HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Tribe: Read the brief by ... » Reply #1

Response to highplainsdem (Original post)

Mon Apr 16, 2018, 11:58 AM

1. Notable quotes

"As set forth below, unlike a search of a traditional law office, the information gathered thus far in the investigation suggests that the overwhelming majority of evidence seized during the searches will not be privileged material, but rather will relate to Cohen’s business dealings
the USAO-SDNY’s investigation relates in significant part to Cohen’s personal business dealings and finances
And there is reason to doubt that even communications with his only publicly identified
client regarding payments to Stephanie Clifford, who is also known as Stormy Daniels, would be
protected by attorney-client privilege. Among other things, President Trump has publicly denied
knowing that Cohen paid Clifford, and suggested to reporters that they had to “ask Michael”
about the payment. See Kevin Liptak, Trump Says He Didn’t Know About Stormy Daniels
Payment, CNN.com (Apr. 6, 2018), https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/05/politics/donald-trumpstormy-daniels/index.html.
the USAO-SDNY has already obtained search warrants – covert until this point – on
multiple different email accounts maintained by Cohen, and has conducted a privilege review of
the materials obtained pursuant to those warrants. The results of that review, as resported by the
USAO’s Filter Team, indicate that Cohen is in fact performing little to no legal work, and that
zero emails were exchanged with President Trump.
Moreover, not only is Cohen’s reliance on the USAM misplaced, but he invokes the
wrong section. Cohen cites to section 9-19.220 of the USAM, which, as Cohen points out,
applies to “attorneys who are not suspects” of a criminal investigations.
Accordingly, the nature of the USAOSDNY’s
investigation and the nature of the offenses—which sound in fraud and evidence a lack
of truthfulness—weighed heavily in favor of the USAO-SDNY’s decision to execute search
Cohen advances the novel proposition, without any precedent or legal basis, that Cohen’s
own counsel should undertake the initial review of the returns of lawfully executed search
warrants. The USAO is aware of no precedent for such an unconventional practice. "

They go to great lengths to document how carefully they are handling this with a filter team

They make Cohen and his lawyers look foolish for citing some of the cases they did or for not knowing the law or for inappropriately trying to apply an inapplicable law/rule.

It affirms what some have said: Cohen is in deep trouble and therefore, it is likely very problematic for the guy he primarily works for.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Please login to view edit histories.