The only thing worse...
 

....than having your office raided by the FBI is having your lawyer’s office
raided by the FBI. :)

--
Posted with my iPhone 8+.

The only thing worse...
 

Keyser Söze

....than having your office raided by the FBI is having your lawyer’s office
raided by the FBI. :)

--
Posted with my iP
..........

Sounds like you’re speaking from experience.🤔😉

The only thing worse...
 

On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 08:58:22 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:


...than having your office raided by the FBI is having your lawyer’s office
raided by the FBI. :)

It is interesting that if this was anyone but Trump you liberals would
be screaming to high heaven about lawyer client privilege.
What's next? Bugging the therapist's office?
The DoJ is clearly out of control ... again.

The only thing worse...
 

Tim wrote:
Keyser Söze

...than having your office raided by the FBI is having your lawyer’s office
raided by the FBI. :)


Nope. :)

--
Posted with my iPhone 8+.

The only thing worse...
 

wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 08:58:22 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:


...than having your office raided by the FBI is having your lawyer’s office
raided by the FBI. :)

It is interesting that if this was anyone but Trump you liberals would
be screaming to high heaven about lawyer client privilege.
What's next? Bugging the therapist's office?
The DoJ is clearly out of control ... again.



Apparently lawyer Cohen was not producing the requested documents. There’s
no privilege in a case where the lawyer is part of the criminal enterprise,
I believe.

--
Posted with my iPhone 8+.

The only thing worse...
 

Keyser Söze
Tim wrote:
Keyser Söze

...than having your office raided by the FBI is having your lawyer’s office
raided by the FBI. :)


Nope. :)

--
Posted with my iPhone 8+

?

The only thing worse...
 

On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 09:30:55 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 08:58:22 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:


...than having your office raided by the FBI is having your lawyer’s office
raided by the FBI. :)

It is interesting that if this was anyone but Trump you liberals would
be screaming to high heaven about lawyer client privilege.
What's next? Bugging the therapist's office?
The DoJ is clearly out of control ... again.



Apparently lawyer Cohen was not producing the requested documents. There’s
no privilege in a case where the lawyer is part of the criminal enterprise,
I believe.

It is still troubling. If they can't make the case linking Cohen and
Trump in a "criminal enterprise" it will just be another black eye for
the FBI.

The only thing worse...
 

On 4/10/18 9:55 AM, Tim wrote:
Keyser Söze
Tim wrote:
Keyser Söze

...than having your office raided by the FBI is having your lawyer’s office
raided by the FBI. :)


Nope. :)



The way you sometimes handle your posts, your response doesn't show up
in a normal usenet reader.

The only thing worse...
 

On 4/10/18 10:33 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/10/18 9:55 AM, Tim wrote:
Keyser Söze
Tim wrote:
Keyser Söze

...than having your office raided by the FBI is having your lawyer’s
office
raided by the FBI.Â* :)


Nope. :)



The way you sometimes handle your posts, your response doesn't show up
in a normal usenet reader.


The dashes you use tell a usenet client to ignore what comes after.

The only thing worse...
 

On 4/10/18 8:58 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:

...than having your office raided by the FBI is having your lawyer’s office
raided by the FBI. :)



From The Washington Post:

We also know that a search warrant, unlike a grand jury subpoena,
requires prosecutors to go before a federal judge to demonstrate
probable cause that a crime has been committed and evidence of that
crime can be found in the premises to be searched. Before approving a
search of a lawyer’s office, a judge would want to be satisfied that
there was some substance behind the prosecutors’ allegations. This is
not just some prosecutorial fishing expedition; it bears the imprimatur
of a federal judge.

This was not just any search warrant; that the raid took place at a
lawyer’s office further highlights the seriousness of the investigation.
Searches of an attorney’s office are extremely rare and are not favored,
due to their potential to impinge on the attorney-client relationship.
Prosecutors must jump through multiple hoops to get such a warrant
approved, both within their own office and at the criminal division of
Main Justice. (Notably, this would likely have included approval by
Trump’s own guy, the new interim U.S. attorney for the Southern
District, Geoffrey S. Berman, who was just appointed by Attorney General
Jeff Sessions this past January.)

Prosecutors are also required to consider less intrusive alternatives to
a search warrant, such as a subpoena, if practical. 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.

Cohen, and perhaps the president, will likely argue that this raid
violates the attorney-client privilege. Indeed, on Monday evening, Trump
said it was “a disgrace what’s going on.� In a search like this,
prosecutors typically set up a privilege team or “taint team� of
investigators not involved in the case to review potentially privileged
documents and shield those from the team actually involved in the
prosecution. There is an exception to the attorney-client privilege if
communications to an attorney are used in furtherance of a crime or
fraud; that could come into play here as well. And documents related to
anything Cohen did on his own — after all, Trump has denied knowing
about the payment to Daniels — are likely not privileged if they do not
contain attorney-client communications. Documents are not automatically
privileged simply because they passed through an attorney’s hands.

The only thing worse...
 

Keyser Soze
On 4/10/18 9:55 AM, Tim wrote:
Keyser Söze
Tim wrote:
Keyser Söze

...than having your office raided by the FBI is having your lawyer’s office
raided by the FBI. :)


Nope. :)



The way you sometimes handle your posts, your response doesn't show up
in a normal usenet reader.

..................

Well so far yours haven’t, twice

The only thing worse...
 

On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 10:34:49 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 4/10/18 10:33 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/10/18 9:55 AM, Tim wrote:
Keyser Söze
Tim wrote:
Keyser Söze

...than having your office raided by the FBI is having your lawyer’s
office
raided by the FBI.Â* :)


Nope. :)



The way you sometimes handle your posts, your response doesn't show up
in a normal usenet reader.


The dashes you use tell a usenet client to ignore what comes after.

.... and you don't know how to get around that? Is it ignorance or just
laziness ;-)

The only thing worse...
 

On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 10:42:16 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 4/10/18 8:58 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:

...than having your office raided by the FBI is having your lawyer’s office
raided by the FBI. :)



From The Washington Post:

We also know that a search warrant, unlike a grand jury subpoena,
requires prosecutors to go before a federal judge to demonstrate
probable cause that a crime has been committed and evidence of that
crime can be found in the premises to be searched. Before approving a
search of a lawyer’s office, a judge would want to be satisfied that
there was some substance behind the prosecutors’ allegations. This is
not just some prosecutorial fishing expedition; it bears the imprimatur
of a federal judge.

This was not just any search warrant; that the raid took place at a
lawyer’s office further highlights the seriousness of the investigation.
Searches of an attorney’s office are extremely rare and are not favored,
due to their potential to impinge on the attorney-client relationship.
Prosecutors must jump through multiple hoops to get such a warrant
approved, both within their own office and at the criminal division of
Main Justice. (Notably, this would likely have included approval by
Trump’s own guy, the new interim U.S. attorney for the Southern
District, Geoffrey S. Berman, who was just appointed by Attorney General
Jeff Sessions this past January.)

Prosecutors are also required to consider less intrusive alternatives to
a search warrant, such as a subpoena, if practical. 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.

Cohen, and perhaps the president, will likely argue that this raid
violates the attorney-client privilege. Indeed, on Monday evening, Trump
said it was “a disgrace what’s going on.� In a search like this,
prosecutors typically set up a privilege team or “taint team� of
investigators not involved in the case to review potentially privileged
documents and shield those from the team actually involved in the
prosecution. There is an exception to the attorney-client privilege if
communications to an attorney are used in furtherance of a crime or
fraud; that could come into play here as well. And documents related to
anything Cohen did on his own — after all, Trump has denied knowing
about the payment to Daniels — are likely not privileged if they do not
contain attorney-client communications. Documents are not automatically
privileged simply because they passed through an attorney’s hands.

That is beautiful rhetoric but the reality is the US attorney knows
which judges will rubber stamp any warrant they seek.
As I said, if this actually bears fruit and it survives in court it
may be seen as OK but if they fall on their ass, it will be seen as
another abuse of the process.

Where are the Russians again?
It certainly looks like a fishing expedition to me.

I understand if Cohen comes out of this with a parking ticket, you
will claim victory. So will Mueller.

The only thing worse...
 

On 4/10/18 11:18 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 10:34:49 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 4/10/18 10:33 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/10/18 9:55 AM, Tim wrote:
Keyser Söze
Tim wrote:
Keyser Söze

...than having your office raided by the FBI is having your lawyer’s
office
raided by the FBI.Â* :)


Nope. :)



The way you sometimes handle your posts, your response doesn't show up
in a normal usenet reader.


The dashes you use tell a usenet client to ignore what comes after.

... and you don't know how to get around that? Is it ignorance or just
laziness ;-)



My usenet client ignores those responses from Tim. I don't care enough
to see if there is a solution on my end.

The only thing worse...
 

On 4/10/18 11:24 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 10:42:16 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 4/10/18 8:58 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:

...than having your office raided by the FBI is having your lawyer’s office
raided by the FBI. :)



From The Washington Post:

We also know that a search warrant, unlike a grand jury subpoena,
requires prosecutors to go before a federal judge to demonstrate
probable cause that a crime has been committed and evidence of that
crime can be found in the premises to be searched. Before approving a
search of a lawyer’s office, a judge would want to be satisfied that
there was some substance behind the prosecutors’ allegations. This is
not just some prosecutorial fishing expedition; it bears the imprimatur
of a federal judge.

This was not just any search warrant; that the raid took place at a
lawyer’s office further highlights the seriousness of the investigation.
Searches of an attorney’s office are extremely rare and are not favored,
due to their potential to impinge on the attorney-client relationship.
Prosecutors must jump through multiple hoops to get such a warrant
approved, both within their own office and at the criminal division of
Main Justice. (Notably, this would likely have included approval by
Trump’s own guy, the new interim U.S. attorney for the Southern
District, Geoffrey S. Berman, who was just appointed by Attorney General
Jeff Sessions this past January.)

Prosecutors are also required to consider less intrusive alternatives to
a search warrant, such as a subpoena, if practical. 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.

Cohen, and perhaps the president, will likely argue that this raid
violates the attorney-client privilege. Indeed, on Monday evening, Trump
said it was “a disgrace what’s going on.� In a search like this,
prosecutors typically set up a privilege team or “taint team� of
investigators not involved in the case to review potentially privileged
documents and shield those from the team actually involved in the
prosecution. There is an exception to the attorney-client privilege if
communications to an attorney are used in furtherance of a crime or
fraud; that could come into play here as well. And documents related to
anything Cohen did on his own — after all, Trump has denied knowing
about the payment to Daniels — are likely not privileged if they do not
contain attorney-client communications. Documents are not automatically
privileged simply because they passed through an attorney’s hands.

That is beautiful rhetoric but the reality is the US attorney knows
which judges will rubber stamp any warrant they seek.
As I said, if this actually bears fruit and it survives in court it
may be seen as OK but if they fall on their ass, it will be seen as
another abuse of the process.

Where are the Russians again?
It certainly looks like a fishing expedition to me.

I understand if Cohen comes out of this with a parking ticket, you
will claim victory. So will Mueller.



Federal judges do not have a reputation for rubber stamping warrants.
Oh, and the U.S. attorney in question in New York is...a Trump appointee.

The only thing worse...
 

On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 08:07:33 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

Keyser Soze
On 4/10/18 9:55 AM, Tim wrote:
Keyser Söze
Tim wrote:
Keyser Söze

...than having your office raided by the FBI is having your lawyer’s office
raided by the FBI. :)


Nope. :)



The way you sometimes handle your posts, your response doesn't show up
in a normal usenet reader.

.................

Well so far yours haven’t, twice

This is just a Google Groups thing but it seems to baffle Harry.

The only thing worse...
 

On 4/10/18 11:59 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 08:07:33 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

Keyser Soze
On 4/10/18 9:55 AM, Tim wrote:
Keyser Söze
Tim wrote:
Keyser Söze

...than having your office raided by the FBI is having your lawyer’s office
raided by the FBI. :)


Nope. :)



The way you sometimes handle your posts, your response doesn't show up
in a normal usenet reader.

.................

Well so far yours haven’t, twice

This is just a Google Groups thing but it seems to baffle Harry.

I don't use google groups and I have no interest in learning about it.

The only thing worse...
 

On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 11:45:36 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 4/10/18 11:24 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 10:42:16 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 4/10/18 8:58 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:

...than having your office raided by the FBI is having your lawyer’s office
raided by the FBI. :)



From The Washington Post:

We also know that a search warrant, unlike a grand jury subpoena,
requires prosecutors to go before a federal judge to demonstrate
probable cause that a crime has been committed and evidence of that
crime can be found in the premises to be searched. Before approving a
search of a lawyer’s office, a judge would want to be satisfied that
there was some substance behind the prosecutors’ allegations. This is
not just some prosecutorial fishing expedition; it bears the imprimatur
of a federal judge.

This was not just any search warrant; that the raid took place at a
lawyer’s office further highlights the seriousness of the investigation.
Searches of an attorney’s office are extremely rare and are not favored,
due to their potential to impinge on the attorney-client relationship.
Prosecutors must jump through multiple hoops to get such a warrant
approved, both within their own office and at the criminal division of
Main Justice. (Notably, this would likely have included approval by
Trump’s own guy, the new interim U.S. attorney for the Southern
District, Geoffrey S. Berman, who was just appointed by Attorney General
Jeff Sessions this past January.)

Prosecutors are also required to consider less intrusive alternatives to
a search warrant, such as a subpoena, if practical. 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.

Cohen, and perhaps the president, will likely argue that this raid
violates the attorney-client privilege. Indeed, on Monday evening, Trump
said it was “a disgrace what’s going on.� In a search like this,
prosecutors typically set up a privilege team or “taint team� of
investigators not involved in the case to review potentially privileged
documents and shield those from the team actually involved in the
prosecution. There is an exception to the attorney-client privilege if
communications to an attorney are used in furtherance of a crime or
fraud; that could come into play here as well. And documents related to
anything Cohen did on his own — after all, Trump has denied knowing
about the payment to Daniels — are likely not privileged if they do not
contain attorney-client communications. Documents are not automatically
privileged simply because they passed through an attorney’s hands.

That is beautiful rhetoric but the reality is the US attorney knows
which judges will rubber stamp any warrant they seek.
As I said, if this actually bears fruit and it survives in court it
may be seen as OK but if they fall on their ass, it will be seen as
another abuse of the process.

Where are the Russians again?
It certainly looks like a fishing expedition to me.

I understand if Cohen comes out of this with a parking ticket, you
will claim victory. So will Mueller.



Federal judges do not have a reputation for rubber stamping warrants.

Maybe they should

Oh, and the U.S. attorney in question in New York is...a Trump appointee.

and you said all of his appointments were bad ;-)

The only thing worse...
 

wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 11:45:36 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 4/10/18 11:24 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 10:42:16 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 4/10/18 8:58 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:

...than having your office raided by the FBI is having your lawyer’s office
raided by the FBI. :)



From The Washington Post:

We also know that a search warrant, unlike a grand jury subpoena,
requires prosecutors to go before a federal judge to demonstrate
probable cause that a crime has been committed and evidence of that
crime can be found in the premises to be searched. Before approving a
search of a lawyer’s office, a judge would want to be satisfied that
there was some substance behind the prosecutors’ allegations. This is
not just some prosecutorial fishing expedition; it bears the imprimatur
of a federal judge.

This was not just any search warrant; that the raid took place at a
lawyer’s office further highlights the seriousness of the investigation.
Searches of an attorney’s office are extremely rare and are not favored,
due to their potential to impinge on the attorney-client relationship.
Prosecutors must jump through multiple hoops to get such a warrant
approved, both within their own office and at the criminal division of
Main Justice. (Notably, this would likely have included approval by
Trump’s own guy, the new interim U.S. attorney for the Southern
District, Geoffrey S. Berman, who was just appointed by Attorney General
Jeff Sessions this past January.)

Prosecutors are also required to consider less intrusive alternatives to
a search warrant, such as a subpoena, if practical. 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.

Cohen, and perhaps the president, will likely argue that this raid
violates the attorney-client privilege. Indeed, on Monday evening, Trump
said it was “a disgrace what’s going on.� In a search like this,
prosecutors typically set up a privilege team or “taint team� of
investigators not involved in the case to review potentially privileged
documents and shield those from the team actually involved in the
prosecution. There is an exception to the attorney-client privilege if
communications to an attorney are used in furtherance of a crime or
fraud; that could come into play here as well. And documents related to
anything Cohen did on his own — after all, Trump has denied knowing
about the payment to Daniels — are likely not privileged if they do not
contain attorney-client communications. Documents are not automatically
privileged simply because they passed through an attorney’s hands.

That is beautiful rhetoric but the reality is the US attorney knows
which judges will rubber stamp any warrant they seek.
As I said, if this actually bears fruit and it survives in court it
may be seen as OK but if they fall on their ass, it will be seen as
another abuse of the process.

Where are the Russians again?
It certainly looks like a fishing expedition to me.

I understand if Cohen comes out of this with a parking ticket, you
will claim victory. So will Mueller.



Federal judges do not have a reputation for rubber stamping warrants.

Maybe they should

Oh, and the U.S. attorney in question in New York is...a Trump appointee.

and you said all of his appointments were bad ;-)


Chris Christie, that paragon of virtue, says he is a “boy scout.� I assume
that is a compliment.

--
Posted with my iPhone 8+.

The only thing worse...
 

10:59
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 08:07:33 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:
- show quoted text -
This is just a Google Groups thing but it seems to baffle Harry.
:;::::::::::: the

Evidently so, Greg.

The only thing worse...
 

Keyser Söze Wrote in message:
wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 08:58:22 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:


...than having your office raided by the FBI is having your lawyer?s office
raided by the FBI. :)

It is interesting that if this was anyone but Trump you liberals would
be screaming to high heaven about lawyer client privilege.
What's next? Bugging the therapist's office?
The DoJ is clearly out of control ... again.



Apparently lawyer Cohen was not producing the requested documents. There?s
no privilege in a case where the lawyer is part of the criminal enterprise,
I believe.

--
Posted with my iPhone 8+.


What criminal enterprise?
--
x


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

The only thing worse...
 

justan
Keyser Söze Wrote in message:
wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 08:58:22 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:


...than having your office raided by the FBI is having your lawyer?s office
raided by the FBI. :)

It is interesting that if this was anyone but Trump you liberals would
be screaming to high heaven about lawyer client privilege.
What's next? Bugging the therapist's office?
The DoJ is clearly out of control ... again.



Apparently lawyer Cohen was not producing the requested documents. There?s
no privilege in a case where the lawyer is part of the criminal enterprise,
I believe.

--
Posted with my iPhone 8+.


What criminal enterprise?
--
x


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

:::::::::


So far there is none. Only in Harry’s wishful thinking.

The only thing worse...
 

On 4/10/18 1:49 PM, Tim wrote:
justan
Keyser Söze Wrote in message:
wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 08:58:22 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:


...than having your office raided by the FBI is having your lawyer?s office
raided by the FBI. :)

It is interesting that if this was anyone but Trump you liberals would
be screaming to high heaven about lawyer client privilege.
What's next? Bugging the therapist's office?
The DoJ is clearly out of control ... again.



Apparently lawyer Cohen was not producing the requested documents. There?s
no privilege in a case where the lawyer is part of the criminal enterprise,
I believe.

--
Posted with my iPhone 8+.


What criminal enterprise?


No surprise you fellas are in the dark regarding the many criminal
enterprises of Trump and Son and Sons.

The only thing worse...
 

On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 10:42:16 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 4/10/18 8:58 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:

...than having your office raided by the FBI is having your lawyer’s office
raided by the FBI. :)



From The Washington Post:

We also know that a search warrant, unlike a grand jury subpoena,
requires prosecutors to go before a federal judge to demonstrate
probable cause that a crime has been committed and evidence of that
crime can be found in the premises to be searched. Before approving a
search of a lawyer’s office, a judge would want to be satisfied that
there was some substance behind the prosecutors’ allegations. This is
not just some prosecutorial fishing expedition; it bears the imprimatur
of a federal judge.


So it all depends on which judge is chosen, eh Krause?

The only thing worse...
 

On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 12:28:51 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 11:45:36 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 4/10/18 11:24 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 10:42:16 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 4/10/18 8:58 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:

...than having your office raided by the FBI is having your lawyer’s office
raided by the FBI. :)



From The Washington Post:

We also know that a search warrant, unlike a grand jury subpoena,
requires prosecutors to go before a federal judge to demonstrate
probable cause that a crime has been committed and evidence of that
crime can be found in the premises to be searched. Before approving a
search of a lawyer’s office, a judge would want to be satisfied that
there was some substance behind the prosecutors’ allegations. This is
not just some prosecutorial fishing expedition; it bears the imprimatur
of a federal judge.

This was not just any search warrant; that the raid took place at a
lawyer’s office further highlights the seriousness of the investigation.
Searches of an attorney’s office are extremely rare and are not favored,
due to their potential to impinge on the attorney-client relationship.
Prosecutors must jump through multiple hoops to get such a warrant
approved, both within their own office and at the criminal division of
Main Justice. (Notably, this would likely have included approval by
Trump’s own guy, the new interim U.S. attorney for the Southern
District, Geoffrey S. Berman, who was just appointed by Attorney General
Jeff Sessions this past January.)

Prosecutors are also required to consider less intrusive alternatives to
a search warrant, such as a subpoena, if practical. 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.

Cohen, and perhaps the president, will likely argue that this raid
violates the attorney-client privilege. Indeed, on Monday evening, Trump
said it was “a disgrace what’s going on.� In a search like this,
prosecutors typically set up a privilege team or “taint team� of
investigators not involved in the case to review potentially privileged
documents and shield those from the team actually involved in the
prosecution. There is an exception to the attorney-client privilege if
communications to an attorney are used in furtherance of a crime or
fraud; that could come into play here as well. And documents related to
anything Cohen did on his own — after all, Trump has denied knowing
about the payment to Daniels — are likely not privileged if they do not
contain attorney-client communications. Documents are not automatically
privileged simply because they passed through an attorney’s hands.

That is beautiful rhetoric but the reality is the US attorney knows
which judges will rubber stamp any warrant they seek.
As I said, if this actually bears fruit and it survives in court it
may be seen as OK but if they fall on their ass, it will be seen as
another abuse of the process.

Where are the Russians again?
It certainly looks like a fishing expedition to me.

I understand if Cohen comes out of this with a parking ticket, you
will claim victory. So will Mueller.



Federal judges do not have a reputation for rubber stamping warrants.

Maybe they should

Oh, and the U.S. attorney in question in New York is...a Trump appointee.

and you said all of his appointments were bad ;-)


Chris Christie, that paragon of virtue, says he is a “boy scout.� I assume
that is a compliment.

As much as you may not like Christie, he was a pretty good prosecutor
and his opinion is probably sound.

The only thing worse...
 

On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 12:07:51 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 4/10/18 11:59 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 08:07:33 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

Keyser Soze
On 4/10/18 9:55 AM, Tim wrote:
Keyser Söze
Tim wrote:
Keyser Söze

...than having your office raided by the FBI is having your lawyer’s office
raided by the FBI. :)


Nope. :)



The way you sometimes handle your posts, your response doesn't show up
in a normal usenet reader.

.................

Well so far yours haven’t, twice

This is just a Google Groups thing but it seems to baffle Harry.

I don't use google groups and I have no interest in learning about it.

It is just one more thing in a vast list of things you have no
interest in learning about. Maybe you really needed the structure of
college to get you to learn anything.
I am not a fan of Google in any context but that doesn't mean I don't
know anything about them. Unfortunately I don't know as much about
them as they know about me ... or you.

The only thing worse...
 

On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 13:56:14 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

No surprise you fellas are in the dark regarding the many criminal
enterprises of Trump and Son and Sons.

None of them seem to be about the allegations of election collusion
with the Russians and that is what Mueller was supposed to be
investigating. What in the hell does a 12 year old one night stand
with a prostitute have to do with anything? (even if it was a
"freebie")

The only thing worse...
 

On 4/11/2018 7:06 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 13:56:14 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

No surprise you fellas are in the dark regarding the many criminal
enterprises of Trump and Son and Sons.

None of them seem to be about the allegations of election collusion
with the Russians and that is what Mueller was supposed to be
investigating. What in the hell does a 12 year old one night stand
with a prostitute have to do with anything? (even if it was a
"freebie")


Are you again suggesting that if in the course of investigating one set of
allegations, evidence of other crimes are discovered, those other crimes
should be ignored?

And, again, it isn’t the sex...it’s the coverups and the possible
violations of laws right before an election. Try to keep up, eh?



A "payoff" to go away isn't illegal.

If there's a violation of a campaign law, i.e. using campaign funds
to make the payoff ... that's a possible violation, although a minor one.

BTW ... With regard to the Russian oligarch who you recently pointed out
made a $150K donation to the Trump campaign ... you neglected to point
out that the same Russian oligarch made a $25 million donation to the
Clinton Foundation while Hillary was Sec of State.

The only thing worse...
 

On 4/11/2018 7:06 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 12:07:51 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 4/10/18 11:59 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 08:07:33 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

Keyser Soze
On 4/10/18 9:55 AM, Tim wrote:
Keyser Söze
Tim wrote:
Keyser Söze

...than having your office raided by the FBI is having your lawyer’s office
raided by the FBI. :)


Nope. :)



The way you sometimes handle your posts, your response doesn't show up
in a normal usenet reader.

.................

Well so far yours haven’t, twice

This is just a Google Groups thing but it seems to baffle Harry.

I don't use google groups and I have no interest in learning about it.

It is just one more thing in a vast list of things you have no
interest in learning about. Maybe you really needed the structure of
college to get you to learn anything.
I am not a fan of Google in any context but that doesn't mean I don't
know anything about them. Unfortunately I don't know as much about
them as they know about me ... or you.



I have no interest in Google Groups in Usenet


You just expressed interest.

The only thing worse...
 

On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 12:56:17 PM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/10/18 1:49 PM, Tim wrote:
justan
Keyser Söze Wrote in message:
wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 08:58:22 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:


...than having your office raided by the FBI is having your lawyer?s office
raided by the FBI. :)

It is interesting that if this was anyone but Trump you liberals would
be screaming to high heaven about lawyer client privilege.
What's next? Bugging the therapist's office?
The DoJ is clearly out of control ... again.



Apparently lawyer Cohen was not producing the requested documents. There?s
no privilege in a case where the lawyer is part of the criminal enterprise,
I believe.

--
Posted with my iPhone 8+.


What criminal enterprise?


No surprise you fellas are in the dark regarding the many criminal
enterprises of Trump and Son and Sons.

Enlighten us on all the trump family convictions, then.

The only thing worse...
 

On 4/11/2018 7:54 AM, Tim wrote:
On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 12:56:17 PM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/10/18 1:49 PM, Tim wrote:
justan
Keyser Söze Wrote in message:
wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 08:58:22 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:


...than having your office raided by the FBI is having your lawyer?s office
raided by the FBI. :)

It is interesting that if this was anyone but Trump you liberals would
be screaming to high heaven about lawyer client privilege.
What's next? Bugging the therapist's office?
The DoJ is clearly out of control ... again.



Apparently lawyer Cohen was not producing the requested documents. There?s
no privilege in a case where the lawyer is part of the criminal enterprise,
I believe.

--
Posted with my iPhone 8+.


What criminal enterprise?


No surprise you fellas are in the dark regarding the many criminal
enterprises of Trump and Son and Sons.

Enlighten us on all the trump family convictions, then.



I've read of a few civil litigation issues that Trump's enterprises have
been charged with (and lost in some cases) but I've never heard of
a criminal conviction.

The only thing worse...
 

On Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 6:52:22 AM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/11/2018 7:06 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 13:56:14 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

No surprise you fellas are in the dark regarding the many criminal
enterprises of Trump and Son and Sons.

None of them seem to be about the allegations of election collusion
with the Russians and that is what Mueller was supposed to be
investigating. What in the hell does a 12 year old one night stand
with a prostitute have to do with anything? (even if it was a
"freebie")


Are you again suggesting that if in the course of investigating one set of
allegations, evidence of other crimes are discovered, those other crimes
should be ignored?

And, again, it isn’t the sex...it’s the coverups and the possible
violations of laws right before an election. Try to keep up, eh?



A "payoff" to go away isn't illegal.

If there's a violation of a campaign law, i.e. using campaign funds
to make the payoff ... that's a possible violation, although a minor one.

BTW ... With regard to the Russian oligarch who you recently pointed out
made a $150K donation to the Trump campaign ... you neglected to point
out that the same Russian oligarch made a $25 million donation to the
Clinton Foundation while Hillary was Sec of State.

WOAH!

The only thing worse...
 

On 4/11/2018 7:59 AM, Tim wrote:
On Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 6:52:22 AM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/11/2018 7:06 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 13:56:14 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

No surprise you fellas are in the dark regarding the many criminal
enterprises of Trump and Son and Sons.

None of them seem to be about the allegations of election collusion
with the Russians and that is what Mueller was supposed to be
investigating. What in the hell does a 12 year old one night stand
with a prostitute have to do with anything? (even if it was a
"freebie")


Are you again suggesting that if in the course of investigating one set of
allegations, evidence of other crimes are discovered, those other crimes
should be ignored?

And, again, it isn’t the sex...it’s the coverups and the possible
violations of laws right before an election. Try to keep up, eh?



A "payoff" to go away isn't illegal.

If there's a violation of a campaign law, i.e. using campaign funds
to make the payoff ... that's a possible violation, although a minor one.

BTW ... With regard to the Russian oligarch who you recently pointed out
made a $150K donation to the Trump campaign ... you neglected to point
out that the same Russian oligarch made a $25 million donation to the
Clinton Foundation while Hillary was Sec of State.

WOAH!



No kidding. Putting political party bias aside for a moment and just
looking at the issue of "fairness" the accusations made regarding
Trump's past pale in comparison to those of Hillary's. If a special
prosecutor was ever appointed to investigate her activities in public
office and as a candidate for POTUS, the investigation team would have a
field day finding evidence of criminal corruption.

I have a hunch that many political IOUs are being called as due to
prevent that from ever happening.

The only thing worse...
 

Tim Wrote in message:
On Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 6:52:22 AM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/11/2018 7:06 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 13:56:14 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

No surprise you fellas are in the dark regarding the many criminal
enterprises of Trump and Son and Sons.

None of them seem to be about the allegations of election collusion
with the Russians and that is what Mueller was supposed to be
investigating. What in the hell does a 12 year old one night stand
with a prostitute have to do with anything? (even if it was a
"freebie")


Are you again suggesting that if in the course of investigating one set of
allegations, evidence of other crimes are discovered, those other crimes
should be ignored?

And, again, it isn?t the sex...it?s the coverups and the possible
violations of laws right before an election. Try to keep up, eh?



A "payoff" to go away isn't illegal.

If there's a violation of a campaign law, i.e. using campaign funds
to make the payoff ... that's a possible violation, although a minor one.

BTW ... With regard to the Russian oligarch who you recently pointed out
made a $150K donation to the Trump campaign ... you neglected to point
out that the same Russian oligarch made a $25 million donation to the
Clinton Foundation while Hillary was Sec of State.

WOAH!


When Fat Harry thinks he's revealing something significant, it is
worthwhile to peel the onion back a little further. Fat Harry is
a lazy ****. He fails to do any research before he jumps on the
destroy Trump bandwagon. Not only that, he lies about everything.
I guess he can't help himself. He was raised by a boat salesman
and a political functuary.
--
x


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

The only thing worse...
 

Tim Wrote in message:
On Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 12:56:17 PM UTC-5, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/10/18 1:49 PM, Tim wrote:
justan
Keyser Söze Wrote in message:
wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 08:58:22 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:


...than having your office raided by the FBI is having your lawyer?s office
raided by the FBI. :)

It is interesting that if this was anyone but Trump you liberals would
be screaming to high heaven about lawyer client privilege.
What's next? Bugging the therapist's office?
The DoJ is clearly out of control ... again.



Apparently lawyer Cohen was not producing the requested documents. There?s
no privilege in a case where the lawyer is part of the criminal enterprise,
I believe.

--
Posted with my iPhone 8+.


What criminal enterprise?


No surprise you fellas are in the dark regarding the many criminal
enterprises of Trump and Son and Sons.

Enlighten us on all the trump family convictions, then.


You expect a dim bulb like Fat Harry to enlighten us?
--
x


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

The only thing worse...
 

7:53 AMjustan
Tim Wrote in message:
- show quoted text -
You expect a dim bulb like Fat Harry to enlighten us?
- show quoted text -

-/—/—//——-

Well, I do admit it was a gamble and yes, I took a long shot...

The only thing worse...
 

8:14 AMMr. Luddite
- show quoted text -
I don't care if they lock her up. In fact, if she just went away in
retirement I'd be satisfied.

I do care about fairness in the justice system however. It's only fair
that her past be made as public as Trump's if she is going to continue
to make excuses for her loss and accuse everyone as being to blame
except herself. She's a devious and dishonest person.

//::::::

I’d agree. She and the whole DNC for that matter...

The only thing worse...
 

On Wed, 11 Apr 2018 04:59:27 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

On Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 6:52:22 AM UTC-5, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/11/2018 7:06 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 13:56:14 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

No surprise you fellas are in the dark regarding the many criminal
enterprises of Trump and Son and Sons.

None of them seem to be about the allegations of election collusion
with the Russians and that is what Mueller was supposed to be
investigating. What in the hell does a 12 year old one night stand
with a prostitute have to do with anything? (even if it was a
"freebie")


Are you again suggesting that if in the course of investigating one set of
allegations, evidence of other crimes are discovered, those other crimes
should be ignored?

And, again, it isn’t the sex...it’s the coverups and the possible
violations of laws right before an election. Try to keep up, eh?



A "payoff" to go away isn't illegal.

If there's a violation of a campaign law, i.e. using campaign funds
to make the payoff ... that's a possible violation, although a minor one.

BTW ... With regard to the Russian oligarch who you recently pointed out
made a $150K donation to the Trump campaign ... you neglected to point
out that the same Russian oligarch made a $25 million donation to the
Clinton Foundation while Hillary was Sec of State.

WOAH!

The Clintons were awash in foreign money while Hillary was SoS.
Her presidency would have brought out a far bigger investigation than
the one we have now but nobody really cares that much about chasing a
washed up old grandmother ... as long as she stays gone.
I am sure that is why we don't see her much these days.
I also doubt she will be doing much campaigning this summer. It would
only work in the deep blue states that are going to elect a democrat
anyway. If she goes into a swing state she might cause more harm than
good for the democrat. (much like Bill)

The only thing worse...
 

On 4/11/18 11:01 AM, wrote:
On 11 Apr 2018 11:06:00 GMT, Keyser Soze wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 13:56:14 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

No surprise you fellas are in the dark regarding the many criminal
enterprises of Trump and Son and Sons.

None of them seem to be about the allegations of election collusion
with the Russians and that is what Mueller was supposed to be
investigating. What in the hell does a 12 year old one night stand
with a prostitute have to do with anything? (even if it was a
"freebie")


Are you again suggesting that if in the course of investigating one set of
allegations, evidence of other crimes are discovered, those other crimes
should be ignored?

As I said a fishing expedition.

And, again, it isn’t the sex...it’s the coverups and the possible
violations of laws right before an election. Try to keep up, eh?

That is a pretty thin beef. All Cohen has to say is, IF there was any
political motivation at all, it was to help the GOP as a whole (house
seats, senate seats etc.) There is no limit to what you can contribute
to a party or a cause. Just look at the millions Steyer is spending
right now to help democrats.
If he wants to screw stormy in the legal sense, he just presses
blackmail charges. Most people are going to be less than forthcoming
in a blackmail case since they have to reveal the object of the
blackmail that they were paying to hide.


Oh...I forgot, you went to law school, too. :) There's just no end to
your expertise...

The only thing worse...
 

The Clintons were awash in foreign money while Hillary was SoS.
Her presidency would have brought out a far bigger investigation than
the one we have now but nobody really cares that much about chasing a
washed up old grandmother ... as long as she stays gone.
I am sure that is why we don't see her much these days.
I also doubt she will be doing much campaigning this summer. It would
only work in the deep blue states that are going to elect a democrat
anyway. If she goes into a swing state she might cause more harm than
good for the democrat. (much like Bill)

,,,,,,,,

Greg, I think she needs to stay home and take better care of herself. Too many pics of her stumbling runn Nag around to avoid noticing she has physical problems.