Posted on 04/12/2018 4:59:12 AM PDT by Kaslin
In the midst of worrying about North Korea, Syria and Democrats taking control of the House of Representatives this fall, President Donald Trump is now worrying about a government assault on his own business, which targeted his own lawyer.
Michael Cohen has been the personal lawyer for Trump and for the Trump Organization -- the umbrella corporation through which Trump owns or manages nearly all entities that bear his name -- for many years. Cohen is so closely connected to the Trump Organization that one of his two law offices is located on the 26th floor of Trump Tower, just a few doors from the corner office formerly occupied by Trump himself.
On Monday, shortly before dawn, a team of FBI agents bearing a search warrant from a federal judge broke in to the offices of the Trump Organization and removed computers, files, tax returns and telephones from Cohen's office. At about the same time, three other teams of FBI agents performed raids. One was at another of Cohen's offices a few blocks away, and his vacant New York City apartment and hotel rooms he had been occupying were searched, too; and agents also seized personal and professional files and equipment from those venues.
Did the FBI lawfully break in to the headquarters of the president's family business and cart away files and equipment from his lawyer, as well as legal and financial files of the president himself? The short answer is: yes.
Here is the back story.
In October 2016, when the federal government began its investigation of alleged attempts by the Russian government to interfere with the 2016 presidential election, then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch managed the work. CARTOONS | Jerry Holbert View Cartoon
After Trump became president and Jeff Sessions became attorney general and Sessions recused himself from this investigation, the No. 2 person in the Department of Justice appointed former FBI Director Robert Mueller as special counsel in charge of the Russia investigation. The investigation in Washington is 18 months old and has been run by Mueller for about 11 months.
If a criminal investigation stumbles upon evidence of crimes substantially removed by geography or subject matter from the location and principal responsibilities of the investigation, it is the prosecutors' duty either to prosecute those crimes if feasible or to pass whatever evidence has been found on to another prosecutor closer to the place of the alleged crime.
Sometimes, keeping that evidence is a temptation too great to resist. That's because one of the techniques that prosecutors in America use to gather evidence about a crime is to indict those at the fringes of the behavior they are investigating and then attempt, by coercion and bribery, to turn those indicted individuals into cooperating witnesses. Sometimes the indicted crime is truly at the fringes, both rationally and geographically. But the targets of these fringe prosecutions are rarely attorneys who are representing a person who is a subject of the investigation.
Until now.
Though Cohen does not represent Trump in the Mueller investigation, he does represent him in nearly all other legal matters, and his files contain a treasure-trove of confidential and financial materials from and about Trump. Judges are very reluctant to sign search warrants authorizing the seizure of legal files, with two exceptions.
The first is the so-called crime/fraud exception. Under this rule, if the client is using his confidential communications with his lawyer to further an ongoing crime, fraud or tort, the communications are not privileged, and evidence of them may be seized.
The other exception is the independent criminal activity of the lawyer. That appears to be the case here. It seems that Cohen -- who claims he borrowed $130,000 from a bank to pay an adult-film actress to remain silent about her relationship to Trump, which Trump denies was sexual -- did not tell the bank from which he borrowed the funds the true purpose of the loan.
If so, that may be evidence of bank fraud on Cohen's part. If he wired those funds over interstate lines, that is evidence of wire fraud. If he used the U.S. Postal Service to facilitate a material part of the deal with the actress, that would be considered mail fraud. Each of these fraud charges carries a prison term of five years.
When FBI agents arrive for a raid, they rarely take the time to examine fully all the documents they have seized -- even if the documents are protected by the attorney-client privilege and even if the client is the president of the United States. Needless to say, there are safeguards in place to prevent the prosecutors who dispatched the agents from viewing the privileged materials.
When Mueller in Washington came upon evidence of Cohen's bank fraud in Manhattan, he passed it along to the U.S. attorney's office in Manhattan. That office -- not Mueller -- examined the evidence and obtained the search warrants for Cohen's personal and professional premises, authorized the raids of those premises and received the fruits of the raids.
What will become of Cohen? Federal prosecutors in Manhattan will now decide whether to ask a grand jury to indict him on the fraud charges, and if he is indicted, Mueller will enter the picture looking to make a deal.
Trump's lawyer was Mueller's bait.
All of this has understandably infuriated Trump. His rights as a client were violated. His attorney of many years and on many matters will soon be a defendant. Can Trump restrain himself from offering to pardon those who could harm him or firing those who are tormenting him or waging war against real or imagined enemies? Will his anger, frustration and disgust at the violation of his financial and personal privacy push him and America into what even congressional Republicans fear would be a constitutional crisis?
The potential failure of self-restraint is the real threat he now faces.
Ought to start considering logistics.
Muller has opened the door to the exact same tactics being used immediately against the Obama and Clinton foundations, and other DNC’ers.
Nothing to contradict you at all. I have had a HELOC and moved small amounts ($15,000) without any explanation but $130,000 may get you an audit.
Hey, if a Conservative is involved the Libs all think it is a crime.
That is a good question. I do not know.
p
He said He (Sessions) needs to fire him first thing tomorrow morning!
Has he fired him? NO!
Sessions is COMPLICIT. Sessions is dirty. He WAS the insurance policy.
____________________________
That would stink.
Door #1
Fire mueller and let congress try and impeach Trump for his constitutional authority to fire an underling. No crimes.
Door #2
Wait until mueller presents his laundry list of crimes, misdemeanors, and obstruction of justice to congress in which they will be compelled to impeach Trump. A fig leaf from mueller to the congress. It will be their ‘duty’ to uphold the rule of law dontcha know. This is not IF Mueller will present this report, but when. Why give congress a fig leaf to impeach President Trump?
The horns of a dilemma. This is not that hard people. Obviously, any rational person would go with door #1. If the rat bastards in congress try to impeach trump over nothing but exercising his constitutional authority, it’s GO TIME ANYWAYS.
>> you do not have to list any reason for the loan <<
You may be correct.
But on the other hand, when you arrange a wire transfer for a large sum even when the funds are completely your own, not borrowed your bank is supposed to ask you the purpose of your remittance.
(Been there, done that several times.)
So maybe when you dont provide truthful info to your bank about the purpose of your W/T, you might be committing some kinda crime.
(Really dunno, but sorta seems plausible. Or do you have contratry info?)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
the other option is to use the barak hussein bin soetoro favorite method of larceny. bribes. & kickbacks: CASH.
just like the $140 billion in unmarked bills he palletized and flew to Iran in the dark of night.
“Sessions is COMPLICIT. Sessions is dirty. He WAS the insurance policy”
Yes he was/is. This is a massive conspiracy including so called ‘republicans’ like grassley, mcscrotum, and other rinos like Preibus who pushed Sessions for the AG spot. It was orchestrated long ago to protect the swamp/hillary/obama and crooked repubikans.
Jeff ‘the rat bastard’ Sessions is the insurance policy.
I know from experience that a person's tax returns, especially those of sophisticated businesses, are a target-rich environment to probe for violations.
I say with confidence that any tax-return from any sophisticated entity, WILL CONTAIN ERRORS AND OMMISSIONS that can be used to drag the taxpayer into endless audits and tax court.
Mueller was trying to get Trump's tax returns last year via IRS Commuissioer Koskinen but Koskinen retired (forced out).
It is possible that Michael Cohen did not keep the President's tax returns. It's also possible that Michael destroyed any tax returns when Mueller was known to have been trying to get them via Koskinen.
The IRS has the tax returns but by law must keep them secret unless the taxpayer agrees to release them or there is a court order to release them.
To get a court order, Mueller would have to convince a judge there is probable cause that the tax returns reveal evidence pertinent to the ongoing criminal investigation.
Mueller's problem is he does not have a crime to go after the President's personal effects. He's a prosecutor in search of a crime unless he is allowed to interview (interrogate) the President, then it's possible he gets the President caught in a perjury trap.
>>Yes he was/is. This is a massive conspiracy including so called republicans like grassley, mcscrotum, and other rinos like Preibus who pushed Sessions for the AG spot. It was orchestrated long ago to protect the swamp/hillary/obama and crooked repubikans.
Jeff the rat bastard Sessions is the insurance policy.
********************************************************
The Global Elites and their Deep State lackeys are formidable foes, for sure. They are so arrogant, they laugh at any attempts to challenge them in any way.
I don’t know if you have noticed it, but that is the smirk that so many of them exhibit so often.
That is how confident they are that they will never be held to account. That may be true in this life, but I would not want to be them in the afterlife. We shall see who laughs last. God will NOT be mocked!!!
Oh, I am glad you found it, ELS...just sorry I couldn’t find it for ya, lol ; )
Of course. But that truth has nothing to do with the uncontested fact that Mike Cohen made a wire transfer of $130K to the Los Angeles lawyer for Stephanie Clifford.
Also, I know from direct personal experience that when you make a large W/T, the bank may ask you the purpose. If you mislead or lie to the bank, it may or may not be a felony. I just don't know.
>> moved small amounts ($15,000) without any explanation <<
Good point. “Small” amounts may be exempt from reporting.
And maybe W/T’s to foreign banks may fall under different requirements from W/T’s to domestic banks.
Or, your bank may have discretion as to whether it asks you the purpose of a W/T. But if they DO ask you and then you lie to them, you may have committed some kind of crime — even if the sum involved was fairly small.
(Inquiring minds want to know?)
Very simple. It's the legal category called malum prohibitum, as opposed to the category called malum in se.
(You can look it up.)
Believe me the attorneys bank/bankers are used to his wiring funds to clients and other law firms. If he took out a loan elsewhere, placed it in his account, he could wire the 130K to another attorney with NO questions asked. I have wired funds exceeding $40K from my primary checking on two occasions in the past five years with zero questions asked.
Yes, when I write a check for cash exceeding $9,999 they do report it.
Just dug further. It appears Cohen set up EC LLC to make the payment from. Limited Liability Corp.’s have much different status then a Corporation. Was that illegal? Shady? I think it was smart. How do you sue an LLC? I do not know.
>> he could wire the 130K to another attorney with NO questions asked <<
Not my experience. But even if the bank is not REQUIRED to ask the purpose of your W/T, they may still have the option.
And if you give them a false or misleading answer after they ask you, you may have committed a crime.
I’m not saying it’s so. Just a “maybe.”
Nonetheless, I can assure you that when my bank has asked the question, I’ve given them a truthful answer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.