a law firm where Cohen's attorney Stephen Ryan is a partner — between October 2017 and January 2018.

Cohen has said that he did not have a formal role in the Trump campaign, and it is illegal to spend campaign funds for personal use – defined by the FEC as payments for expenses “that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s campaign or responsibilities as a federal officeholder.”

 

[Jeb21]

.. . . . and another skeleton leaves Trump's closet and run around central park bone naked.

The one fact that makes me think that Trump did not collude with Russia is the man's total incompetence. Trump cannot get out of his own way. He is the master of the self inflicted wound.

 

[Droshki]

While some people are wondering why the investigation is taking so long, I'm wondering how it will ever end.

 

[Droshki]

Here's another interesting point I came across WRT the analogy to the John Edwards case:

Here's the thing: the key to Edward's acquittal is that the payments were made AFTER he dropped out of the race, so his lawyers were able to convince a jury they weren't really CAMPAIGN-related so much as "trying to spare the feelings of his dying wife".

Trump DIDN'T drop out, and, in fact, he won. That argument is unavailable to him