The fact that FBI agents raided the office of Andrew Cohen, President Trump’s lawyer, indicates that it has highly compelling evidence, infers Adam Serwer of The Atlantic. This warrant could not have been approved without the approval of a federal judge, who would have had to see hard evidence to do so. Trump’s claim that his exchanges with Cohen fall under attorney-client privileges isn’t necessarily correct. If they were discussing matters outside of the lawyer’s legal representation of the president, these are not confidential. Particularly so when it’s possible that these dialogues were furthering criminal activities.
Robert Mueller’s investigation into President Trump is taking a path that potentially bends the constitutional rights that every American has, believes Alan Dershowitz of The Hill. The silence, particularly in civil libertarian circles, who should be outraged by this, is disappointing. It is likely furthered by their distaste for the president, which is unfair. Trump’s lawyer, Andrew Cohen, has a wide playing field for the ways he may advise the president, going beyond just providing legal advice. This also covers settling cases with payments to possible litigants. Judges often give the FBI more leeway than is respectful of suspects’ rights.