• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Federal search warrant executed at Rudy Giuliani’s NYC apartment

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
17,211
4,852
136
It’s too late for that. Whatever investigations are going to happen most of that’s going to be done long before January 2025. Trump’s only chance to avoid them was winning in 2020.
He was literally running for his freedom. Hopefully, they find some stuff that leads to evidence of criminal conduct by Trump after he was officially out of office. Meaning he can definitely be indicted.
 
Feb 4, 2009
29,935
10,477
136
It depends on when the investigations end, he gets indicted and he goes to trial. I could see him trying to run for President during a trial and/or using that as a reason to stall the trial.
We don’t jail former Presidents, it will be a fine.
The former President will view a big fine the same as a jail sentence. Probably give him as much and maybe more “pain”.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
72,154
22,748
136
It depends on when the investigations end, he gets indicted and he goes to trial. I could see him trying to run for President during a trial and/or using that as a reason to stall the trial.
I can see him making that argument but it's hard for me to see a judge buying it. Fundamentally Trump would be asking the judge to postpone finding out if someone attempting to become the world's most powerful man is a criminal, with the bonus being if he wins the election he cannot be punished even if he is.

'Don't find out if I committed crimes so I can get away with them' doesn't seem very compelling to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
13,129
8,175
136
Probably looking to destroy his phylactery.

Apparently it is (unsurprisingly) about Rudy Colludey's attempts to dig up/fabricate dirt on Biden in Ukraine. If the feds are willing to raid a lawyer's personal residence, much less the personal residence of a former president's lawyer, they clearly think they have him.
Yeah, they have to have at least probable cause for a warrant, so they probably do have something on him already.

What I continue to wonder is why Trump did not pardon Giuliani. He was such a lapdog for so long. Poor Rudy.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
72,154
22,748
136
Yeah, they have to have at least probable cause for a warrant, so they probably do have something on him already.

What I continue to wonder is why Trump did not pardon Giuliani. He was such a lapdog for so long. Poor Rudy.
And if I understand it right, when searching a lawyer’s place as part of an investigation that seems to relate to his clients the standard is even higher, correct?
 

nOOky

Golden Member
Aug 17, 2004
1,995
814
136
The best thing in the world would have been for Rudy's neighbors to hear the whole thing and record it. Ideally it would have went like this: "STOP RESISTING, STOP RESISTING! (Sounds of bones cracking) STOP RESISTING! Pew! Pew! Pew! STOP RESISTING! Can you feel a pulse?! Dammit turn your body cameras back on!".
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
17,211
4,852
136
Nunes... Isn't he the guy who had a beef with a cow? Or was he the one caught sneaking around in The White House bushes?
Thing is, my response was off because Nunes is in the House, probably Johnson, or Burr was running their end in the Senate.
To answer your question yes, he is in litigation still I think, related to cow shit.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
13,129
8,175
136
And if I understand it right, when searching a lawyer’s place as part of an investigation that seems to relate to his clients the standard is even higher, correct?
I've not heard about that. What I know is that they cannot use as evidence anything which is the subject of attorney-client privilege, which would be communications between Giuliani and Trump. So in swearing out an affidavit for a warrant, they would have to present probable cause to believe they are likely to find incriminating evidence which is not privileged. That would be the closest thing to a heightened standard that I'm aware of.

Informally, it may be that certain judges are more reluctant to sign off on warrants against an attorney, but that doesn't change the legal standard.
 

zzyzxroad

Diamond Member
Jan 29, 2017
3,172
2,158
136
I've not heard about that. What I know is that they cannot use as evidence anything which is the subject of attorney-client privilege, which would be communications between Giuliani and Trump. So in swearing out an affidavit for a warrant, they would have to present probable cause to believe they are likely to find incriminating evidence which is not privileged. That would be the closest thing to a heightened standard that I'm aware of.

Informally, it may be that certain judges are more reluctant to sign off on warrants against an attorney, but that doesn't change the legal standard.
Isn't it true that a client's communication to their attorney isn't privileged if they made it with the intention of committing or covering up a crime or fraud?

I believe there is also an exclusion if the attorney is not acting primarily as an attorney but, for instance, as a shady political advisor.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
13,129
8,175
136
Isn't it true that a client's communication to their attorney isn't privileged if they made it with the intention of committing or covering up a crime or fraud?
Yes, it's called, appropriately enough, the "crime/fraud exception." Admissibility usually depends on a judge's in camera review to make sure all the elements of the exception are present. The intent to commit crime or fraud has to be the client's intent, not the lawyer's. Generally that intent must be shown in the communication itself. So, if Rudy said "hey Trump, I just had a terrific week out there in Ukraine criming for you" and Trump says "Great!" that would not qualify as it does not show that Trump induced him to commit crimes, only that he approved of it after the fact.

I believe there is also an exclusion if the attorney is not acting primarily as an attorney but, for instance, as a shady political advisor.
It doesn't apply to anyone not acting as an attorney, but that's a tough one to prove.

Most of the evidence against Rudy isn't going to be in any of his communications with Trump anyway. However, tying it to Trump is where they will want to get into the communications. Because Trump will just say he was out criming for him without him knowing, just like Michael Cohen. Funny how many people are out there criming for Trump and he never knew about it. Didn't really even know any of the people who were doing it!
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
13,129
8,175
136
More details here.

On Wednesday afternoon, an attorney for Giuliani, Robert Costello, said the warrant described an investigation into possible violation of foreign lobbying laws and that it sought communications between Giuliani and people including a former columnist for The Hill, John Solomon.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,989
14,152
136
We don’t jail former Presidents, it will be a fine.
The former President will view a big fine the same as a jail sentence. Probably give him as much and maybe more “pain”.
We never had a President raise an insurrection, either, so all bets are off. If not for that, you might be right. It's basically like an organized crime investigation. When the little guys roll over, like Parnas, Fruman & probably some others, it undermines the whole organization. Squeeze Rudy & the rest & they'll turn rat, too, like Sammy Gravano.
 

tweaker2

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
12,112
3,402
136
I'm seeing reporting that the NYPD is now going up to his apartment. I wonder what the deal with that is as New York's investigation into Trump and co. is a totally separate thing.

Maybe the person observing the "cops" misidentified them thinking cops also wear clean white uniforms with white orthopedic shoes. ;)
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
16,045
5,962
136
If it wasnt for the fact that Trump keeps pouring fuel on the “stolen election” grift... At some point they are gonna have to shut him up... also its not like the R’s can move on while bitchy donny keeps crying into a microphone. Jail might shut him up.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
72,154
22,748
136
I've not heard about that. What I know is that they cannot use as evidence anything which is the subject of attorney-client privilege, which would be communications between Giuliani and Trump. So in swearing out an affidavit for a warrant, they would have to present probable cause to believe they are likely to find incriminating evidence which is not privileged. That would be the closest thing to a heightened standard that I'm aware of.

Informally, it may be that certain judges are more reluctant to sign off on warrants against an attorney, but that doesn't change the legal standard.
That’s more of what I meant. I get how technically the legal standard is the same but I would think judges might be reluctant to wade into attorney client privilege area without good cause.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY