Nothing good ever happens after the FBI raids your lawyer’s office

And folks trust me on this because I once worked a criminal defense matter where the accused lawyer was raided along with the accused and they had the ‘privilege’ of answering major criminal charges together.

F.B.I. Raids Office of Trump’s Longtime Lawyer Michael Cohen ~ Matt Apuzzo

The F.B.I. on Monday raided the office of President Trump’s longtime personal lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, seizing records related to several topics including payments to a pornographic-film actress.

Federal prosecutors in Manhattan obtained the search warrant after receiving a referral from the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III….

Speaking of privilege, how does this impact the Attorney-Client variety? Apuzzo ends his story with this:

The seized records include communications between Mr. Trump and Mr. Cohen, which would likely require a special team of agents to review because conversations between lawyers and clients are protected from scrutiny in most instances.

The taint team sounds good but under these circumstances my experience is Attorney Client privilege may well be moot in this situation depending on the circumstances:

The crime-fraud exception cannot be used to pierce the attorney work-product privilege without the required showing that the work product was actually used in furtherance of the purported crime or fraud. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit clarified that, without more, even compelling evidence of a crime or fraud is insufficient to invoke the exception.

And that Stormy Daniels mess that Trump now finds himself? Beyond being a heathen that grabs the pussies of ladies he finds attractive, there is a problem with being a serial liar and Trump is certainly that, always concocting a story to fit the moment. Harry Litman, former US Attorney explains:

[Stormy Daniels] legal position, in brief, is that the agreement was never formed because the parties never actually came to an agreement. It’s an unusual argument that would normally seem to be a dead loser because few lawyers fail to stitch up the basic requirements of a fairly simple contract such as this one. But it turns out that Mr. Trump and his lawyer Michael Cohen — who himself now has to have a lawyer to represent him in the matter — have blundered their way into giving the argument a strong prospect.

First, Mr. Cohen insisted, through his own lawyer, that the president was never aware of the agreement and that Mr. Cohen acted wholly on his own. Then, speaking briefly to reporters on Air Force One last Thursday, Mr. Trump, echoing Mr. Cohen, said that he knew nothing about the arrangement. In saying so, he walked directly into the buzz saw of the legal position of Ms. Daniels and her attorney, Michael Avenatti.

The hush agreement identified Mr. Trump as a party and required him to do a number of things. But since he insists he didn’t know about the agreement, there’s no way he could have entered into it. Moreover, Mr. Trump’s avowed cluelessness implies that Mr. Cohen induced Ms. Daniels to sign the agreement through fraud — a lie about Mr. Trump’s performance of reciprocal obligations. Both of these circumstances invalidate the hush agreement’s very formation under basic contract law principles.

In a motion filed on Sunday in federal court in California, Mr. Avenatti seized on Mr. Trump’s asserted ignorance to bolster the argument that the agreement was never formed: “If Mr. Trump was completely unaware of Mr. Cohen’s actions, the question naturally arises as to how it would be possible for a ‘meeting of the minds’ to have occurred between parties where one of the parties does not even know about the existence of the agreement.”

Tom Callaghan, maintains Trump’s approval ratings would have to dip into the 20s before Congress seriously entertains impeachment proceedings but that assumes the GOP controls Congress, something that will no longer be the case after early November. The folks at the Madison Journal can start hyperventilating now but here at Slabbed we’re going to pop some popcorn and watch the Trump clown show disintegrate under the weight of all of his lies, self dealing and deceit.

Stay tuned as the POTUS twitter account is sure to go into overdrive as Trump buckles under the pressure.

19 thoughts on “Nothing good ever happens after the FBI raids your lawyer’s office”

    1. That’s what I said when Clinton and Monica were carrying on in the Oval Office while he was Pres. Thank goodness she wasn’t a spy.
      Bill C. and John Kennedy ramped it up a notch by conducting their mischief in the White House during their Presidencies!! If we only knew half of what goes on in there😳

      1. This is more about the campaign finance laws than Trump humping around on his wife. Its not the crime but the coverup that is the problem here.

        1. But, Doug, try to get the main stream media to cover what it is really about.
          Just don’t hold your breath. They like the gawdy stuff better. I guess because people are so stupid; that’s what they’d rather hear about.

          1. Just read Littman’s article. So Trump and Cohen have treated Stormy Daniels like dirt he claims.
            How old was this woman when she got involved with these two?

        2. Today I am hearing that the pay off was done by Trump’s lawyer through a loan against his home , not out of campaign funds?!
          What in the world?
          I lead a dull life😂

  1. Stormy has made a living out of being paid for sex…the problem is where the money came from.

    Trump should just say I don’t drink or do drugs, don’t party…but I’m crazy about hot women! That is my vice! I’m sorry and move on to the source of the money!

  2. Duped or Doug,
    This is a serious question. I know some folks are having fun with this, but what is the penalty for giving campaign funds as hush money?
    In a small town ( population 11,000) a Mayor and his City Clerk misappropriated $300,000 in DOJ funds and ended up with a dead police chief, and NOTHING happened except the taxpayers had to pay it back out if their general fund.
    Are we expected to believe the FBI is going after the POTUS for $130,000 for a ” one night stand?!”
    Trump has loads of money. You have to wonder why he didn’t shut this little gal up with his own $$$. ??!!
    Total insanity😳

    1. That’s a good question. There are two problems, one is did the payment constitute a campaign contribution and if so why was it not reported. Those issues are distinct (albeit, very related) from the civil matter involving the nondisclosure agreement that was ostensibly consummated between Trump and Daniels.

      I agree with Duped on how Trump should have handled it but now he is boxed in by either Daniels or the DOJ Public Integrity folks. If Trump sticks with the he didn’t know about the payment or agreement, Daniels will be free to continue discussing their encounter and Cohen can take the fall for whatever ramifications there are concerning what he did and the Federal Campaign Finance laws.

      1. As in most legal matters, it will come down to who can hold out the longest with the financial ability to keep paying lawyers.
        Now that Mueller has invaded Trump’s privacy with his attorney, the door may have opened for the Pres. legal team to demand the $$$ backers of Ms. Daniels little escapade here, unless she is just as wealthy as Trump. I’ve never heard of her until now.

          1. Wow! Considering her profession, that girl must be some tired, or as we say here in the South–
            She’s been rode hard and put to bed wet!!

  3. “… clown show disintegrate under the weight of all of his lies, self dealing and deceit.”
    Problem is that description fits much of the opposition to Trump, too. Except they have deeper, better developed protection rackets.

    They are still trying to figure how Trump got past them in the “democratic” part of the ruling process. Of course, they were foolish enough to line up behind Hilary as a candidate – despite her high, fixed negatives with many voters – and then let her campaign staff dominate the whole electoral process – a woman who had repeatedly demonstrated her poor political and executive judgement.

    What’s a poor voter to do?

    With the Russia trope flagging, now the (notso loyal) opposition resort to the tried and true: sex scandal, coverup, invasion of privacy, in order to cancel the electoral process.

    A sorry state, this republic of ours and its diminishing Constitution.

    1. “What’s a poor voter to do?”

      1. Vote Libertarian which has the effect of telling your chosen political party you will no longer tolerate sold out crooks as nominees.
      2. Come November vote Democrat, but only those that promise to toss Nancy Pelosi out on her ass.

      That should block Trump from further damaging the country short term and sets up 2020 for the longer term fix.

      1. “1. Vote Libertarian” – The very option I chose in 2016. I don’t think the “political parties” were listening.

        “chosen political party” – I’ll take a worthy candidate from any party. The differences between the two biggies seem to exist in campaign rhetoric mostly. In governance, at the national level, neither indicates ability or willingness to promote or execute profound reform. Both distract with push-button issues each party has cultivated to rally voters in voting season, about which, one suspects, the party leaders care little, in practice.

        2. “Vote Democrat, but only those…” Pretty irrelevant, from where I see.

        My congressional district (Col0 5th) has elected only Republicans to Congress, since it was drawn 50 yrs ago. The result is the sorriest, most unworthy excuse for a Congressman. Even though many Republicans grumble about the current officeholder, they do not cross party lines.

        There is some hope in the Republican primary this time. The 12 yr incumbent faces 4 primary challengers. In addition, a group of disgruntled Republicans challenged in court, on technical legal grounds, the current congressman’s qualification to appear on the ballot. (Illegal collection of petition signatures. Due to the sort of disengaged incompetence one expects of this representative of the people.) Colo Supreme Ct agreed and disqualified him. So now the “small govt” Congressman has sued to have the federal District Court overrule the state law itself. It’s a legal fight to the primary deadlines.

        Not south Gulf, but still a curious tussle. Explained in part here:

        Four years ago the Dems ran a very moderate, obviously more competent challenger (instead of the usual Dem placeholder). The Repub incumbent’s campaign strategy became no campaign – no public appearances, no media interviews, certainly no debates, only yard signs and a few invitation-only gatherings with donors. He won. Again.

        This time, at least, an active group of Republicans seems determined to get rid of him. A good sign. His congressional successor will be Republican.

        The notion that one can be choosy about a Democrat, or even that it would matter in the outcome, flies far beyond my imagination. Our district cannot even be choosy about the Republican candidate. I wonder if it is so different across the country. How many districts are really up for grabs?

        In my part of the country, the two parties seem to have made agreements about how to draw district boundary lines, in order to give each party a share of districts that lean heavily toward one party or the other. The political defects that need reform lie deep within the structures. They require extensive public debate that goes far beyond a beauty contest of candidates, and beyond what the media seems able, or willing, to pursue.

        Regional sites like this, which spotlight networks of influence, follow the money and the fraud, and mock the absurdities, are a good step toward public discussion. If the public tunes in.

        1. Fantastic observation. Mississippi 4 has such a representative in hiding but the GOP here refuses to take out their own trash, despite occasional rumblings.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *