“[A] whole new level of unfairness”

Diverse — Drokles on April 13, 2018 at 2:26 am

Trumps advokat har fået sit kontor og sit hjem ransaget af FBI, da Muellers efterforskning af Trump, tilsyneladende har ført til mistanker om slet spil. Ifølge Cohen var FBI meget høflige, hvilket de ikke var, da de med skarpladte våben, stormede Trumps tidligere rådgiver Paul Manafort midt om natten i dennes hjem, og visiterede dennes kone i sengen. Måske de lave forventningers taknemmelighed?

Alan Dershowitz mente derimod at det essentielle var den trussel, ransagningen af Cohens kontorer udgjorde mod advokaters fortrolige forhold til deres klienter

I deal with clients all the time. I tell them on my word of honor that what you tell me is sacrosanct. And now they say, just based on probable cause, even though there was cooperation with Cohen, they can burst into the office, grab all the computers, and then give it to another FBI agent, and say, ‘You’re the firewall. We want you now to read all these confidential communications, tell us which ones we can get and which ones we can’t get.’ You know, if this were — the shoe were on the other foot, if this were Hillary Clinton being investigated, and they went into her lawyer’s office, the ACLU would be on every television station in America jumping up and down. The deafening silence of the ACLU and civil libertarians about the intrusion into the lawyer-client confidentiality is really appalling.

Mark Levin mente ”the entire department’s out of control now”. Newt Gingrich mente at det var en politistats metoder og ikke en retsstat og Scott Adams ville af samme årsag blive skuffet over Trump, hvis ikke hele banden blev fyret. Stormy Daniels advokat mente derimod, at Cohen ville blive den første dominobrik, der ville falde og at “history is going to look back upon this day and this is going to be a monumental day when the president on a Thursday refers everyone to his personal attorney, and Monday, that attorney’s offices are raided by the FBI”.

Men det er måske ikke rigtigt, skriver Andrew C McCarthy, der allerede for to uger siden, som han beskedent bemærker, “tried to explain that the Stormy Daniels scandal could be more perilous for Trump than the Russia investigation has been”. Hverken tolkningen af politistatsmetoder eller at Mueller skulle kunne bruge Sormy Daniels sagen til at afpresse Cohen til at vidne imod Trump, selvom de i den sag, som det skal forklares senere, sidder med et stort forklaringsproblem.

Ifølge McCarthy er man meget opmærksomme på de Forfatningsstridige komplikationer, der ligger i at ransage advokatkontorer, der kræver tilladelse fra de øverste lag i Justitsministeriet efter at have afsøgt mindstemiddelpricippet. Og han hæfter sig ved at ransagningen “related to several topics, including a payment to a pornographic film actress” og han minder om at “a federal judge found probable cause that evidence of at least one crime would be uncovered in Cohen’s premise”.

Det er vigtigt for McCarthy at påpege at Mueller ikke selv efterforsker Cohen, men altså har fundet noget snavs af en hvis substans, han ikke kan sidde overhørig. Derfor har han, som led i de forskellige depardementers naturlige samarbejde overdraget sagen til FBI og Statsanklageren for Southern District of New York (SDNY). Hvis SDNY finder noget af relevans for Muellers efterforskning, stakke af rubler, vil de selvfølgelig blive overdraget til ham. McCarthy, der selv har arbejdet for SDNY, har ingen tvivl om at der er vandtætte skotter imellem de forskellige efterforskere.

As I explained last November, when we learned that Mueller had forced an attorney who had represented Manafort to testify against him, there is a so-called crime-fraud exception to the attorney–client privilege. If a client’s communications with a lawyer are for the purpose of carrying out a fraudulent scheme, they lose any claim to confidentiality. Theoretically, then, Trump and Cohen have a legal as well as a factual problem. Legally, if they conspired to execute a payment in violation of campaign laws in order to silence Clifford, their communications in this regard would not be privileged. Factually (if implausibly), both Cohen and Trump claim that the former did not tell the latter about the payment to Clifford; and that Cohen made the payment in his personal capacity, not as Trump’s lawyer. How, then, can they now claim attorney–client privilege in connection with the transaction?

(…) Even if it’s not nearly as consequential as the specter of “collusion” with a hostile foreign power, the porn-star payment undeniably happened. I argued then, and I’m even more convinced now, that “the best argument in Trump’s favor is one that claims mitigation, not innocence.”

Compared with other possible campaign-finance infractions that have been settled without criminal charges, this one — if it is one — is a trifle. And while the underlying behavior is debauched, it happened a decade before Trump was elected. While extramarital, the tryst was consensual by Clifford’s account. (The White House half-heartedly denies it happened.) As for Trump’s fitness for the presidency, the scandal tells us exactly nothing that we didn’t already know about the flawed man that Americans chose to elect.

Det har altså taget at år for Muellers efterforskere, at finde beviser på, at Trumps “physical strength and stamina are extraordinary“. Men McCarthy giver dog Dershowitz, Levin og Gingrich ret i, at det ville se anderledes ud for Hillary Clinton. “Michael Cohen”, skriver McCarthy, “has discovered, what was not a crime in the Obama days is the crime of the century now”

Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign was caught hiding the sources of 1,300 large campaign donations, aggregating to nearly $2 million. The campaign also accepted more than $1.3 million in unlawful donations from contributors who had already given the legal maximum.

(…)

The Obama campaign did not have a defense; it argued in mitigation that the unlawful donations constituted a negligible fraction of the monumental amount it had raised from millions of “grass-roots” donors. Compelling? Maybe not, but enough to convince the Obama Justice Department not to prosecute the Obama campaign — shocking, I know. During the Christmas holiday season right after the 2012 campaign, with Obama safely reelected and nobody paying much attention, the matter was quietly settled with the payment of a $375,000 fine.

Is the $130,000 in hush money Donald Trump’s personal lawyer paid to porn star Stormy Daniels on the eve of the 2016 election a campaign-finance violation? Probably, although it’s a point of contention. Even if we stipulate that it is, though, we’re talking comparative chump change.

Og det er den sørgelig konklusion på en uhæmmet undersøgelse, som Dershowitz fra starten advarede imod, Berias ‘vis mig manden og jeg skal vise dig forbrydelsen’ diktum.

1 Kommentar »

  1. Det er utroligt at “Sumpen” er så forstokket i ikke at ville erkende sit nederlag, og - om ikke ligefrem at begynde at støtte præsidenten - så dog undlade at modarbejde ham på en for nationen så hensynsløs måde, at det simpelthen sigter mod borgerkrig, se fx kommentarsporet her http://www.breitbart.com/video/2018/04/13/gowdy-we-need-an-apolitical-fbi-cant-think-of-anyone-whos-done-a-better-job-of-politicizing-the-fbi-than-comey-has-in-last-36-to-48-hours/

    Vi så det samme herhjemme da mohammedkrisen var på sit højeste og den danske sump brugte lejligheden til at angribe Fogh på det skammeligste. Hvis man faktisk ønskede en ideologisk diskussion om sagen, så kunne man have støttet op om det principielle og så taget diskussionen på et senere og mere belejligt tidspunkt.
    Sumpens natur er som den bedrageriske mors, som gerne vil aflevere et halvt barn tilbage til den rigtige mor i historien om kong Salomon.

    Comment by mv jensen — April 14, 2018 @ 11:28 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Kommentér indlægget...

Monokultur kører på WordPress