Well, Tangerine Tyrant IS going to be looking for a new Chief of Staff soon, apparently…
Let me guess–some of the words actually had more than two syllables.
Hopefully a NYS crime, not a part of Mueller’s investigation.
Without a pardon possibility, seeing Cohen flip could be amazing…
Trump: You’ll have to ask Michael Cohen. Michael Cohen is my attorney. You’ll have to ask Michael.
FBI: OK!
I posted this over in the Clusterfuck thread, but it probably goes here better…
Maybe (almost certainly) I’m making too much of this because it fuels my partisan blood lust, but this sounds like Mueller has so much to work with, that he can toss evidence over the wall to another investigative agency, even when that evidence concerns one of Trump’s closest advisers, and the evidence is strong enough to spark a raid on the adviser’s office. Mueller is so busy with all the other crimes he’s dealing with, that potential federal crimes committed by the president’s personal attorney are relatively small potatoes.
Or perhaps he’s putting more effort into investigating non-federal crimes, because Trump can’t pardon those.
Would the FBI conduct a raid based on state charges alone?
Actually I believe Cohen is accused of violating campaign finance laws, which would be a federal matter. (His payment would be an illegal campaign contribution if it was made to help the Trump campaign.)
So I take back my above post.
Also, the NYT article says the search warrant was obtained by federal prosecutors.
They raided his home, office and hotel. Which begs the question of why a guy who lives and works in New York City also needs a hotel room in New York City.
*Raises *the question, I think you mean.
Interesting write-up from Popehat: “This is a big deal. It’s very early on, but here’s some things we can already tell.”
[INDENT]Such a search requires high-level approval. The USAM requires such a search warrant to be approved by the U.S. Attorney — the head of the office, a Presidential appointee — and requires “consultation” with the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. [/INDENT]
“Briefly reached a WH official. Official said the WH doesn’t have a strategy for the Comey book. Paused. Then said that should answer my question of what’s the strategy for dealing with Cohen news.”
Yeah, I misread “prosecutors in New York” as “New York prosecutors”.
Of course what many of us fear is that the strategy for both is ‘flying missiles.’
As for what the raid is about: some are pointing out that attorney-client privilege would be expected to protect Cohen against FBI raids … except in the case of the “crime-fraud exception to the privilege” being invoked.
So this would imply that the raid was in support of charges of criminal fraud (or something closely related).
Trump is on TV as we speak, ranting about the Cohen raid. I think Mueller really hit a nerve.
He just mentioned the Sessions recusal again, for crissake.
Just to be difficult … 
“That point has already come and gone, I think … at a certain point, the way that people actually use “begs the question” is going to become the right way to use “begs the question,” and everyone is just gonna have to shut up and deal.”
… Although beg the question is ambiguous in isolation, when it is used in a sentence, the intended use is pretty much always made clear by the context. When begs the question is used in in the sense of ‘raises the question’, it’s always followed by a phrase specifying the question that is being begged/raised: begs the question of whether…, begs the question, why does… and so on. But when begs the question is used in the traditional sense of ‘assumes the conclusion’, it’s always begs the question full stop (or colon or semicolon).
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=36987
The first paragraph is a tweet, the second an extract from a commentary on it in the linguistics blog Language Log. The point of both being that the “raise the question” usage, unambiguously indicated by a key following phrase (in this case, “begs the question of why …”) can no longer be regarded as “wrong” without risk of being hopelessly pedantic, and that indeed using “begs the question” the “right” way creates the risk of being misunderstood.
That is all. Carry on. 
Speculation is that, since everything is just a TV game show to Trump, firing of Rosenstein and/or Mueller may be next. Let the fireworks begin.
I wonder what Faux news has to say about this raid. Anyone care to look at that? I really don’t want to, and if it comes down to it I’m just not that curious. But I am, you know, a little curious.