Trump’s Moment of Truth. Will Mueller Flip Cohen?

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Just like the bar was exceptionally high to obtain a FISA warrant, using a dossier that relies on a retired British agent, paid by Hillary Clinton through Fusion GPS, to obtain information that a political candidate colluded witha foreign government to try and effect the outcome of an election. Do you see the irony of that statement?

No. How could I? It's not even a complete sentence....It's a long run-on that's missing a subject.

This is the response you could expect, when this argument of an “exceptional bar” gets deflated by facts surrounding the sources used in the dossier.

Again, to prove Russian collusion, the source did not come from a government agency like the CIA. At least the CIA has the resources and knowledge, to determine if an actual collusion can be established without financial input from one political party. The NSA wasn’t even used as part of a reliable means to obtain a FISA warrant. The truth you don’t want to admit is this - To obtain the ability to authorize government surveillance to uncover foreign influence by a political party, Hillary Clinton and Fusion GPS relied on the findings of a paid retired BRITISH agent. This paid foreign source is what was used to begin an investigation into political meddling and collusion, with a foreign government. It’s rather interesting, the truth you find, when you take the time to follow the facts.

Oh I’m sorry. What was it you were saying about using this really “exceptionally high bar”, when conducting a raid on a personal attorney, or putting a United States citizen under surveillance for an investigation?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

It's not even clear to me that attorney-client privilege been broken. AFAIK, the DoJ sent in a "tait team" to execute the search warrant. According to Cohen, the team that conducted the search were respectful. Cohen's certainly not griping about what they took or how they comported themselves, so I have no reason to think they violated attorney-client privilege.

Can you perhaps provide when a Federal Government raises the house of a personal attorney representing a client under investigation? You can uncover substantial evidence without crossing legal boundaries of an agency working in collaboration with a special council, a council that has no oversight. Mullier had an original mandate that focuses around the time of presidential election and with regard to collusion effecting the outcome of an election, he has exceeeded that boundary to go into personal affairs prior to an individual seeking involvement in the political process.

Can you perhaps provide when a Federal Government raises the house of a personal attorney representing a client under investigation?

What? To answer your question directly, no, I cannot identify such an occurrence. That said, AFAIK, Cohen's house is still standing.

So no other occurrence can be provided of a Federal Government investigation leading to the FBI raid on a personal attorney of a politician currently under investigation.

The concern of breaching client attorney privileged information leads me towards another inquiry that I would like an answer. Why wasn’t Cohen allowed to delete and destroy material that Trump believes are too personal and has absolutely nothing to do with the investigation? How would it be perceived if SIM cards from cell phones were quickly destroyed, and bleach bit was used? I’m bringing these set of questions up because “personal information” being determined and controlled by the individual under investigation, has been the defense and excuse offered when it comes to the need to seize records.

Setting even that aside, based on all the information provided, we have no report of an initial crime actually being committed since the election was decided. All we DO have is the assumption [big dufference] of what some believe “must be” and based on no real conclusive evidence. Can you provide any linked information to support a reply to the contrary?

So no other occurrence can be provided of a Federal Government investigation leading to the FBI raid on a personal attorney of a politician currently under investigation.

What? You didn't even ask about that? And whose attorney be raided isn't relevant. What evidence the FBI have sufficient probable cause to think executing a search is the only way to obtain it is what matters. The fact of the matter is that to serve a search warrant to any practicing attorney is an exceptional matter for which the bar for obtaining a warrant is higher than it is for literally everyone else.

• 9-13.420 - Searches of Premises of Subject Attorneys
  
• 9-19.221 - Request for Authorization to a Deputy Assistant Attorney General
  
• Protecting the Privilege When the Government Executes a Search Warrant -- This document contains a discussion of "taint teams."

Cohen is no different in that regard. The DoJ/FBI don't, in conducting investigations, care about who one is or what be the politics. If they did, they couldn't do the actual work of investigating. The most they'll do is make sure to "dot every eye and cross every tee" because they aren't ignorant of the politics surrounding a given investigation, but they don't conduct the investigation in terms of the politics.

Frankly, I couldn't tell you who the FBI has raided other than Paul Manafort. You will find cited in the materials above cases where attorneys have been so served.

Setting even that aside, based on all the information provided, we have no report of an initial crime actually being committed since the election was decided.

What? Do you understand what an investigation is and what one is not?

Why wasn’t Cohen allowed to delete and destroy material that Trump believes are too personal and has absolutely nothing to do with the investigation?

You have to ask that? Is the answer not obvious? Cohen's and Trump's track record of incessantly misrepresenting facts -- great and small -- saying pretty much anything without regard to it's being true led the FBI to distrust him (and Trump I suspect).

Did you just emerge from a cave and read the story about the search of Cohen's offices and home and otherwise know nothing about either of them? One of them lies and the other swears to it, and the things lied about range from "big" to "miniscule." There's literally no palter that's beyond Trump, not even his own name.

• Donald Trump Used Campaign Donations to Buy $55,000 of His Own Book
  
• What Donald Trump Knew About Undocumented Workers at His Signature Tower
  
• Running a scam charity (Donald Trump is shutting down his charitable foundation, as promised)
• Trump University: It’s Worse Than You Think | The New Yorker
  
• Michael Cohen: Trump’s fix-it guy and FBI raid subject, explained
  
• Trump’s Business of Corruption | The New Yorker
  
• https://decider.com/2018/02/02/dirty-money-trump-episode-is-a-must-watch/
  
• Trump’s Russian Laundromat
  
• President Trump Made 1,950 Untrue Claims in 2017
  
• "The Definitive List of Trump's Lies" -- Some 2000+ lies in 2017 alone!

Setting even that aside, based on all the information provided, we have no report of an initial crime actually being committed since the election was decided.

Unless and until there's an arrest or indictment, we're not going to. You do realize the FBI and cops in general conduct thousands of investigations about which nobody ever hears because the investigation happens and no criminally prosecutable acts are identified? That's as it should be, frankly. Why should anyone, the general public, need to know that "so and so" was under investigation for something and it was determined that they'd done nothing for which they could be held culpable? To inform "everyone" of such a thing can compromise a person's reputation, their job, their relationships, etc.

The only reason we know about investigations of some political figures (or anyone else suspected of "white-collar" crimes, for that matter) is because they are "A-List" political figures and/or the accusations pertaining to them are publicly made by someone. To wit, the FBI was quietly investigating Russian meddling for six or seven months (Sometime in July 2016 to January 20, 2017) before it became public that they were.

Suggestion: it might be good to limit your number of facts when you want the cult to read them. Once they get past about 20 words their mind wanders and they move on.

I’m still waiting on a case where the personal attorney, of the individual being investigated, had their home raided by the FBI. Just give me one such case example in your many resources you have tucked away. Give me a name of one politician under investigation where this happened.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Just like the bar was exceptionally high to obtain a FISA warrant, using a dossier that relies on a retired British agent, paid by Hillary Clinton through Fusion GPS, to obtain information that a political candidate colluded witha foreign government to try and effect the outcome of an election. Do you see the irony of that statement?

No. How could I? It's not even a complete sentence....It's a long run-on that's missing a subject.

This is the response you could expect, when this argument of an “exceptional bar” gets deflated by facts surrounding the sources used in the dossier.

Again, to prove Russian collusion, the source did not come from a government agency like the CIA. At least the CIA has the resources and knowledge, to determine if an actual collusion can be established without financial input from one political party. The NSA wasn’t even used as part of a reliable means to obtain a FISA warrant. The truth you don’t want to admit is this - To obtain the ability to authorize government surveillance to uncover foreign influence by a political party, Hillary Clinton and Fusion GPS relied on the findings of a paid retired BRITISH agent. This paid foreign source is what was used to begin an investigation into political meddling and collusion, with a foreign government. It’s rather interesting, the truth you find, when you take the time to follow the facts.

Oh I’m sorry. What was it you were saying about using this really “exceptionally high bar”, when conducting a raid on a personal attorney, or putting a United States citizen under surveillance for an investigation?

This is the response you could expect, when this argument of an “exceptional bar” gets deflated by facts surrounding the sources used in the dossier.

Actually, no, it isn't. It's the response you received from me with regard to that particular question because you wrote a run-on sentence that I cannot be certain of what it means, and then you asked me about that run-on sentence as though I can read your f*cking mind and know what it was supposed to mean.

You wrote this run-on sentence that has no subject:

Just like the bar was exceptionally high to obtain a FISA warrant, using a dossier that relies on a retired British agent, paid by Hillary Clinton through Fusion GPS, to obtain information that a political candidate colluded witha foreign government to try and effect the outcome of an election.

And then you asked:

Do you see the irony of that statement?

How the hell could I? The run-on sentence lacks a subject about which the supposed irony is to apply.

Rephrase, rewrite, add a subject, or something so that your so-called ironic run-on sentence is actually a complete sentences so I know what it means, and then I can answer the question you asked about it.

Then there's the fact that the first thing you mentioned was some BS about Cohen's house being raised.

Can you perhaps provide when a Federal Government raises the house of a personal attorney representing a client under investigation?

And I answered your dumbass question.

What? To answer your question directly, no, I cannot identify such an occurrence. That said, AFAIK, Cohen's house is still standing.

And then you shifted your topic and disregarded your initial assertion that Cohen's house had by the FBI been raised....You just flat out moved on as though you'd never made the assertion about the man's house being torn down.

So no other occurrence can be provided of a Federal Government investigation leading to the FBI raid on a personal attorney of a politician currently under investigation.

That's how your comport yourself discursively and you have the gall to talk about "the response you could expect" with regard to my responses? I responded to your remarks with rigor, without premature predicates and inferences, and using nothing but objective references, and this childish "what you could expect" tone is how you reply to me.

Dude, when you figure out how to string together and express your thoughts coherently, you can talk to me and expect to get a substantive reply.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Can you perhaps provide when a Federal Government raises the house of a personal attorney representing a client under investigation? You can uncover substantial evidence without crossing legal boundaries of an agency working in collaboration with a special council, a council that has no oversight. Mullier had an original mandate that focuses around the time of presidential election and with regard to collusion effecting the outcome of an election, he has exceeeded that boundary to go into personal affairs prior to an individual seeking involvement in the political process.

Can you perhaps provide when a Federal Government raises the house of a personal attorney representing a client under investigation?

What? To answer your question directly, no, I cannot identify such an occurrence. That said, AFAIK, Cohen's house is still standing.

So no other occurrence can be provided of a Federal Government investigation leading to the FBI raid on a personal attorney of a politician currently under investigation.

The concern of breaching client attorney privileged information leads me towards another inquiry that I would like an answer. Why wasn’t Cohen allowed to delete and destroy material that Trump believes are too personal and has absolutely nothing to do with the investigation? How would it be perceived if SIM cards from cell phones were quickly destroyed, and bleach bit was used? I’m bringing these set of questions up because “personal information” being determined and controlled by the individual under investigation, has been the defense and excuse offered when it comes to the need to seize records.

Setting even that aside, based on all the information provided, we have no report of an initial crime actually being committed since the election was decided. All we DO have is the assumption [big dufference] of what some believe “must be” and based on no real conclusive evidence. Can you provide any linked information to support a reply to the contrary?

So no other occurrence can be provided of a Federal Government investigation leading to the FBI raid on a personal attorney of a politician currently under investigation.

What? You didn't even ask about that? And whose attorney be raided isn't relevant. What evidence the FBI have sufficient probable cause to think executing a search is the only way to obtain it is what matters. The fact of the matter is that to serve a search warrant to any practicing attorney is an exceptional matter for which the bar for obtaining a warrant is higher than it is for literally everyone else.

• 9-13.420 - Searches of Premises of Subject Attorneys
  
• 9-19.221 - Request for Authorization to a Deputy Assistant Attorney General
  
• Protecting the Privilege When the Government Executes a Search Warrant -- This document contains a discussion of "taint teams."

Cohen is no different in that regard. The DoJ/FBI don't, in conducting investigations, care about who one is or what be the politics. If they did, they couldn't do the actual work of investigating. The most they'll do is make sure to "dot every eye and cross every tee" because they aren't ignorant of the politics surrounding a given investigation, but they don't conduct the investigation in terms of the politics.

Frankly, I couldn't tell you who the FBI has raided other than Paul Manafort. You will find cited in the materials above cases where attorneys have been so served.

Setting even that aside, based on all the information provided, we have no report of an initial crime actually being committed since the election was decided.

What? Do you understand what an investigation is and what one is not?

Why wasn’t Cohen allowed to delete and destroy material that Trump believes are too personal and has absolutely nothing to do with the investigation?

You have to ask that? Is the answer not obvious? Cohen's and Trump's track record of incessantly misrepresenting facts -- great and small -- saying pretty much anything without regard to it's being true led the FBI to distrust him (and Trump I suspect).

Did you just emerge from a cave and read the story about the search of Cohen's offices and home and otherwise know nothing about either of them? One of them lies and the other swears to it, and the things lied about range from "big" to "miniscule." There's literally no palter that's beyond Trump, not even his own name.

• Donald Trump Used Campaign Donations to Buy $55,000 of His Own Book
  
• What Donald Trump Knew About Undocumented Workers at His Signature Tower
  
• Running a scam charity (Donald Trump is shutting down his charitable foundation, as promised)
• Trump University: It’s Worse Than You Think | The New Yorker
  
• Michael Cohen: Trump’s fix-it guy and FBI raid subject, explained
  
• Trump’s Business of Corruption | The New Yorker
  
• https://decider.com/2018/02/02/dirty-money-trump-episode-is-a-must-watch/
  
• Trump’s Russian Laundromat
  
• President Trump Made 1,950 Untrue Claims in 2017
  
• "The Definitive List of Trump's Lies" -- Some 2000+ lies in 2017 alone!

Setting even that aside, based on all the information provided, we have no report of an initial crime actually being committed since the election was decided.

Unless and until there's an arrest or indictment, we're not going to. You do realize the FBI and cops in general conduct thousands of investigations about which nobody ever hears because the investigation happens and no criminally prosecutable acts are identified? That's as it should be, frankly. Why should anyone, the general public, need to know that "so and so" was under investigation for something and it was determined that they'd done nothing for which they could be held culpable? To inform "everyone" of such a thing can compromise a person's reputation, their job, their relationships, etc.

The only reason we know about investigations of some political figures (or anyone else suspected of "white-collar" crimes, for that matter) is because they are "A-List" political figures and/or the accusations pertaining to them are publicly made by someone. To wit, the FBI was quietly investigating Russian meddling for six or seven months (Sometime in July 2016 to January 20, 2017) before it became public that they were.

Suggestion: it might be good to limit your number of facts when you want the cult to read them. Once they get past about 20 words their mind wanders and they move on.

I’m still waiting on a case where the personal attorney, of the individual being investigated, had their home raided by the FBI. Just give me one such case example in your many resources you have tucked away. Give me a name of one politician under investigation where this happened.

I’m still waiting on a case where the personal attorney, of the individual being investigated, had their home raided by the FBI.

What part of the statement below did you not understand?

You will find cited in the materials above cases where attorneys have been so served.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Just like the bar was exceptionally high to obtain a FISA warrant, using a dossier that relies on a retired British agent, paid by Hillary Clinton through Fusion GPS, to obtain information that a political candidate colluded witha foreign government to try and effect the outcome of an election. Do you see the irony of that statement?

No. How could I? It's not even a complete sentence....It's a long run-on that's missing a subject.

This is the response you could expect, when this argument of an “exceptional bar” gets deflated by facts surrounding the sources used in the dossier.

Again, to prove Russian collusion, the source did not come from a government agency like the CIA. At least the CIA has the resources and knowledge, to determine if an actual collusion can be established without financial input from one political party. The NSA wasn’t even used as part of a reliable means to obtain a FISA warrant. The truth you don’t want to admit is this - To obtain the ability to authorize government surveillance to uncover foreign influence by a political party, Hillary Clinton and Fusion GPS relied on the findings of a paid retired BRITISH agent. This paid foreign source is what was used to begin an investigation into political meddling and collusion, with a foreign government. It’s rather interesting, the truth you find, when you take the time to follow the facts.

Oh I’m sorry. What was it you were saying about using this really “exceptionally high bar”, when conducting a raid on a personal attorney, or putting a United States citizen under surveillance for an investigation?

This is the response you could expect, when this argument of an “exceptional bar” gets deflated by facts surrounding the sources used in the dossier.

Actually, no, it isn't. It's the response you received from me with regard to that particular question because you wrote a run-on sentence that I cannot be certain of what it means, and then you asked me about that run-on sentence as though I can read your f*cking mind and know what it was supposed to mean.

You wrote this run-on sentence that has no subject:

Just like the bar was exceptionally high to obtain a FISA warrant, using a dossier that relies on a retired British agent, paid by Hillary Clinton through Fusion GPS, to obtain information that a political candidate colluded witha foreign government to try and effect the outcome of an election.

And then you asked:

Do you see the irony of that statement?

How the hell could I? The run-on sentence lacks a subject about which the supposed irony is to apply.

Rephrase, rewrite, add a subject, or something so that your so-called ironic run-on sentence is actually a complete sentences so I know what it means, and then I can answer the question you asked about it.

Then there's the fact that the first thing you mentioned was some BS about Cohen's house being raised.

Can you perhaps provide when a Federal Government raises the house of a personal attorney representing a client under investigation?

And I answered your dumbass question.

What? To answer your question directly, no, I cannot identify such an occurrence. That said, AFAIK, Cohen's house is still standing.

And then you shifted your topic and disregarded your initial assertion that Cohen's house had by the FBI been raised....You just flat out moved on as though you'd never made the assertion about the man's house being torn down.

So no other occurrence can be provided of a Federal Government investigation leading to the FBI raid on a personal attorney of a politician currently under investigation.

That's how your comport yourself discursively and you have the gall to talk about "the response you could expect" with regard to my responses? I responded to your remarks with rigor, without premature predicates and inferences, and using nothing but objective references, and this childish "what you could expect" tone is how you reply to me.

Dude, when you figure out how to string together and express your thoughts coherently, you can talk to me and expect to get a substantive reply.

Actually, no, it isn't. It's the response you received from me with regard to that particular question because you wrote a run-on sentence that I cannot be certain of what it means, and then you asked me about that run-on sentence as though I can read your f*cking mind and know what it was supposed to mean.

Run-on sentence ^ ^ ^

What you composed before is not a run-on sentence; it's a sentence fragment. I was incorrect in calling it a run-on. Be that as it is, you clearly haven't any idea of what either is.

Run-on sentence ^ ^ ^

And with your insipid response above ends our interaction on USMB. Ciao.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Just like the bar was exceptionally high to obtain a FISA warrant, using a dossier that relies on a retired British agent, paid by Hillary Clinton through Fusion GPS, to obtain information that a political candidate colluded witha foreign government to try and effect the outcome of an election. Do you see the irony of that statement?

No. How could I? It's not even a complete sentence....It's a long run-on that's missing a subject.

This is the response you could expect, when this argument of an “exceptional bar” gets deflated by facts surrounding the sources used in the dossier.

Again, to prove Russian collusion, the source did not come from a government agency like the CIA. At least the CIA has the resources and knowledge, to determine if an actual collusion can be established without financial input from one political party. The NSA wasn’t even used as part of a reliable means to obtain a FISA warrant. The truth you don’t want to admit is this - To obtain the ability to authorize government surveillance to uncover foreign influence by a political party, Hillary Clinton and Fusion GPS relied on the findings of a paid retired BRITISH agent. This paid foreign source is what was used to begin an investigation into political meddling and collusion, with a foreign government. It’s rather interesting, the truth you find, when you take the time to follow the facts.

Oh I’m sorry. What was it you were saying about using this really “exceptionally high bar”, when conducting a raid on a personal attorney, or putting a United States citizen under surveillance for an investigation?

This is the response you could expect, when this argument of an “exceptional bar” gets deflated by facts surrounding the sources used in the dossier.

Actually, no, it isn't. It's the response you received from me with regard to that particular question because you wrote a run-on sentence that I cannot be certain of what it means, and then you asked me about that run-on sentence as though I can read your f*cking mind and know what it was supposed to mean.

You wrote this run-on sentence that has no subject:

Just like the bar was exceptionally high to obtain a FISA warrant, using a dossier that relies on a retired British agent, paid by Hillary Clinton through Fusion GPS, to obtain information that a political candidate colluded witha foreign government to try and effect the outcome of an election.

And then you asked:

Do you see the irony of that statement?

How the hell could I? The run-on sentence lacks a subject about which the supposed irony is to apply.

Rephrase, rewrite, add a subject, or something so that your so-called ironic run-on sentence is actually a complete sentences so I know what it means, and then I can answer the question you asked about it.

Then there's the fact that the first thing you mentioned was some BS about Cohen's house being raised.

Can you perhaps provide when a Federal Government raises the house of a personal attorney representing a client under investigation?

And I answered your dumbass question.

What? To answer your question directly, no, I cannot identify such an occurrence. That said, AFAIK, Cohen's house is still standing.

And then you shifted your topic and disregarded your initial assertion that Cohen's house had by the FBI been raised....You just flat out moved on as though you'd never made the assertion about the man's house being torn down.

So no other occurrence can be provided of a Federal Government investigation leading to the FBI raid on a personal attorney of a politician currently under investigation.

That's how your comport yourself discursively and you have the gall to talk about "the response you could expect" with regard to my responses? I responded to your remarks with rigor, without premature predicates and inferences, and using nothing but objective references, and this childish "what you could expect" tone is how you reply to me.

Dude, when you figure out how to string together and express your thoughts coherently, you can talk to me and expect to get a substantive reply.

First you use your avoidance excuse of a run-on sentence. I then broke it all down and expressed my thoughts very clear. Anyone could clearly follow the direction each point was going. I laid out the facts regarding the sources used in the dossier in short simple sentences - point by point. I really can’t make it any more clear in my effort. So when those facts become more evident, you dodge those very same issues addressed - again.

Why else would I come to the conclusion of an individual who can’t handle someone coming in to present them the facts, especially when it may lead to having their own views challenged? Stick to your CNN views if that makes you comfortable.

 

[Reasonable]

Can you perhaps provide when a Federal Government raises the house of a personal attorney representing a client under investigation? You can uncover substantial evidence without crossing legal boundaries of an agency working in collaboration with a special council, a council that has no oversight. Mullier had an original mandate that focuses around the time of presidential election and with regard to collusion effecting the outcome of an election, he has exceeeded that boundary to go into personal affairs prior to an individual seeking involvement in the political process.

Can you perhaps provide when a Federal Government raises the house of a personal attorney representing a client under investigation?

What? To answer your question directly, no, I cannot identify such an occurrence. That said, AFAIK, Cohen's house is still standing.

So no other occurrence can be provided of a Federal Government investigation leading to the FBI raid on a personal attorney of a politician currently under investigation.

The concern of breaching client attorney privileged information leads me towards another inquiry that I would like an answer. Why wasn’t Cohen allowed to delete and destroy material that Trump believes are too personal and has absolutely nothing to do with the investigation? How would it be perceived if SIM cards from cell phones were quickly destroyed, and bleach bit was used? I’m bringing these set of questions up because “personal information” being determined and controlled by the individual under investigation, has been the defense and excuse offered when it comes to the need to seize records.

Setting even that aside, based on all the information provided, we have no report of an initial crime actually being committed since the election was decided. All we DO have is the assumption [big dufference] of what some believe “must be” and based on no real conclusive evidence. Can you provide any linked information to support a reply to the contrary?

So no other occurrence can be provided of a Federal Government investigation leading to the FBI raid on a personal attorney of a politician currently under investigation.

What? You didn't even ask about that? And whose attorney be raided isn't relevant. What evidence the FBI have sufficient probable cause to think executing a search is the only way to obtain it is what matters. The fact of the matter is that to serve a search warrant to any practicing attorney is an exceptional matter for which the bar for obtaining a warrant is higher than it is for literally everyone else.

• 9-13.420 - Searches of Premises of Subject Attorneys
  
• 9-19.221 - Request for Authorization to a Deputy Assistant Attorney General
  
• Protecting the Privilege When the Government Executes a Search Warrant -- This document contains a discussion of "taint teams."

Cohen is no different in that regard. The DoJ/FBI don't, in conducting investigations, care about who one is or what be the politics. If they did, they couldn't do the actual work of investigating. The most they'll do is make sure to "dot every eye and cross every tee" because they aren't ignorant of the politics surrounding a given investigation, but they don't conduct the investigation in terms of the politics.

Frankly, I couldn't tell you who the FBI has raided other than Paul Manafort. You will find cited in the materials above cases where attorneys have been so served.

Setting even that aside, based on all the information provided, we have no report of an initial crime actually being committed since the election was decided.

What? Do you understand what an investigation is and what one is not?

Why wasn’t Cohen allowed to delete and destroy material that Trump believes are too personal and has absolutely nothing to do with the investigation?

You have to ask that? Is the answer not obvious? Cohen's and Trump's track record of incessantly misrepresenting facts -- great and small -- saying pretty much anything without regard to it's being true led the FBI to distrust him (and Trump I suspect).

Did you just emerge from a cave and read the story about the search of Cohen's offices and home and otherwise know nothing about either of them? One of them lies and the other swears to it, and the things lied about range from "big" to "miniscule." There's literally no palter that's beyond Trump, not even his own name.

• Donald Trump Used Campaign Donations to Buy $55,000 of His Own Book
  
• What Donald Trump Knew About Undocumented Workers at His Signature Tower
  
• Running a scam charity (Donald Trump is shutting down his charitable foundation, as promised)
• Trump University: It’s Worse Than You Think | The New Yorker
  
• Michael Cohen: Trump’s fix-it guy and FBI raid subject, explained
  
• Trump’s Business of Corruption | The New Yorker
  
• https://decider.com/2018/02/02/dirty-money-trump-episode-is-a-must-watch/
  
• Trump’s Russian Laundromat
  
• President Trump Made 1,950 Untrue Claims in 2017
  
• "The Definitive List of Trump's Lies" -- Some 2000+ lies in 2017 alone!

Setting even that aside, based on all the information provided, we have no report of an initial crime actually being committed since the election was decided.

Unless and until there's an arrest or indictment, we're not going to. You do realize the FBI and cops in general conduct thousands of investigations about which nobody ever hears because the investigation happens and no criminally prosecutable acts are identified? That's as it should be, frankly. Why should anyone, the general public, need to know that "so and so" was under investigation for something and it was determined that they'd done nothing for which they could be held culpable? To inform "everyone" of such a thing can compromise a person's reputation, their job, their relationships, etc.

The only reason we know about investigations of some political figures (or anyone else suspected of "white-collar" crimes, for that matter) is because they are "A-List" political figures and/or the accusations pertaining to them are publicly made by someone. To wit, the FBI was quietly investigating Russian meddling for six or seven months (Sometime in July 2016 to January 20, 2017) before it became public that they were.

Suggestion: it might be good to limit your number of facts when you want the cult to read them. Once they get past about 20 words their mind wanders and they move on.

I’m still waiting on a case where the personal attorney, of the individual being investigated, had their home raided by the FBI. Just give me one such case example in your many resources you have tucked away. Give me a name of one politician under investigation where this happened.

No one has ever been as corrupt as trump and Cohen. I see it pains you that all the I’s were dotted and T’s crossed with this warrant in accordance with the Constitution.

 

[Reasonable]

We might be getting near a another moment of truth for the pussygrabber. Trump’s allies are worried the Feds confiscated Cohen’s tapes of his phone conversations with pussyboy.
I’d pay big money to hear those.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

What? To answer your question directly, no, I cannot identify such an occurrence. That said, AFAIK, Cohen's house is still standing.

So no other occurrence can be provided of a Federal Government investigation leading to the FBI raid on a personal attorney of a politician currently under investigation.

The concern of breaching client attorney privileged information leads me towards another inquiry that I would like an answer. Why wasn’t Cohen allowed to delete and destroy material that Trump believes are too personal and has absolutely nothing to do with the investigation? How would it be perceived if SIM cards from cell phones were quickly destroyed, and bleach bit was used? I’m bringing these set of questions up because “personal information” being determined and controlled by the individual under investigation, has been the defense and excuse offered when it comes to the need to seize records.

Setting even that aside, based on all the information provided, we have no report of an initial crime actually being committed since the election was decided. All we DO have is the assumption [big dufference] of what some believe “must be” and based on no real conclusive evidence. Can you provide any linked information to support a reply to the contrary?

So no other occurrence can be provided of a Federal Government investigation leading to the FBI raid on a personal attorney of a politician currently under investigation.

What? You didn't even ask about that? And whose attorney be raided isn't relevant. What evidence the FBI have sufficient probable cause to think executing a search is the only way to obtain it is what matters. The fact of the matter is that to serve a search warrant to any practicing attorney is an exceptional matter for which the bar for obtaining a warrant is higher than it is for literally everyone else.

• 9-13.420 - Searches of Premises of Subject Attorneys
  
• 9-19.221 - Request for Authorization to a Deputy Assistant Attorney General
  
• Protecting the Privilege When the Government Executes a Search Warrant -- This document contains a discussion of "taint teams."

Cohen is no different in that regard. The DoJ/FBI don't, in conducting investigations, care about who one is or what be the politics. If they did, they couldn't do the actual work of investigating. The most they'll do is make sure to "dot every eye and cross every tee" because they aren't ignorant of the politics surrounding a given investigation, but they don't conduct the investigation in terms of the politics.

Frankly, I couldn't tell you who the FBI has raided other than Paul Manafort. You will find cited in the materials above cases where attorneys have been so served.

Setting even that aside, based on all the information provided, we have no report of an initial crime actually being committed since the election was decided.

What? Do you understand what an investigation is and what one is not?

Why wasn’t Cohen allowed to delete and destroy material that Trump believes are too personal and has absolutely nothing to do with the investigation?

You have to ask that? Is the answer not obvious? Cohen's and Trump's track record of incessantly misrepresenting facts -- great and small -- saying pretty much anything without regard to it's being true led the FBI to distrust him (and Trump I suspect).

Did you just emerge from a cave and read the story about the search of Cohen's offices and home and otherwise know nothing about either of them? One of them lies and the other swears to it, and the things lied about range from "big" to "miniscule." There's literally no palter that's beyond Trump, not even his own name.

• Donald Trump Used Campaign Donations to Buy $55,000 of His Own Book
  
• What Donald Trump Knew About Undocumented Workers at His Signature Tower
  
• Running a scam charity (Donald Trump is shutting down his charitable foundation, as promised)
• Trump University: It’s Worse Than You Think | The New Yorker
  
• Michael Cohen: Trump’s fix-it guy and FBI raid subject, explained
  
• Trump’s Business of Corruption | The New Yorker
  
• https://decider.com/2018/02/02/dirty-money-trump-episode-is-a-must-watch/
  
• Trump’s Russian Laundromat
  
• President Trump Made 1,950 Untrue Claims in 2017
  
• "The Definitive List of Trump's Lies" -- Some 2000+ lies in 2017 alone!

Setting even that aside, based on all the information provided, we have no report of an initial crime actually being committed since the election was decided.

Unless and until there's an arrest or indictment, we're not going to. You do realize the FBI and cops in general conduct thousands of investigations about which nobody ever hears because the investigation happens and no criminally prosecutable acts are identified? That's as it should be, frankly. Why should anyone, the general public, need to know that "so and so" was under investigation for something and it was determined that they'd done nothing for which they could be held culpable? To inform "everyone" of such a thing can compromise a person's reputation, their job, their relationships, etc.

The only reason we know about investigations of some political figures (or anyone else suspected of "white-collar" crimes, for that matter) is because they are "A-List" political figures and/or the accusations pertaining to them are publicly made by someone. To wit, the FBI was quietly investigating Russian meddling for six or seven months (Sometime in July 2016 to January 20, 2017) before it became public that they were.

Suggestion: it might be good to limit your number of facts when you want the cult to read them. Once they get past about 20 words their mind wanders and they move on.

I’m still waiting on a case where the personal attorney, of the individual being investigated, had their home raided by the FBI. Just give me one such case example in your many resources you have tucked away. Give me a name of one politician under investigation where this happened.

No one has ever been as corrupt as trump and Cohen. I see it pains you that all the I’s were dotted and T’s crossed with this warrant in accordance with the Constitution.

That’s exactly why she used a paid foreign source to try and prove a foreign government influencing an election. Obviously my statement above has test to be challenged on this thread

 

[Baz Ares]

LOL Forget the Nixon Watergate Tapes.

FFS! We may have Orange DoucheGate Tapes!

 

[Reasonable]

LOL Forget the Nixon Watergate Tapes.

FFS! We may have Orange DoucheGate Tapes!

Maxine Waters: If Mueller doesn’t bring down Trump, Stormy will.
Looks like they both may.
Stormy is now cooperating with the Feds.