Trump's Lawyer Office Raided--Is This The End Of The Rule Of Law?

Dershowitz: Targeting Trump's lawyer should worry us all

BY ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 04/10/18 11:45 AM EDT 4,394

THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL

8,518

FBI raids Trump lawyer's office

Autoplay: On | Off

There is much speculation as to the significance of the search of the offices and hotel room of President Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen. To obtain a search warrant, prosecutors must demonstrate to a judge that they have probable cause to believe that the premises to be searched contain evidence of crime. They must also specify the area to be searched, the items to be seized and, in searches of computers, the word searches to be used.

At least that’s the constitutional requirement in theory, especially where the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is involved, in addition to the general Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches. Yet, in practice, judges often give the FBI considerable latitude, relying on the “firewalls” and “taint teams” they set up to protect the subject of the search from violation of his or her constitutional rights.

But the firewalls and taint teams are comprised of government agents who themselves may not be entitled to read or review many of the items seized. It is an imperfect protection of important constitutional rights. That’s why Justice Department officials must be careful to limit the searching of lawyers’ offices to compelling cases involving serious crimes. We don’t know at this point what the prosecutors are looking for but, if it relates to payments made to porn star Stormy Daniels, that would not seem to justify so potentially intrusive a search of Cohen’s confidential lawyer-client files.

There are, of course, exceptions to the lawyer-client privilege. First, the lawyer must be acting as a lawyer, not as a friend or business associate. But the scope of a lawyer’s work is quite broad, encompassing much more than merely giving legal advice. It includes settling cases by making payments to potential litigants. Second, the lawyer must be engaged in lawful activities on behalf of the clients. Illegal or fraudulent activities are not covered by the privilege. Nor are communications with third persons, such as the lawyer for the other side, though such communications may be covered by the much weaker “settlement privilege.”

Civil libertarians should be concerned whenever the government interferes with the lawyer-client relationship. Clients should be able to rely on confidentiality when they disclose their most intimate secrets in an effort to secure their legal rights. A highly publicized raid on the president’s lawyer will surely shake the confidence of many clients in promises of confidentiality by their lawyers. They will not necessarily understand the nuances of the confidentiality rules and their exceptions. They will see a lawyer’s office being raided and all his files seized.

I believe we would have been hearing more from civil libertarians — the American Civil Liberties Union, attorney groups and privacy advocates — if the raid had been on Hillary Clinton’s lawyer. Many civil libertarians have remained silent about potential violations of President Trump’s rights because they strongly disapprove of him and his policies. That is a serious mistake, because these violations establish precedents that lie around like loaded guns capable of being aimed at other targets.

I have been widely attacked for defending the constitutional rights of a president I voted against. In our hyperpartisan age, everyone is expected to choose a side, either for or against Trump. But the essence of civil liberties is that they must be equally applicable to all. The silence among most civil libertarians regarding the recent raid shows that we are losing that valuable neutrality.

Ignoring The Law To Get A Conviction Is Both Illegal And Immoral

Trump lawyer: Robert Mueller violated law to obtain transition team emails

December 17, 2017

Image Source: Screenshot

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into the Donald Trump transition team’s alleged ties with Russia has been going down in flames in recent weeks, as details of corruption and bias plague the investigation. Now, a claim from one of Trump’s lawyers is adding fuel to that fire.

A Trump transition team lawyer has accused Special Counsel Robert Mueller of illegally acquiring “tens of thousands” of private email communications and electronic devices from the transition team.

These “unauthorized disclosures,” included “confidential attorney-client communications, privileged communications, and thousands of emails,” according to Fox News.

Unlawful Conduct

The emails and property seized by Mueller’s team belonged to Trump for America, a nonprofit organization that facilitated the transition from former President Barack Obama to current President Donald Trump.

The Mueller team did not seek permission from the president’s transition team to obtain the materials, and instead compelled the General Services Agency (GSA) — a government agency whose limited role was to provide the transition team with office space and host its email servers until Trump’s team could move into the White House — to hand over emails, computers, cell phones, and an iPad owned by Trump’s staff, according to the report.

After requests from Mueller in August, GSA staff prepared a flash drive with the Trump team’s emails for the special counsel to review; Trump was long gone from GSA-owned offices when the agency sifted through archives to find and consolidate the dated material, some of which includes legally protected attorney-client correspondences.

Kory Langhofer, who served as an attorney for president-elect Trump, sent a letter to House and Senate committees on Saturday alleging “unlawful conduct” from GSA staff for volunteering these emails and electronic devices to the Mueller investigation.

Langhofer argued that Mueller’s back-door acquisition of the materials constituted an illegal search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment; Mueller’s agents failed to produce a warrant or subpoenas in their requests for the evidence, instead relying upon a non-binding written request to convince or even coerce the GSA into cooperation.

Counsel Responds

Langhofer also argued in his letter to Congress that the privacy breach represents a concern for all future presidents-elect and their transition team that work within GSA property. He said lawmakers should “act immediately to protect future presidential transitions from having their private records misappropriated by government agencies, particularly in the context of sensitive investigations intersecting with political motives.”

A spokesman for Mueller’s team, Peter Carr, denied any wrongdoing from investigators, however.

“When we have obtained emails in the course of our ongoing criminal investigation, we have secured either the account owner’s consent or appropriate criminal process,” Carr said.

GSA Deputy Counsel Lenny Loewentritt also denied a claim made by Langhofer that the GSA promised to forward any legal requests for records to the Trump attorneys.

Loewentritt insisted that his predecessor “never made that commitment” with the transition team.

Anti-Trump hit squad

To make matters worse, Trump’s lawyers are also arguing that the confiscated emails were used as evidence to bring charges against some of the president’s staff who were recently indicted by the special counsel.

 

Ads by Revcontent

“We understand that the Special Counsel’s office has subsequently made extensive use of the materials it obtained from the GSA, including materials that are susceptible to privilege claims,” Langhofer wrote.

As if it weren’t already sufficiently negligent of Mueller to form what is effectively a political hit-squad against Trump for increasingly improbable ties to Russia, the former FBI director demonstrated that he won’t obey the law in his pursuit of guilt.

Ads by Revcontent

Trump supporters who have been worried that the Mueller investigation could extend beyond its original mandate of investigating Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election should be alarmed — but it’s not the scope of the investigation that should be the primary concern. Now, Americans have to ask if Mueller’s investigation is even being conducted legally.

What a shame.

America Is Becoming The World's Policeman. The Problem Is That It Does Not Extend Rights To Foreigners, It Just Rams The Indictment Down Their Throats.

April 23, 2015, 11:00 am

It’s time to talk about the Fourth Amendment

By Samuel Guzman

11

 0

Vienna, March 2014. Dmitry Firtash, a wealthy Ukrainian industrialist, is arrested at the request of the United States, under a warrant from the FBI. Unbeknownst to Firtash, a secret grand jury had indicted him in June 2013 on charges of conspiracy to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and he had been placed on a government watch list ever since. As alleged in court documents, Firtash along with five other defendants had bribed government officials in India to allow the mining of titanium mines. Claiming his innocence, Firtash has been fighting extradition to the United States ever since he posted a record bail of €125 million.

San Francisco, April 2015. A federal judge dismissed a bribery case with harsh words for prosecutors, calling it “the most misguided prosecution” he had seen in 50 years of criminal practice because prosecutors had stretched too far the reach of U.S. law without respecting the defendants’ rights of due process. The government claimed that two Ukrainian officials, Yuri Sidorenko and Alexander Vassiliev had paid bribes to an official of a UN agency based in Canada in order to secure lucrative contracts for their business.

ADVERTISEMENT

Beyond the nationality of the defendants, the connection between the two cases revolves around the steady creeping of the jurisdiction of the U.S. Justice system, that some have claimed is abusive. Buoyed by a plethora of acts and statutes issued by Congress over the past decades that increase the powers of enforcement well beyond the limits of sovereign American territory, the number of cases involving non-U.S. citizens that nevertheless fall under the scope of U.S. law has multiplied.

Under the guise of combatting transnational criminal organizations that transcend national borders, U.S. federal law has increasingly blurred the boundaries between criminal behavior committed on U.S territory and crimes committed beyond the limits of the U.S. For example, a foreign company that uses U.S.-based servers, US banks or conducts business with any entity with these types of US contact could be subject to federal criminal laws.

As Justice William Brennan bemoaned two decades ago in the seminal United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez case, “Foreign nationals must now take care not to violate our drug laws, our antitrust laws, our securities laws, and a host of other federal criminal statutes”. Indeed, the U.S has signed56 mutual legal assistance treaties (MLATs) with third countries. MLATs allow agents of the law to gather and exchange evidence and intelligence in criminal matters and increase the extraterritorial reach of the government.

However, the other side of the coin in this ongoing crusade against international and transnational crime is that even if defendants can be brought before U.S. courts, none of the safeguards enshrined in the U.S. Constitution are extended to them.

Take the Fourth Amendment, which protects the individual’s right to be free from unreasonable search and seizures and requires warrants to be supported by a probable cause, to searches conducted by U.S. agents in foreign countries. The Supreme Court has repeatedly refused to apply it for non-U.S. citizens, even in the face of criticisms that it could lead to abusive behavior by law enforcers. What this means is that the Court will not look at the way the evidence provided was collected nor at the way the arrest warrant was carried out.

Exempted from the rules and safeguards of the U.S. Constitution, collecting foreign intelligence has led to a string of cases that were built on blatant human rights abuses conducted by local authorities with the blessing of U.S. law enforcement agents. For example, in the United States v. Alvarez Machaín case, the Supreme Court upheld the kidnapping of a foreign national by U.S. agents for the purpose of being brought before an American court – a case that was strongly condemned by then-Mexican President Carlos Salinas who even passed a law making nationals aiding and abetting acts of transnational kidnappings criminals “against the homeland”.

Thus we have a perverse double standard: a foreign national can be tried before a U.S. court for violating a U.S. federal statute that could lead to possible imprisonment in a U.S. federal prison, but that national is prohibited from enjoying even the elementary protection awarded by the Fourth Amendment.  As Alvarez Machaín and the 2015 San Francisco cases showed, the growing number of prosecutions involving extraterritorial searches could damage the credibility of the United States and its justice system at home and internationally.

It is highly unlikely that the Framers of the Constitution would have ever sanctioned the U.S. federal government to expand its jurisdiction into the homes of foreign nationals with the aim of prosecuting them. The same Congress that has enacted far-reaching federal statutes shouldn’t turn a blind eye this miscarriage of justice anymore.

Guzman is a policy analyst based in Washington DC with extensive experience in the South American region.

When The Government Forces You To Do Something Or Not To Do Something , Is That Not Tyranny?

Indiana Freedom of Religion

March 30, 2015 By KrisAnne Hall 2 Comments

The Indiana law known as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is intended to give citizens protection from federal coercion and encroachment upon religious conscience.  It is intended specifically to protect conscientious objectors from participating in acts contrary to their religiously held beliefs and to allow them to seek relief against the violators of their religious conscience.  In truth there is a flaw in this apparently well-intended law. And here it is from the text of the law itself:

“Sec. 6. A state action, or an action taken by an individual based upon a state action, may not substantially burden a person’s right to the exercise of religion, even if that burden results from a law or policy of general applicability unless the state or political subdivision of the state demonstrates that applying that burden to the person’s exercise of religion is: (1) essential to further a compelling government interest…”

This law, like many other 1st Amendment Preservation Acts creates a loophole for the government to justify their violations.  These acts change the First Amendment standard from “shall not abridge” to the government CAN abridge as long as they can show “a compelling government interest” for their infringements.  It is the same loophole that the government uses to justify circumventing the 4th Amendment to read your emails and collect your internet and phone data: a compelling government interest in national security.

According to this law, the government could perhaps argue they have a “compelling government interest” to prevent discrimination against ALL classes of people, and viola! the act is meaningless.  As a result this law actually gives legal justification for the very violations it was created to prevent!

This is the danger of compensating for an unbounded GOVERNMENT exercising a power contrary to Liberty and freedom of conscience. While it is the rightful remedy for states to intercede for its citizens, it is very dangerous when it is not done properly.  We may just set up new precedents to further weaken the liberties we are attempting to protect.

What we desperately need is more constitutional education and fewer laws.

As a side note:  I believe anyone has the right to discriminate against me for the color of my skin, my religion, or even the smell of my perfume if they so choose. I trust Liberty.  I believe in the free market system.  I never trust the government to have the power to force someone to do or not do something.  I believe I have the Liberty to go somewhere else.  I do not have a RIGHT to shop anywhere I want.  But if a store owner discriminates against me, I reserve the right to boycott and encourage all my friends to boycott this business into bankruptcy.  

Comparing the “white only” issues of the 50s & 60s is a misapplication of circumstances.  The “white only” discriminations were a result of a law created BY government prohibiting service based upon race.  

In truth, there is no difference between a government using the force of law to prohibit a business owner from serving someone than a government using the force of law to require a business owner to serve someone.  Either way it is tyranny.

Here is a more in depth explanation if you like: http://goo.gl/oqxylz

Good Bye Your Constitutional Rights!

Congress has just overruled your 1st, 4th and 5th Amendment Rights.

 Rlgrimes12/12/2014

As of today, Bill HR4681 has passed the house and senate, and is currently undergoing arbitration before being sent to the President for his signature in to law. The law says that the intelligence community can collect, retain, and disseminate all electronic communications including voice calls [without any constitutional restrictions] on all US citizens and everyone else in the world.  And they have 5 years before they are supposed to destroy the records.  However, they can keep them indefinitely if they fall into several categories of interest.

It is all out in the open now.  Your 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendment protections are gone.  This act gives new meaning to ‘land of the free, home of the brave.’  The intelligence community isn’t doing anything in secret any more.  Americans are now living in an environment much like the days of the old Stalinist Soviet Union, where the presumption was that all conversations were monitored and one takes measures to have a ‘private’ conversations.

So turn up your radio or turn the water on in the sink and watch what you say on the phone or Facebook, even casual remarks on twitter may come back to haunt you in the future.  Don’t believe me, I have pasted the relivant parts of the bill below this story. Still don’t believe it? Just go to www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/4681/text and read it from the horse’s mouth.

What are you willing to do about it?

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

?

[H.R. 4681 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

H.R.4681

One Hundred Thirteenth Congress

of the

United States of America

TITLE III–GENERAL PROVISIONS

Subtitle A–General Matters

Sec. 309. Procedures for the retention of incidentally acquired

communications.

SEC. 309. PROCEDURES FOR THE RETENTION OF INCIDENTALLY ACQUIRED

COMMUNICATIONS.

(a) Definitions.–In this section:

(1) Covered communication.–The term “covered communication”

means any nonpublic telephone or electronic communication acquired

without the consent of a person who is a party to the

communication, including communications in electronic storage.

(2) Head of an element of the intelligence community.–The term

“head of an element of the intelligence community” means, as

appropriate–

(A) the head of an element of the intelligence community;

or

(B) the head of the department or agency containing such

element.

(3) United states person.–The term “United States person”

has the meaning given that term in section 101 of the Foreign

Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801).

(b) Procedures for Covered Communications.–

(1) Requirement to adopt.–Not later than 2 years after the

date of the enactment of this Act each head of an element of the

intelligence community shall adopt procedures approved by the

Attorney General for such element that ensure compliance with the

requirements of paragraph (3).

(2) Coordination and approval.–The procedures required by

paragraph (1) shall be–

(A) prepared in coordination with the Director of National

Intelligence; and

(B) approved by the Attorney General prior to issuance.

(3) Procedures.–

(A) Application.–The procedures required by paragraph (1)

shall apply to any intelligence collection activity not

otherwise authorized by court order (including an order or

certification issued by a court established under subsection

(a) or (b) of section 103 of the Foreign Intelligence

Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1803)), subpoena, or

similar legal process that is reasonably anticipated to result

in the acquisition of a covered communication to or from a

United States person and shall permit the acquisition,

retention, and dissemination of covered communications subject

to the limitation in subparagraph (B).

(B) Limitation on retention.–A covered communication shall

not be retained in excess of 5 years, unless–

(i) the communication has been affirmatively

determined, in whole or in part, to constitute foreign

intelligence or counterintelligence or is necessary to

understand or assess foreign intelligence or

counterintelligence;

(ii) the communication is reasonably believed to

constitute evidence of a crime and is retained by a law

enforcement agency;

(iii) the communication is enciphered or reasonably

believed to have a secret meaning;

(iv) all parties to the communication are reasonably

believed to be non-United States persons;

(v) retention is necessary to protect against an

imminent threat to human life, in which case both the

nature of the threat and the information to be retained

shall be reported to the congressional intelligence

committees not later than 30 days after the date such

retention is extended under this clause;

(vi) retention is necessary for technical assurance or

compliance purposes, including a court order or discovery

obligation, in which case access to information retained

for technical assurance or compliance purposes shall be

reported to the congressional intelligence committees on an

annual basis; or

(vii) retention for a period in excess of 5 years is

approved by the head of the element of the intelligence

community responsible for such retention, based on a

determination that retention is necessary to protect the

national security of the United States, in which case the

head of such element shall provide to the congressional

intelligence committees a written certification

describing–

(I) the reasons extended retention is necessary to

protect the national security of the United States;

(II) the duration for which the head of the element

is authorizing retention;

(III) the particular information to be retained;

and

(IV) the measures the element of the intelligence

community is taking to protect the privacy interests of

United States persons or persons located inside the

United States.

Read more at http://universalfreepress.com/share-story-now-congress-just-overruled-1st-4th-5th-amendment-rights/