"Alan Dershowitz: Today is a 'very dangerous day for lawyer-client relations'" On Raid on President Trump's lawyer

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdgspencer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
dvdjs said:
Could be. In other cases of this type, involving a raid on a lawyer’s office, it was the end of the law career; the raided lawyer wound up in jail.
Click to expand...
But that’s not the point. The point is that sudden raids on lawyers’ offices in which law enforcement grabs up whatever pleases them to grab, it undermines faith in the attorney-client privilege.

Cohen doesn’t have to go to jail for that to happen. His clients aren’t going to care much about Cohen. It’s themselves they would be concerned about.
 
Ridgerunner said:
But that’s not the point. The point is that sudden raids on lawyers’ offices in which law enforcement grabs up whatever pleases them to grab, it undermines faith in the attorney-client privilege.
Click to expand...
It might undermine faith it if were abused; but this happens only rarely and only in extreme cases where there is reason to believe that the lawyer in his work is engaged in criminal activity. Being someone’s lawyer does not grant immunity, nor should it. Moreover, the idea that “law enforcement grabs up whatever pleases them to grab” overlooks, oddly, the fact that the raid required judicial approval.
 
It will be perceived as an abuse and a threat by anyone who had anything in Cohen’s office or who ever even talked to him. Now they know their supposedly confidential information is there for FBI to sift through to see if they can find something they can charge as a crime in all of it.

The protection is not for the lawyer. never is. It’s for the people who rely on the attorney-client privilege in seeking legal advice, defense, or action.

The raid (we’re told) required judicial approval. So did the FISA warrant to tap Page and perhaps others.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Now they know their supposedly confidential information is there for FBI to sift through to see if they can find something they can charge as a crime in all of it.
Click to expand...
That is not how the process works. Materials that fall within the realm of privilege will not be of use.
Ridgerunner said:
The protection is not for the lawyer. never is
Click to expand...
In a case in which ostensible privilege conceals criminal activity of a lawyer, then it is is, whether that was the intent of not.
 
I agree. It is dangerous and sad to see that it happened. I’m guessing Americans will be even less trusting of lawyers and our judicial system due to the raid - in particular if leaks begin revealing private confidential conversations between the Presidents lawyers and himself.
 
The same could be said for Chuck Schumer! Talk about a whiner!
Chuckie tried to look and sound so important. I feel sorry for the people of New York having him for a senator.
 
Last edited:
Ridgerunner said:
It will be perceived as an abuse and a threat by anyone who had anything in Cohen’s office or who ever even talked to him. Now they know their supposedly confidential information is there for FBI to sift through to see if they can find something they can charge as a crime in all of it.
Click to expand...
It’s a great way to legally isolate Trump. What attorney would want to take him on as a client and risk the data of all his other clients? And what client would stay with an attorney willing to represent Trump knowing his data is at risk? I wonder if that was the point.
 
Meanwhile Schumer is pushing for legislation to protect Mueller. Schumer is so afraid he will be fired. Schumer is a snake in the Senate!
 
Last edited:
Republicans have also warned the president his presidency is in danger if he instructs that Mueller be fired.
 
Last edited:
I find it interesting that the “lock her up” crowd is now so suddenly interested in out justice system.
 
dvdjs said:
How would that pass judicial review?
Click to expand...
Why would that matter to a client of Cohen’s or another lawyer Trump tried to retain? Once the information is out there, it can’t be put back by judicial review.
 
Sy_Noe said:
I find it interesting that the “lock her up” crowd is now so suddenly interested in out justice system.
Click to expand...
We were interested in it then too. In that situation, felonies were committed and a powerful person was allowed to skate. In this case it looks like the justice system is trying to get someone regardless of how little evidence there is that a crime was committed.
 
Last edited:
You made a suggestion of the real point of the search; my response was to question how a search predicated with such goals would get by a judge.

People seem to forget that this not a Mueller raid, but one sought by a Trump appointee, donor, and former partner of Giulliani operating in NY, who gained approval in federal court.
 
Last edited:
dvdjs said:
You made a suggestion of the real point my response was to question how a search predicated with such goals would get by a judge.
Click to expand...
Do you think they’d put that on the warrant request?
 
You seem to forget that Mueller forwarded the information to New York that resulted in the raid.
 
7_Sorrows said:
You seem to forget that Mueller forwarded the information to New York that resulted in the raid.
Click to expand...
Hardly.
But what is the relevance of that. Mueller does not control all of the people in DOJ that had to approve the warrant request, or the judge.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top