re: Going forward, how can there be effective criminal representation......

They probably are already. I get fairly detailed and graphic in my description of them on a regular basis. I hope they're entertained by my recorded calls.

quote:

---

Is anybody surprised by the fact that the ACLU has already made a statement of approval for the FBI's seizure of Cohen's materials related to representing Trump?

I'm not!

---

That would be shameful if they had any shame.

quote:

---

a special magistrate

---

They had no charges against the attorney, only speculation for probable cause to search and seize.

A fine fishing expedition was had by all.

Carry on


Although, I do not see any difference it what was done and what the precedent sets into motion in future cases of going after your attorney or mine.

quote:

---

I posted in the original thread it is frickery and I loathe these asshats for it.


I simply do not think we need fear speaking candidly with our attorneys. I’m not that far down the tinfoil lined rabbit hole.

---

Trump's every file and conversation with his private attorney going back decades is now in the hands of the people who are openly conducting a witch hunt, that is a dagger to the heart of our justice system.

Frick the telephone. Walk out into the street and talk like a mafioso does.

quote:

---

It's not detailed in an email. As an example, an email asking can I depreciate intellectual property twice

---

Wow.
I misunderstood.

I have never corresponded with a lawyer as a client via email, ever.

I'm not sure if lawyers I've dealt with would even do that. Far too much risk of complete a-c privilege breech should someone else access those notes, or should the emails inadvertently find their way to the wrong recipients. Same aversion lawyers have to clients recording meetings.

Lawyers primarily communicate by email. Just like all other business communication. Further, all federal pleadings (and most states) are submitted electronically. Many legal invoices are submitted electronically. Lawyers are ethically obligated to hold on to it as well. There is no way to practice law without an email address.

I would have a heart attack if the FBI raided my office and tried to seize my emails, especially if they were really after my clients with whom I’m duty bound not to provide it. It leaves the attorney and his client in an impossible situation.

I agree with the above. This is a horrible precedent. It is chilling and terrifying. There was no emergency. Breaking a campaign finance rule (if that even happewd) is not a life or death situation. There is no reason that they couldn’t have just asked him to provide whatever info they were looking for (even via subpoena) and let Cohen sort thru it and remove the privileged info. If the President’s lawyer can’t even stop this - it interferes with every American’s right to an attorney.

quote:

---

To be fair....IF your attorney is involved in "bad shite" and his records are seized....a special magistrate will likely review the docs and your communications will not be able to be used against you (unless you are both conspiring criminally).


So, I do not believe you need fear being candid with your own attorney.

---

Bingo. That's why the "ACLU is not up in arms about this".

That's the rub. To answer another question, I'm not surprised by this. But this is for apparently a campaign contribution, some recorded about a video tape, possibly some tax and financial stuff. Served on an attorney, which happen to be the sitting POTUS' personal attorney. Who happens to be under investigation by the referring prosecutor.

Now we already have potentially 302 altering. AS reported by Sarah Carter, who might be a Republican advocate, but whose reporting hasn't been incorrect once.

If they can alter a 302, what's stopping them from looking at privileged communication, not suing it, but using the information they saw to try to find probable cause in another area?

What's stopping them from arguing first in front of a gran jury that my emails show a pattern of wrongful, discriminatory firing, or tax evasion? And then later arguing to a jury, if I even have the up to $1MM to attempt to defend a wrongful prosecution.

This is serious stuff. We talk about proportionality. Show me another situation where the FBI kicked in the door (of the POTUS attorney), based on reasonable cause, for a campaign contribution and video tape?

I haven't been this angry since Lois Lerner.

There isn't one attorney that can say clients don't email about tax strategy that happens to be illegal at worst, or open to interpretation at best.

And silence. Based largely on the fact a lot of people hate Donald Trump. Some, who complained about the entire William Jefferson Clinton situation, which this surpasses exponentially.

Anyone who is in business, and consults regularly with an attorney should be concerned.

Now they're not coming after me in all likelihood. But they could. That's the point. And they shouldn't be able to.