TheFrontPageCover
~ Featuring ~
"Firewalls" and "Taint Teams" Do
Not Protect Fourth and Sixth Amendment Rights
by Alan M. Dershowitz 
.
Comey's Dog Ate McCabe's Homework -
Only Hope to Flip on liar-nObama/liar-Clinton
by rickwells.us
{ rickwells.us } ~ Judicial Watch’s Chris Farrell joins Gregg Jarrett, filling in for Lou Dobbs, who starts of the discussion by stating... “Looks like the wheels of justice finally caught up with McCabe, although his defense will likely be what he put in his op-ed, in the Washington Post after he got fired.” Jarrett paraphrases what McCabe said then as, “Gee, I was, you know I was really busy and I was kind of confused and, you know, I might have made a mistake but I tried to correct it. That ain’t going to fly is it? The IG said that his lies were knowingly and intentionally made.” Farrell shakes his head that they are not going to fly, that McCabe “is a very experienced agent of twenty some odd years, Deputy Director of the FBI. And this, you know, the dog ate my homework, gee I forgot stuff is not going to fly, not for a second.”... https://rickwells.us/comey-dog-ate-mccabe-homework-flip/.DNC launches multimillion-dollar lawsuit
against Russian government, Trump campaign, WikiLeaks
by Katelyn Caralle
{ washingtonexaminer.com } ~ The Democratic National Committee on Friday filed a multimillion-dollar lawsuit against the Russian government, the Trump campaign, and WikiLeaks... alleging a conspiracy between the three entities to disrupt the 2016 presidential campaign in order to get Donald Trump elected. “During the 2016 presidential campaign, Russia launched an all-out assault on our democracy, and it found a willing and active partner in Donald Trump’s campaign,” DNC Chairman Tom Perez said in a statement, the Washington Post reported. The complaint was filed in a federal district court in Manhattan, N.Y., on Friday, and alleges that Trump campaign officials worked in conjunction with the Russian government to hurt Democratic presidential nominee liar-Hillary Clinton...The DNC are losing their minds for sure. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/dnc-files-lawsuit-against-russian-government-trump-campaign-wikileaks .
Giuliani Just Revealed His Game-Changing
Plan to Deal With Mueller, Russia Investigation
by CILLIAN ZEAL
{ westernjournal.com } ~ When Donald Trump wants to lawyer up, he doesn’t fool around... And now that the Mueller investigation has kicked into high gear over stuff it wasn’t even supposed to be investigating in the first place, he’s brought in a old friend from good ol’ Gotham. According to the New York Post, Rudy Giuliani — the former presidential candidate and mayor of New York City during 9/11 — will be joining the president’s legal team and hopes to put an end to Mueller’s intrusions in “a week or two.” Giuliani joins Ty Cobb and Jay Sekulow on the legal team dealing with Mueller. For those of you who didn’t grow up or live in New York City before Giuliani was mayor, this move might seem a bit strange to you. However, Giuliani made his name as a tough-as-nails federal prosecutor, aggressively going after the mob in an era where doing so risked ending up with your bullet-riddled remains in the trunk of a ’78 Chrysler Cordoba abandoned on the Cross-Bronx Expressway... https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/giuliani-just-revealed-his-game-changing-to-deal-with-mueller-russia-investigation/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=CTBreaking&utm_campaign=breaking&utm_content=conservative-tribune.The American “Inability to Understand” Jihadis
by Robert Spencer
{ frontpagemag.com } ~ One of the biggest ongoing problems of U.S. foreign policy is a failure to understand what we’re really up against... This problem is nothing new, although Barack liar-nObama took it to new heights by banning all mention of Islam and jihad from counterterror training, with many of his loyalists still in place and hampering our ability to deal realistically with the jihad threat today. This myopia goes back decades. In Theodore H. White’s America In Search of Itself, there is this telling passage about the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979. Khomeini’s Islamic regime was a government, but not in any sense that American diplomats were used to dealing with. What set Khomeini and his regime apart from the likes of Kim and Mao was Islam, and few, if any, foreign service professionals in the State Department understood that or knew how to deal with it... https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/269941/american-inability-understand-jihadis-robert-spencer .
Mitch McConnell Slams the Door on “Protect Mueller” Bill
.
.
"Firewalls" and "Taint Teams" Do
Not Protect Fourth and Sixth Amendment Rights
by Alan M. Dershowitz
{ gatestoneinstitute.org } ~ *The Fourth and Sixth Amendments prohibit government officials from in any way intruding on the privacy of lawyer/client confidential rights of citizens.
*The very fact that this material is seen or read by a government official constitutes a core violation. It would be the same if the government surreptitiously recorded a confession of a penitent to a priest, or a description of symptoms by a patient to a doctor, or a discussion of their sex life between a husband and wife.
*The recourses for intrusions on the Fourth and Sixth Amendments are multifold: the victim of the intrusion can sue for damages; he or she can exclude it from use by the government in criminal or civil cases; or the victim can demand the material back. But none of these remedies undo the harm to privacy and confidentiality done to the citizen by the government's intrusion into his private and confidential affairs.
*The very fact that this material is seen or read by a government official constitutes a core violation. It would be the same if the government surreptitiously recorded a confession of a penitent to a priest, or a description of symptoms by a patient to a doctor, or a discussion of their sex life between a husband and wife.
*The recourses for intrusions on the Fourth and Sixth Amendments are multifold: the victim of the intrusion can sue for damages; he or she can exclude it from use by the government in criminal or civil cases; or the victim can demand the material back. But none of these remedies undo the harm to privacy and confidentiality done to the citizen by the government's intrusion into his private and confidential affairs.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many TV pundits are telling viewers not to worry about the government's intrusion into possible lawyer/client privileged communications between President Trump and his lawyer, since prosecutors will not get to see or use any privileged material. This is because prosecutors and FBI agents create firewalls and taint teams to preclude privileged information from being used against the client in a criminal case. But that analysis completely misses the point and ignores the distinction between the Fifth Amendment on the one hand, and the Fourth and Sixth Amendments on the other.
The Fifth Amendment is an exclusionary rule. By its terms, it prevents material obtained in violation of the privilege of self-incrimination from being used to incriminate a defendant – that is to convict him of a crime. But the Fourth and Sixth Amendments provide far broader protections: they prohibit government officials from in any way intruding on the privacy of lawyer/client confidential rights of citizens. In other words, if the government improperly seizes private or privileged material, the violation has already occurred, even if the government never uses the material from the person from whom it was seized.
Not surprisingly, therefore, firewalls and taint teams were developed in the context of the Fifth Amendment, not the Fourth or Sixth Amendments. Remember who comprises the firewall and taint teams: other FBI agents, prosecutors and government officials who have no right under the Fourth and Sixth Amendments, even to see private or confidential materials, regardless of whether it is ever used against a defendant. The very fact that this material is seen or read by a government official constitutes a core violation. It would be the same if the government surreptitiously recorded a confession of a penitent to a priest, or a description of symptoms by a patient to a doctor, or a discussion of their sex life between a husband and wife. The government simply has no right to this material, whether it ever uses it against the penitent or the patient or the spouse in a criminal case.
So, let's not dismiss the potential violation of the rights of Michael Cohen and his client, if it were to turn out that included among the materials seized by the government in the raid were private or confidential information or documents.
The recourses for intrusions on the Fourth and Sixth Amendments are multifold: the victim of the intrusion can sue for damages; he or she can exclude it from use by the government in criminal or civil cases; or the victim can demand the material back. But none of these remedies undo the harm to privacy and confidentiality done to the citizen by the government's intrusion into his private and confidential affairs.
An equally important harm is to important relationships that are protected by the law: between lawyer and client, priest and penitent, doctor and patient, husband and wife, etc. If an ordinary citizen, seeing that even the president's confidential communications with his lawyer can be seized and perused, he or she will be far less willing to engage in such communications. As a society, we value such communications; that is why our laws protect them and that is why it should be extremely difficult for the government to intrude upon them, except as a last recourse in extremely important cases.
From what we know, this case does not meet those stringent standards. Much of the material sought by the warrant could probably be obtained through other sources, such as bank, tax and other records that are subject to subpoena. Moreover, the alleged crimes at issue – highly technical violations of banking and election laws – would not seem to warrant the extreme measure of a highly publicized search and seizure of records that may well include some that are subject to the lawyer/client privilege.
Someday soon, the government is going to have to justify its decision to conduct this raid. I challenge any reader who is not concerned about this raid to honestly answer the following question: If the raid had been conducted on liar-Hillary Clinton's lawyer's office and home, would you be as unconcerned? The truth now!
The Fifth Amendment is an exclusionary rule. By its terms, it prevents material obtained in violation of the privilege of self-incrimination from being used to incriminate a defendant – that is to convict him of a crime. But the Fourth and Sixth Amendments provide far broader protections: they prohibit government officials from in any way intruding on the privacy of lawyer/client confidential rights of citizens. In other words, if the government improperly seizes private or privileged material, the violation has already occurred, even if the government never uses the material from the person from whom it was seized.
Not surprisingly, therefore, firewalls and taint teams were developed in the context of the Fifth Amendment, not the Fourth or Sixth Amendments. Remember who comprises the firewall and taint teams: other FBI agents, prosecutors and government officials who have no right under the Fourth and Sixth Amendments, even to see private or confidential materials, regardless of whether it is ever used against a defendant. The very fact that this material is seen or read by a government official constitutes a core violation. It would be the same if the government surreptitiously recorded a confession of a penitent to a priest, or a description of symptoms by a patient to a doctor, or a discussion of their sex life between a husband and wife. The government simply has no right to this material, whether it ever uses it against the penitent or the patient or the spouse in a criminal case.
So, let's not dismiss the potential violation of the rights of Michael Cohen and his client, if it were to turn out that included among the materials seized by the government in the raid were private or confidential information or documents.
The recourses for intrusions on the Fourth and Sixth Amendments are multifold: the victim of the intrusion can sue for damages; he or she can exclude it from use by the government in criminal or civil cases; or the victim can demand the material back. But none of these remedies undo the harm to privacy and confidentiality done to the citizen by the government's intrusion into his private and confidential affairs.
An equally important harm is to important relationships that are protected by the law: between lawyer and client, priest and penitent, doctor and patient, husband and wife, etc. If an ordinary citizen, seeing that even the president's confidential communications with his lawyer can be seized and perused, he or she will be far less willing to engage in such communications. As a society, we value such communications; that is why our laws protect them and that is why it should be extremely difficult for the government to intrude upon them, except as a last recourse in extremely important cases.
From what we know, this case does not meet those stringent standards. Much of the material sought by the warrant could probably be obtained through other sources, such as bank, tax and other records that are subject to subpoena. Moreover, the alleged crimes at issue – highly technical violations of banking and election laws – would not seem to warrant the extreme measure of a highly publicized search and seizure of records that may well include some that are subject to the lawyer/client privilege.
Someday soon, the government is going to have to justify its decision to conduct this raid. I challenge any reader who is not concerned about this raid to honestly answer the following question: If the raid had been conducted on liar-Hillary Clinton's lawyer's office and home, would you be as unconcerned? The truth now!
Comments