Mar a Lago raided by FBI

mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.


The woman pictured with Donald Trump is Inna Yashchyshyn.

She is a Ukrainian woman who posed as a Rothschild heiress who Trump had given access to Mar a Lago. The European press is alive with this. The question being asked is was she a Russian spy? Was Trump duped as he is stupid, or was there a paid criminal and treasonous transaction?

The noose is tightening around the Donald. I am pretty sure he is not as wealthy as he claims to be, and likely vulnerable to a hefty pay off. We have to get to the bottom of why he had those documents at Mar a Lago and who he has given access to them fast.

I think it high time to arrest him and really shake him down. I think it is likely that this whole affair is far more serious then anyone wants to admit or even conceive.
Looks and s e x? :D
 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Ninja
More details and information in a court filing Tuesday by the DOJ on a response to Trump lawyers asking for a “special master” looking through documents taken when executing the search warrant.

It further undercuts the claims that the search warrant was an overreach. Now there are juicy pieces of obstruction.

I wonder if Team Trump made a self-goal by so late asking for a special master. It sure gave the DOJ an opportunity to respond to various unhinged accusations since the raid.


 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Ninja
Here is one tidbit about Trump’s passport that was taken during the raid and later returned. I, like many others, where wondering why they where taken. Now we know:

>>>…Trump has attacked the FBI for taking his passports, though they were later returned, claiming they were outside the scope of the warrant and improperly seized.

But the government asserted that the passports were found in a desk draw that contained classified documents, with government records "comingled with other documents."

"The location of the passports is relevant evidence in an investigation of unauthorized retention and mishandling of national defense information; nonetheless, the government decided to return those passports in its discretion," DOJ wrote.…<<<

 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Ninja
@Mr._Clark wondered in a post earlier in this thread about the Trump lawyer(s) signing a document to the FBI that there are no more classified documents on the premises and what their status will be with respect to their client and the investigation.

Now we have more information and it sure does not look good, but then I'm not a lawyer either.

>>>...In parts of the filing, using only their job descriptions, prosecutors paint Trump’s lawyer, Evan Corcoran, and custodian of records, Christina Bobb, as so uncooperative as to lead agents to suspect the Trump team might be obstructing the investigation.

The filing, for instance, says that when FBI agents and Jay Bratt, the chief of the counterintelligence and export control section at the Justice Department, met with Trump’s two representatives in early June, “the former President’s counsel explicitly prohibited government personnel from opening or looking inside any of the boxes that remained in the storage room, giving no opportunity for the government to confirm that no documents with classification markings remained.”

Yet, earlier this month, Bobb told The Washington Post that the lawyers showed the federal officials the boxes, and that Bratt and others spent some time looking through the material.

Trump made similar claims on social media after the raid, saying that his lawyers and representatives “were cooperating fully, and very good relationships had been established.” He added, “The government could have had whatever they wanted, if we had it.” ...<<<

 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Field Marshall
@Mr._Clark wondered in a post earlier in this thread about the Trump lawyer(s) signing a document to the FBI that there are no more classified documents on the premises and what their status will be with respect to their client and the investigation.

Now we have more information and it sure does not look good, but then I'm not a lawyer either.
Her continued representation of Trump is a mystery to me.

If the various media reports are correct, Bobb signed a statement to the effect that to the best of her knowledge, all classified material that had been at Mar-a-Lago had been turned over. Based on the evidence made public so far, all classified material had not been turned over.

This leaves two possibilities. The first is that she knew the statement was false. The second is that she really didn't know the material was there and her client was hiding information from her. In theory, I suppose she might claim that she thought Trump had declassified everything and the statement was true to the best of her knowledge, but that seems like an extremely thin reed.

Either way, she is potentially a fact witness in the case and (as I see it based on what is known) she appears to have a potential conflict of interest.

I normally avoid citing Newsweek for legal analysis, but this illustrates the problem:

>>>In light of the department's court filing on Tuesday, Bobb, together with Corcoran, could potentially be forced to testify in front of a grand jury against their own client.<<<

 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
Here is one tidbit about Trump’s passport that was taken during the raid and later returned. I, like many others, where wondering why they where taken. Now we know:

>>>…Trump has attacked the FBI for taking his passports, though they were later returned, claiming they were outside the scope of the warrant and improperly seized.

But the government asserted that the passports were found in a desk draw that contained classified documents, with government records "comingled with other documents."

"The location of the passports is relevant evidence in an investigation of unauthorized retention and mishandling of national defense information; nonetheless, the government decided to return those passports in its discretion," DOJ wrote.…<<<

Passports? How and why multiple passports?
While I heard different colors as a government person when he was a president, why should he retain them beyond the blue as just a plain civilian.
Just curious.
 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
Her continued representation of Trump is a mystery to me.

If the various media reports are correct, Bobb signed a statement to the effect that to the best of her knowledge, all classified material that had been at Mar-a-Lago had been turned over. Based on the evidence made public so far, all classified material had not been turned over.

This leaves two possibilities. The first is that she knew the statement was false. The second is that she really didn't know the material was there and her client was hiding information from her. In theory, I suppose she might claim that she thought Trump had declassified everything and the statement was true to the best of her knowledge, but that seems like an extremely thin reed.

Either way, she is potentially a fact witness in the case and (as I see it based on what is known) she appears to have a potential conflict of interest.

I normally avoid citing Newsweek for legal analysis, but this illustrates the problem:

>>>In light of the department's court filing on Tuesday, Bobb, together with Corcoran, could potentially be forced to testify in front of a grand jury against their own client.<<<

Interesting. But as we now know, she was a JAG lawyer and should have known about government documents and where they belonged, in government hands, classified or not. Also wonder if she needs an active license to practice or be in such a capacity working for a private individual. And she worked for him in 2020 while in government.
 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Ninja
Passports? How and why multiple passports?
While I heard different colors as a government person when he was a president, why should he retain them beyond the blue as just a plain civilian.
Just curious.
Two of the three passports where expired according to this link.

 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Field Marshall
Interesting. But as we now know, she was a JAG lawyer and should have known about government documents and where they belonged, in government hands, classified or not. Also wonder if she needs an active license to practice or be in such a capacity working for a private individual. And she worked for him in 2020 while in government.
Regardless of her past experience or knowledge concerning proper handling of government documents, according to numerous reports, the statement she signed was false.

The NYT just posted an article on this general topic:

>>>“If the Justice Department is going to pursue criminal charges, any prosecutor is going to want to have on the record the full picture of what happened, which will require the testimony of all the witnesses with the relevant knowledge — and that certainly includes lawyers here,” said Samuel Buell, a Duke University professor of criminal law and former prosecutor.<<<


The NYT article gets a bit lost on the issue of attorney client privilege, but does ultimately get it right:

>>>When attorney-client communications were part of continuing or future crimes, the privilege does not apply. If judges think there is sufficient evidence to trigger this “crime-fraud exception,” they will uphold a subpoena forcing the defense lawyers to provide evidence about what they and their clients said to each other.<<<

But, my main point from the beginning is actually the ethical problem:

>>>Rule 3.7: Lawyer as Witness

Advocate


(a) A lawyer shall not act as advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness unless:

(1) the testimony relates to an uncontested issue;
(2) the testimony relates to the nature and value of legal services rendered in the case; or
(3) disqualification of the lawyer would work substantial hardship on the client.

(b) A lawyer may act as advocate in a trial in which another lawyer in the lawyer's firm is likely to be called as a witness unless precluded from doing so by Rule 1.7 or Rule 1.9.<<<(emphasis added).


Disclaimer: The above is the ABA Model Rule, and I have not reviewed the Florida Rules so I'm not sure if Florida has adopted this rule or a modified version of it.

Nevertheless, from what I'm seeing so far, I'm having a hard time seeing how she's not walking into an ethics violation (not to mention taking a position near the front of the line of people Trump will be throwing under the bus before too long).
 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
Who knows but I know I kept my old passports :) Cool to look at the stamps once in a while.
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Field Marshall
The NYT just posted an article on this general topic:

>>>“If the Justice Department is going to pursue criminal charges, any prosecutor is going to want to have on the record the full picture of what happened, which will require the testimony of all the witnesses with the relevant knowledge — and that certainly includes lawyers here,” said Samuel Buell, a Duke University professor of criminal law and former prosecutor.<<<


The NYT article gets a bit lost on the issue of attorney client privilege, but does ultimately get it right:

>>>When attorney-client communications were part of continuing or future crimes, the privilege does not apply. If judges think there is sufficient evidence to trigger this “crime-fraud exception,” they will uphold a subpoena forcing the defense lawyers to provide evidence about what they and their clients said to each other.<<<
The NYT article also mentions the Fifth Amendment:

>>>There is another potential legal hurdle. If there is reason to believe that Mr. Corcoran, Ms. Bobb or both are at risk themselves of being charged with crimes like obstruction or lying to federal investigators, they would have a Fifth Amendment right against compelled self-incrimination.

As a result, neither could likely be compelled to testify before a grand jury about their interactions with Mr. Trump without a grant of immunity from prosecution at a minimum.<<<(emphasis added)

A grant of immunity "trumps" (pardon the pun) the Fifth Amendment. Thus, the Fifth Amendment is not necessarily a major roadblock if the primary target of an investigation is not the person who took the Fifth:

>>>Federal prosecutors may provide immunity to a culpable person to obtain evidence to prosecute others. A person receiving immunity cannot be prosecuted using their compelled statements. Accordingly, an individual provided with immunity cannot assert their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination because they are not being forced to assist in their own prosecution.<<< (disclaimer: I do not know this attorney, but everything I've seen so far on this webpage appears to be accurate)


More bluntly, a prosecutor can grant immunity and force a person to comply even if the person took the Fifth.

What if the person still refuses? The judge will send them to the Greybar Hotel until they change their mind.

It is being reported that John Eastman took the Fifth in the Georgia case:

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3622689-eastman-invoked-fifth-amendment-where-appropriate-in-appearance-before-georgia-grand-jury-lawyers-say/

The cynical side of me says he's fishing for immunity by taking the Fifth. Get in line buddy, get in line.
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Field Marshall
Her continued representation of Trump is a mystery to me.

If the various media reports are correct, Bobb signed a statement to the effect that to the best of her knowledge, all classified material that had been at Mar-a-Lago had been turned over. Based on the evidence made public so far, all classified material had not been turned over.

This leaves two possibilities. The first is that she knew the statement was false. The second is that she really didn't know the material was there and her client was hiding information from her. In theory, I suppose she might claim that she thought Trump had declassified everything and the statement was true to the best of her knowledge, but that seems like an extremely thin reed.

Either way, she is potentially a fact witness in the case and (as I see it based on what is known) she appears to have a potential conflict of interest.
After digging into this a bit, a partial answer is that Bobb has apparently not signed any of the filings in the 2 court cases:



It looks like her rather brief stint representing Trump (as a lawyer) is rapidly drawing to an ignominious end.

Her Instagram page states she is a "Strategist." Maybe in an aspirational sense, but it is certainly not an actual fact.
 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
Two of the three passports where expired according to this link.

Then the question is he is no longer a government official, his diplomatic passport is not his anymore unless it is cancelled, perhaps.
 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Ninja
Then the question is he is no longer a government official, his diplomatic passport is not his anymore unless it is cancelled, perhaps.
I dunno, but I myself keep my older expired passports.
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top