Avatar feed
Responses: 4
SPC Erich Guenther
0
0
0
Edited >1 y ago
They cannot use anything turned up in the raid that was not "tainted" by the alleged crime in the authorization for the raid. As such, Attroney Client Privelege is still protected with the exception being those specific items that a team of lawyers deems to be "tainted" by the potential crime alleged. Pretty sure nobody explained this to President Trump otherwise he would not be as upset. However, his Constitutional rights should still be protected IF THEY FOLLOW THE RULES OF THE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE RAID. If they do not follow those rules, the entire investigation is then tainted and the FBI has serious issues on it's hands and triggers a Constitutional Crisis.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth
0
0
0
Interest article, thank you.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SMSgt Lawrence McCarter
0
0
0
Edited >1 y ago
This has no president I'm aware of, Attorney/client privilege is basic to the criminal Justice system and this has all the appearance of an illegal seizure. I certainly don't have all the details, but never in over 40 years of Law Enforcement have I ever heard of anything like this happening. It seems they at least had a search warrant, what it was based on I don't know yet. Just what was used to obtain the Warrant We don't know yet, that doesn't indicate how well it will or will not stand up in court or any actual legal process.The whole process still sounds pretty suspect, it will be interesting what We hear or don't hear about this.
(0)
Comment
(0)
SMSgt Lawrence McCarter
SMSgt Lawrence McCarter
>1 y
Patricia Overmeyer - Like I also said though lacking evidence of a crime will invalidate anything they uncover if that turns out to be the case, at this point who knows what they have or don't have. I get the impression so fat its pretty much of a mess either way but then that just an impression and could be wrong. This isn't exactly a common tactic though and there is enough questionable credibility to go around it seems. I have no idea what if any evidence of a crime they think they may have but they better be right if they are carrying things this far.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Patricia Overmeyer
Patricia Overmeyer
>1 y
SMSgt Lawrence McCarter - Given that the AUSA had to get approval through several layers of the department, and that it appears it was signed off on by superior officers, there had to be quite a bit of evidence of a crime. (Also, this search warrant was authorized inside the DoJ by those appointed by the President, so I don't think this is a Democratic witch hunt.) Next, they are asking for a no-knock search warrant on an attorney's office/home/hotel. Federal judges are not about to sign off willy-nilly on something...especially when it's a triple header: HLGC, involves attorney-client privilege and is a no-knock request. That search warrant had to be on super steroids to get a signature. You can bet your sweet bippie no judge was going to sign off on that unless it passed more than just circumstantial evidence. I can see where it had to be clear and convincing to get the judge's signature.
A bit more telling is that a seasoned FBI agent made the statement that a search warrant for an attorney's office was pretty rare and every time it was issued, the attorney went to prison. I think that really hits the nail on the head.
(0)
Reply
(0)
SPC Erich Guenther
SPC Erich Guenther
>1 y
SPC Kevin Ford - That doesn't wash Mullers hands if the allegations turn out to be false. Interesting Trump is having Dinner with Alan Dershowitz tonight. I think he will get some good advice from that Dinner.
(0)
Reply
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
SPC Kevin Ford
>1 y
SPC Erich Guenther Other than politically I don't see how it wouldn't. It was his duty to report it to the appropriate law enforcement agency. It was the decision of that other group how, if at all, it would be pursued.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close