General Discussion

Lithos

(26,403 posts) Sat Apr 14, 2018, 12:07 AM Apr 2018

Michael Cohen investigation - question about expansion

Ok, So, the DOJ along with other groups get a warrant for Cohen's stuff. Ostensibly it has been for very specific charges (aka, Stormy payoffs which bleed into several crimes).

And as part of this, there is a team (aka "clean"/"taint" team) which is "vetting" any/all material so nothing outside of the stated scope is made available as evidence.

What happens if the "taint" team finds evidence of another crime committed by Cohen outside of the scope? Ie, when Cohen's actions were against the law, not Cohen's client.

Thinking of his trip to Prague. Given his behavior carrying Trump's water (his water boy?), I'm sure he's broken the law many times.

11 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Michael Cohen investigation - question about expansion (Original Post) Lithos Apr 2018 OP

Three words - Anthony Weiners laptop jberryhill Apr 2018 #1

I don't think so, I assume the search warrant there covered his entire hard drive. unblock Apr 2018 #4

Your point here and below makes sense Lithos Apr 2018 #7

AFAIK, that evidence would be inadmissible. However, unblock Apr 2018 #2

Your OP raised a question and doing research I found this blockbuster answr grantcart Apr 2018 #3

Excellent Find! Lithos Apr 2018 #5

I can't believe it wasn't all over MSNBC today. I was gobsmacked. grantcart Apr 2018 #6

trump doesn't do emails radical noodle Apr 2018 #8

Cohen does, I think we are going to see a lot of them grantcart Apr 2018 #9

Oh, yeah! radical noodle Apr 2018 #11

That is quite informative. herding cats Apr 2018 #10

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)

1. Three words - Anthony Weiners laptop

Reply to Lithos (Original post)

Sat Apr 14, 2018, 12:13 AM

Apr 2018

unblock

(52,286 posts)

4. I don't think so, I assume the search warrant there covered his entire hard drive.

Reply to jberryhill (Reply #1)

Sat Apr 14, 2018, 12:16 AM

Apr 2018

If the search warrant covered images but not emails, say, then the situation would be parallel.

Lithos

(26,403 posts)

7. Your point here and below makes sense

Reply to unblock (Reply #4)

Sat Apr 14, 2018, 12:32 AM

Apr 2018

Probably not admissible directly, but a hell of a leverage point to use other tools to get the same information by other means.

unblock

(52,286 posts)

2. AFAIK, that evidence would be inadmissible. However,

Reply to Lithos (Original post)

Sat Apr 14, 2018, 12:14 AM

Apr 2018

they could inform law enforcement, which could then try to launch a proper investigation into the separate charges. An investigation is easier when you "know" your target has incriminating evidence and all you have to do is find probable cause to get a more appropriate search warrant.

So it's kinda like an anonymous tip in the sense of inadmissible in court but could guide an investigation. Of course, it's probably more reliable than an anonymous tip....

grantcart

(53,061 posts)

3. Your OP raised a question and doing research I found this blockbuster answr

Reply to Lithos (Original post)

Sat Apr 14, 2018, 12:15 AM

Apr 2018

This wasn't the first warrant on Cohen

This is the expansion

https://qz.com/1252448/donald-trump-lawyer-michael-cohens-emails-have-been-under-scrutiny-by-the-us-government/

NLawyers for Michael Cohen, personal lawyer to Donald Trump, argued in a hearing today that a recent FBI raid on his offices swept up sensitive documents that should be protected by client-attorney privilege. The Southern District of New York (SDNY) has an interesting counterargument: Cohen is barely a practicing lawyer, anyway—which they claim to know because they’ve been reading his emails.

A 22-page opposition document filed by the US attorney to counter Cohen’s request for a temporary restraining order on seized files (pdf) reveals that the Southern District has been privy to Cohen’s email for a while now, having obtained a previously undisclosed search warrant. According to the documents, “Cohen has exceedingly few clients and a low volume of potentially privileged communications” (p.1) and “performs little to no legal work” (p.4).

The US attorney also questioned the Cohen team’s grasp of the law in his own defense, noting that: “Not only is Cohen’s reliance on the [United States’ Attorney Manual] USAM misplaced, but he invokes the wrong section,” which “applies to ‘attorneys who are not suspects’ of a criminal investigation” (p.13).

The government’s argument emphasizes that information seized from Cohen’s work or home were taken as part of an investigation seeking “evidence of crimes, many of which have nothing to do with his work as attorney, but rather relate to Cohen’s own business dealings” (p.4).