FBI raids Trump lawyer Michael Cohen's office

[rogue06]

mediabiasfactcheck.com describes this source as follows: "The Gateway Pundit is a hard-right website that is not afraid of conspiracy theories and the occasional flirtation with outright white supremacists." It is catecorized as extreme right.

And Just Facts Daily describes Media Bias Fact Check as being "either inept and/or dishonest."

[Mountain Man]

There is just no hope for you at all MM, it's no use, you are totally gone. The "gatewaypundit." Egad!

Classic "I don't like the source, so the facts must be wrong" non-answer.

[Tassman]

And Just Facts Daily describes Media Bias Fact Check as being "either inept and/or dishonest."

Wiki says: "The Gateway Pundit (TGP) is a fringe,[2] far-right,[3][4][5][6] pro-Trump[7] website. It was founded after the United States presidential election in 2004,[8][9] according to its founder Jim Hoft, to "speak the truth" and to "expose the wickedness of the left".[10]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gateway_Pundithttps://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...=.0fc49cb6bb86

[Charles]

And Just Facts Daily describes Media Bias Fact Check as being "either inept and/or dishonest."

Then one would wonder, if Media Bias Fact Check's description of Just Facts Daily is either inept and/or dishonest. They claim they are high on factual reporting: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/just-facts-daily/ Funny situation.

They were the ones I pointed to but going through all sorts of sources you will see a rather consistent picture:

What distinguishes Gateway from other right-leaning sites such as Breitbart.com is that "the bar for what they'll publish is just lower," said Will Sommer, an editor for the Hill newspaper who edits Right Richter, a blog about conservative media. Even so, he said, it is relatively more respectable than the conspiracy-peddling site Infowars, which increases TGP's influence among other conservative sites.http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...224-story.html

The Gateway Pundit is a hard-right website founded by former corporate executive Jim Hoft, who is also a principal writer.[1] Often cited by such "scholars" as Matt Drudge, it holds a strong pro-Trump[2] stance, is anti-liberal, and has occasional flirtation with outright white supremacists. It is a fairly popular blog, allegedly getting 4 to 5 million views each month, once again proving that being popular doesn't necessarily make you right.https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Gateway_Pundit

Hoft, the Gateway Pundit founder who is facing two separate lawsuits stemming from his coverage of the Charlottesville attack, said that he doesn't think the lawsuits against him hold much legal weight, and believes they are part of a multi-pronged effort to attack media outlets on the right.

Nevertheless, Hoft told CNN the pending litigation has prompted him to be more careful, and stressed that he had "no problem admitting that."

"I did speak with my writers," he said, adding that he told them, "I don't want any more lawsuits so we have to be really careful with what we put up." http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/30/medi...dit/index.html

The Gateway Pundit is known as a source of viral falsehoods and hoaxes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gateway_Pundit

[Mountain Man]

mediabiasfactcheck.com describes this source as follows: "The Gateway Pundit is a hard-right website that is not afraid of conspiracy theories and the occasional flirtation with outright white supremacists." It is catecorized as extreme right.

While this in itself does not prove the particular article wrong, it gives me an indication that I could use my time a lot better than reading this stuff. The same goes for Breitbart. When they post a new article I of course do not know beforehand that it is wrong. I have just seen them being wrong so many times that I prefer to use my limited amount of time to read stuff that I have good reason to trust.

Wiki says: "The Gateway Pundit (TGP) is a fringe,[2] far-right,[3][4][5][6] pro-Trump[7] website. It was founded after the United States presidential election in 2004,[8][9] according to its founder Jim Hoft, to "speak the truth" and to "expose the wickedness of the left".[10]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gateway_Pundithttps://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...=.0fc49cb6bb86

I've noticed that neither of you has addressed even a single fact in the article and have instead attacked the source.. I'm sure by now you know the name of this particular fallacy. I've called you guys out on it often enough.

[Charles]

I've noticed that neither of you has addressed even a single fact in the article and have instead attacked the source.. I'm sure by now you know the name of this particular fallacy. I've called you guys out on it often enough.

I knew you were going to go for the idea it was the genetic fallacy. But it appears you did not read what I actually wrote:

"While this in itself does not prove the particular article wrong, it gives me an indication that I could use my time a lot better than reading this stuff. The same goes for Breitbart. When they post a new article I of course do not know beforehand that it is wrong. I have just seen them being wrong so many times that I prefer to use my limited amount of time to read stuff that I have good reason to trust."

So this is just another case of you making a statement that is proven wrong by simply refering to the content in the post you reply to. I openly stated I did not adress the content of the article and I openly stated I did not conclude anything about the particular content.

You claim you have called me out on it before. Let's see if you can bring any examples or if this just another case of you making statements you cannot support or provide any evidence for. Looking forward.

[Starlight]

It is quite a drastic level of action to do search warrants on lawyers of anyone so as to dig up dirt on a citizen.

In this instance the lawyer himself appears to be a guilty party. From the statements Trump and his lawyer Cohen have independently made in public, it appears that the payment that Cohen made to Stormy Daniels is in breach of a law. Furthermore there is decent reason to suspect that Cohen himself was personally an agent who facilitated illegal dealings with Russia. A lawyer is supposed to give advice to criminal clients not to actively aid and abet them in committing crimes.

Often this means that the government in trying to prosecute someone is also at the same time getting the private information of how a lawyer will defend someone.

No, steps are taken to avoid precisely this. The information obtained in the warrants will be reviewed by an independent legal team who will put aside any information they deem to be covered by attorney-client privilege (which obviously includes such things as the strategy of legal defense), and only pass on the information that is not covered by that privilege. That is precisely why it wasn't Mueller's team that did the raid. Mueller will only get information passed onto him once a 3rd party has reviewed it to confirm it doesn't breach attorney-client privilege. Lawyers are very enthusiastic about protecting that right because so much of their business model depends on it.

Has no one in this thread realized what abuses have been done without justification?

An investigation team applied to a judge for a search warrant, who reviewed their application and approved it. Furthermore the deputy-head of the DoJ signed off on it. That is called following due process, not 'abuses'.

If Mueller has not been able to make a case of collaboration with Russia, either Trump is innocent of Mueller should have declared Trump innocent and all this mess should have come to a close.

I would say Mueller's investigation is rapidly drawing to a close, and I would anticipate that within the next 3 months he report his findings. Are you suggesting that Mueller shouldn't have been allowed to do any investigative work? Was he supposed to announce his results before gathering evidence and talking to witnesses?

The equivalent case against Nixon took many years to put together, but Mueller seems to be fast-tracking this.

[Mountain Man]

I knew you were going to go for the idea it was the genetic fallacy. But it appears you did not read what I actually wrote:

"While this in itself does not prove the particular article wrong, it gives me an indication that I could use my time a lot better than reading this stuff."

Translation: "While this in itself does not prove the particular article wrong, that's not going to stop me from implying that it actually does prove the particular article wrong."

Sorry, Chuck, but you're not nearly as clever as you think you are.

[Charles]

Translation: "While this in itself does not prove the particular article wrong, that's not going to stop me from implying that it actually does prove the particular article wrong."

Sorry, Chuck, but you're not nearly as clever as you think you are.

I am still clever enough to see the difference between concluding based on an information (which is what you wrongly claim I did) and seeing information as an indication without concluding. It is usually very hard for you to see these rather important differences. Unless, of course, you are making your strawmen on purpose.

And what happened to the part in which I wrote: "You claim you have called me out on it before. Let's see if you can bring any examples or if this just another case of you making statements you cannot support or provide any evidence for. Looking forward."?

[carpedm9587]

It is quite a drastic level of action to do search warrants on lawyers of anyone so as to dig up dirt on a citizen. Often his means that the government in trying to prosecute someone is also at the same time getting the private information of how a lawyer will defend someone. The government already has unlimited funding to build a case against individual people -- but now they are tearing apart all the people around Trump. The US Government isn't delegated that much authority by we the people.
Has no one in this thread realized what abuses have been done without justification? If Mueller has not been able to make a case of collaboration with Russia, either Trump is innocent of Mueller should have declared Trump innocent and all this mess should have come to a close.

A great deal of this smacks of conspiracy theory. Mueller continues to investigate the Russian interference with 2016, and to unearth linkages. In the process, he has found financial irregularities, some of which pre-date the campaign and has (as he was required to do by item two on his jurisdiction) followed up on any illegalities uncovered in the course of his investigation. Most recently, we had a lawyer paying off a porn star, during the campaign, on behalf of a client they represent, with no indication of a power of attorney being in place, and both Trump/Cohen have denied he knew anything about it. That raises all sorts of questions about campaign irregularity (finances, legal representation, etc.). Of course they are going to be investigating all of the people around Trump - the mandate was to investigate possible links between the Trump campaign (i.e., people around, and related to, Trump by definition) and Russian involvement.

Special Counsel investigations regularly run for a couple years, and we knew this going in. It seems to me that the more indictments Mueller files, the more nervous the right gets that something implicating Trump is actually going to be found, so they want this investigation to end. I suggest it should end when Mueller ceases to find things and has not more indictments to file.

[Mountain Man]

Special Counsel investigations regularly run for a couple years...

Especially when, contrary to the rules for appointing a special counsel*, no crime is specified, and he is essentially given a blank check to find anything he can to take down a duly elected President of the United States.

Oh, that's right, you were going to get back to me. Did you ever figure out which crime Mueller was specifically charged with investigating?


* "The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted" and "The Special Counsel will be provided with a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated." Source

[carpedm9587]

Especially when, contrary to the rules for appointing a special counsel*, no crime is specified, and he is essentially given a blank check to find anything he can to take down a duly elected President of the United States.

Oh, that's right, you were going to get back to me. Did you ever figure out which crime Mueller was specifically charged with investigating?

* "The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted" and "The Special Counsel will be provided with a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated." Source

I responded to this question already. The letter requires Mueller to take over an already existing investigation into the relationship between the Trump campaign and Russia. By the time he took it over, Russia had already been shown to have inserted itself in the campaign, and to have hacked private systems. Mueller is to determine if the Trump campaign in any way engaged in illegal activities related to that election cycle.

[Roy]

Especially when, contrary to the rules for appointing a special counsel*, no crime is specified, and he is essentially given a blank check to find anything he can to take down a duly elected President of the United States.

Oh, that's right, you were going to get back to me. Did you ever figure out which crime Mueller was specifically charged with investigating?

"coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump."

US Code 30121 (a)(2): "It shall be unlawful for a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation [of money or other thing of value] from a foreign national [in connection with a Federal, State, or local election]"

So the criminal investigation is into whether Trump campaign members solicited or accepted money, services or information from the Russian government.

This is not hard.

[Mountain Man]

I responded to this question already. The letter requires Mueller to take over an already existing investigation into the relationship between the Trump campaign and Russia. By the time he took it over, Russia had already been shown to have inserted itself in the campaign, and to have hacked private systems. Mueller is to determine if the Trump campaign in any way engaged in illegal activities related to that election cycle.

Please quote from the letter the specific crime that Mueller was given jurisdiction to investigate.

[carpedm9587]

Please quote from the letter the specific crime that Mueller was given jurisdiction to investigate.

I've now answered this twice. Read my previous posts.

Prediction: I'll be told I didn't answer the question and I am "dodging" and "spinning," probably accompanied with an appropriate emoji.