Trump lawyer raid - contitutional implications ?

rant & rave, shoot da'shit, drop a link, whatever....
Forum rules
"No Flaming" rule will be loosely enforced considering nature of discussion. All other forum rules still apply.

Trump lawyer raid - contitutional implications ?

Unread postby boomersooner » Wed Apr 11, 2018 10:47 am

Dershowitz is a pollitically liberal Democrat and Felix Frankfurter professor emeritus of law at Harvard university. He is known for his fierce defense of civil rights.I personally respect his opinions at whomever his criticism might be aimed - including those with whom I share philosophy or ideology. He is currently a contributor for both Fox News and CNN. This is not the first time he has criticized the direction and tactics of the special prosecutor's investigation into the Trump administration and Russia - which seems to have gone astray, at times.

Code: Select all
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Dershowitz


"Firewalls" and "Taint Teams" Do Not Protect Fourth and Sixth Amendment Rights

by Alan M. Dershowitz

Code: Select all
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12154/donald-trump-michael-cohen
...there is always a well-known solution to every human problem—neat, plausible, and wrong.

H.L. Mencken
User avatar
boomersooner
Senior Poster
 
Posts: 2330
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 12:41 pm
Location: Oklahoma

Re: Trump lawyer raid - contitutional implications ?

Unread postby Mugwump » Wed Apr 11, 2018 10:57 pm

He conveniently leaves out one point..........that Mueller's team is after Cohen, and not Trump......and the fact that Trump denies knowledge of anything between Cohen and M's Stormy puts Mr. Cohen between a rock and a hard place. It's Mr Trump who will end up stepping on Cohen's toes as he tosses him under the bus.
User avatar
Mugwump
Senior Poster
 
Posts: 898
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 3:11 pm

Re: Trump lawyer raid - contitutional implications ?

Unread postby Mugwump » Wed Apr 11, 2018 11:44 pm

Dylan Smith
April 10 at 1:00pm ·

"I wanted to note the absurdity of Trump blaming Mueller for the search. As many others have pointed out, Muller referred the matter to the Justice Department, where they assigned the investigation to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York. That office (run by a Trump appointee) then procured the warrant—with the approval of a magistrate judge—and worked with the FBI to conduct the search. In this regard, the special counsel’s actions, and the Justice Department referral are completely unlike the Starr investigation on which I worked many years ago. There, Attorney General Janet Reno kept expanding the Starr investigation into new areas—mostly, I think, as a matter of convenience. Here, the department seems intent on cabining the Mueller investigation to the scope it was originally initiated for—and to also be willing to spin-off unrelated matters to the relevant local U.S. attorney’s office. That’s a good example of the system functioning as it should—and it certainly is no 'disgrace.'"

.......

Geoffrey Berman, the US Attorney who signed off on the Michael Cohen search warrants, is:
* a Republican
* a Sessions appointee who was personally interviewed by Trump to replace Preet Bharara who Trump fired
* a max individual donor to Trump's election campaign
* a former Rudy Giuliani law partner

The Southern District of New York got the search warrant - NOT Mueller. There is an EXTREMELY high bar to get a warrant to search an attorney's office.

..........

Cohen is suddenly in serious legal jeopardy of his own. If federal prosecutors feel they have enough on you to execute a search warrant, it’s never a good sign.

To add insult to injury, prosecutors, (Mueller is not directly involved in this case), would have needed the approval of Judge Geoffrey Berman who was appointed by Jeff Sessions just this past January--in other words, one of DJT's own approved the raid.

Approval of a search warrant suggests prosecutors were able to demonstrate not only the gravity of the potential case but also the risk that evidence might be destroyed or otherwise go missing if they pursued a less aggressive option.

Drumpf will cry "Attorney/Client Privelege," but documents related to anything Cohen did on his own (like the payment to Daniels about which Drumpf claims to know nothing) are likely not privileged if they do not contain attorney-client communications. (So there is either #1 communication between the #LiarinChief re: the $130,000--in which case Little Donny is in deep sh*t, or #2 Cohen acted on his own and his documentation is an open book--in which case Cohen is in deep sh*t.)
User avatar
Mugwump
Senior Poster
 
Posts: 898
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 3:11 pm

Re: Trump lawyer raid - contitutional implications ?

Unread postby boomersooner » Thu Apr 12, 2018 11:28 pm

Well, what you have posted may or may not be true, but it has nothing to do with the points Dershowitz is making in my post, frankly, but there is no problem - save the logical one ;) .

This is a case, though, seriously, that to me is scary - trying to induce people into committing a crime when there wasn't one to begin with.

From an interview by Sean Hannity( not necessarily my favorite Fox personality) with Dershowitz , reported on realclearpolitics:


Dershowitz Warns Trump: You Can Be Indicted For Perjury Even If You Tell Mueller The Truth
Posted By Ian Schwartz
On Date April 4, 2018

Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz warned President Trump of testifying to special counsel Robert Mueller because even if he is telling the truth he could be indicted for perjury. He said if someone else contradicts you, and they are the one lying or perjuring themselves, the prosecutor could choose to believe that person and charge you with perjury.

On Wednesday's edition of FOX News' Hannity, the legal eagle challenged Mueller to tell him what statute is violated by collusion.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ: I have to tell you if after a year of very thorough investigation and going after all the low-hanging fruit and getting people not only to sing but some of them even perhaps to compose, if they couldn't have shifted him from a subject to a target there is nothing there.

SEAN HANNITY: What, are they hoping?

DERSHOWITZ: Of course they are hoping. But I think they understand that. Now they are going into very weak issues. Collusion. I challenge Mueller to tell me what statute is violated by collusion.

There is a memo now by [Rod] Rosenstein authorizing him to investigate collusion with the Russians by Manafort. But you can't investigate sins. You can only investigate federal crimes and there is no such federal crime collusion.

HANNITY: How do they not know that?

DERSHOWITZ: They know it but they hope that by investigating collusion they'll get somebody to obstruct justice, to commit perjury, to commit one of these other peripheral crimes as they always say it's in the coverup. But it's not the coverup. It's that prosecutors induce coverups which is why innocent people shouldn't be testifying unless they absolutely have to because you can be indicted for perjury even if you tell the truth. If you say something that somebody else says differently.

HANNITY: That's a spectacular statement. You could be indicted for perjury even if you tell the truth.

DERSHOWITZ: That's right. Because if somebody contradicts you and the prosecutor believes the person contradicting you, you're indicted for perjury even though you told the truth.


Code: Select all
http://tinyurl.com/y7arfgdb


I've been conflicted about Trump from the start. But this investigation is bogus, unless they can find someone in Trump's camp who actually induced or encouraged the Russians with reciprocity to commit a criminal act on behalf of the campaign. Any so-called "collusion" othewise is not a crime and thus far there has been no evidence of that, even. Trump has called this a "witch hunt". He says a lot of unwise, even dumb things, but thus far I've seen nothing to indicated that in this particular case, he is wrong. They seem determined to pin something on someone, if for nothing more than to justify their salaries - or satisfy deep seated animosity.

I don't like special prosecutors. I think these type of investigations , going back to Bill Clinton's impeachment, are unconstitutional abuses. You should have good evidence that an actual crime was committed before you start this sort of thing and the scope should be limited. Ken Starr didn't start out investigating Bill Clinton's White House sex life, remember. It was supposed to be about the "Whitewater scandal". I thought that mess was a mistake by the special prosecutor and by the Republicans . Leave it to the tabloids. It went way beyond the main purpose of the investigation.
...there is always a well-known solution to every human problem—neat, plausible, and wrong.

H.L. Mencken
User avatar
boomersooner
Senior Poster
 
Posts: 2330
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 12:41 pm
Location: Oklahoma

Re: Trump lawyer raid - contitutional implications ?

Unread postby Mugwump » Fri Apr 13, 2018 10:25 am

Dershowitz Warns Trump: You Can Be Indicted For Perjury Even If You Tell Mueller The Truth


...DOH.....exactly...he's been lying almost the whole time....Dershwitz can't use innuendo to try and explain any reason for Trump not to comply.....fact is...he's damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't.....I seriously doubt if even Trump remembers which lies he's told..?.....he just flips them out as necessary, I guess....
User avatar
Mugwump
Senior Poster
 
Posts: 898
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 3:11 pm


Return to da'Lounge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests



All material submitted is sole responsibility of the original uploader.

Contact BeerFarts Public Relations Department at:
beerfarts2@protonmail.com

2009 - 2018 © All Rights Reserved- BeerFarts, LLC