[slight hijack]On the one hand, for god’s sake we’re all Americans, there’s only one objective truth, and it shouldn’t matter which news channel one watches.
On the other hand: in this reality, it does matter; and we’ve sunk so low that watching Fox News feels like intercepting the enemy’s battle plans. Jeezuz Fucking Christ.
My impression is that although Cohen is technically Trump’s lawyer, much of what he does is not actual legal work, but all sorts of shady fixit/bagman type stuff. I don’t know if that’s protected by any sort of privilege just because the guy is nominally hired as a lawyer.
But bottom line, I would tend to agree that this is pretty bad for Trump. It seems unlikely that Cohen was raided for things unconnected with Trump. (Unlike Manafort/Gates, who had Russia connections unrelated to Trump, Cohen’s connection here seems to be entirely Trump-related.) So if Mueller or another prosecutor is going to go after Cohen in connection with this investigation, it’s likely it’s for something he was doing on behalf of Trump personally, and it’s hard for Trump to escape involvement with that.
Over the course of Cohen’s involvement with Trump there could have been any number of other illegal things he’s done on his behalf. And once it’s not Mueller himself but regular ordinary prosecutors going through all his files, I would think they’re not constrained by any limitations at all.
IANAL but don’t the rules of search warrants require them to be very specific about what is being searched for and what is not on the list cannot be introduced as evidence in any proceeding?
IOW, you have reason to believe a convicted felon owns a pistol and keeps it in his house. You get a warrant to search for the pistol and find it, so it becomes exhibit A at his new trial. You also are surprised to find a meth lab in the back bedroom. Now, the equipment might get confiscated, since it is illegal for anyone to possess it, but it cannot be offered as evidence in a meth-making trial.
As I understand it, they’re only allowed to look in places where the thing they’re looking for could be found, but that anything they find in those places is valid evidence. Thus, for instance, if they’re looking for a rifle, they’re not allowed to look inside a sugar bowl, because a rifle couldn’t be in a sugar bowl. But a rifle could be in a closet, so they’re allowed to look in the closet, and if they find a meth lab in there that they weren’t looking for, that’s valid evidence. The police, meanwhile, know these rules, and so they usually try to get a search warrant to include things like “related documents” and “cash”, because those could be almost anywhere.
Specificity is required in a search warrant (one example is here), but if law enforcement seeks and is granted permission from a judge or magistrate for the authority to search for items that are the size of a handgun inside of a home, then that would give law enforcement the authority to look virtually anywhere within the home where such a handgun could be placed or hidden. Police wouldn’t have to ignore evidence that another crime was or is being committed simply because the search warrant didn’t include a request to search for materials related to the crime that was discovered, such as a meth lab inside the home being searched.
But, if the search warrant specifically says that law enforcement is only looking for a stolen painting that is 5 feet by 5 feet large, then police would not be permitted to start searching dresser drawers and any other compartments smaller than the item they are looking for, just to see if the particular location has evidence of any other crimes. That’s why, in the linked example of a search warrant and affidavit, both the items listed in the magistrate-approved search warrant and the attachment to the affidavit (offered by law enforcement to provide legal justification for the search warrant), law enforcement tries to be as broad as possible within the overall requirement to be specific as to what items or types of items they are looking for.
It’s still a crisis, so she’s doing fine. You didn’t think her portfolio was solving it did you? I mean, she has absolutely no background in that area, so that would be crazy talk.
Trump has cancelled his trip to South America for the Summit of the Americas (Pence is going instead); ostensibly so he can monitor the situation in Syria.
Now, I can certainly believe that he’d welcome any opportunity to skip a trip to the land of Rapists and Drug Dealers Who Don’t Even Speak English. But one wonders if he’s really staying home to monitor Saturday Night Massacre 2.0.
In this case, I imagine all the incriminating evidence that they’re looking for is in the form of bank records, emails, and the like. Once they get to look through all of these for one crime then they can presumably prosecute for all sorts of other crimes that they uncover along the way.