Welcome To The Show

ny times:

The Times obtained documents that show that Donald J. Trump avoided reporting hundreds of millions of dollars in taxable income in the early 1990s by using a maneuver that his lawyers warned would most likely be deemed improper by an I.R.S. audit.

“Whatever loophole existed was not ‘exploited’ here, but stretched beyond any recognition,” said one of the tax experts who reviewed the documents. Here’s how Mr. Trump structured his companies to gain personal tax advantages.

daily kos:

While the Comey fire was raging late last Friday, I wrote Hey Media -A child rape case hearing against Trump is on December 16 – Time to Pivot from Emails?

[….]

The case is a civil, not criminal action pending in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case 1:16-cv-07673-RA. If you have access to the “PACER” document system, you can find the case docket (list of filings) and retrieve and download any filed document. The link is here. Below are facts I learned from the docket and filings.

1. The case was filed on September 30, 2016. The Complaint is supported by three sworn Declarations — from “Jane Doe,” “Tiffany Doe” and “Joan Doe.”

2. Jane Doe alleges at paragraph 2, “I was subject to extreme sexual and physical abuse by the Defendants, including forcible rape, that took place at several parties of Defendant Epstein during the summer of 1994 in New York City at a residence used by Defendant Epstein. During this period, I was 13 years old.” She further alleges she received death threats from Trump.

3. Tiffany Doe alleges she arranged for Jane Doe to be at Epstein’s parties and witnessed the alleged abuse and death threat.

4. Joan Doe alleges Jane Doe contemporaneously told her about the incident.

5. The Complaint in the action seeks damages and a protective order against the defendants.

6. Electronic summons were served on the defendants on October 12, 2016, requiring a response to the Complaint  within 21 days after service. (i.e., November 2, 2016) (i.e., This Tuesday!) (note — this period is often extended by agreement or by the Court)

7. Defendants have not yet responded to the Complaint.

8. A case conference with Judge Ronnie Abrams is scheduled for December 16, 2016.

Under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, an attorney filing any paper certifies that:

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a non-frivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;

(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.

If any of these are not true, the other side can move for sanctions, including their attorneys fees.

No pleading or motion under Rule 11 has been filed.

also today at daily kos:

If Huma Abedin is correct in stating that she does not recall ever accessing emails on that computer, does it not follow that the emails were planted there?  As long as Abedin is telling the truth, it seems more likely than not to me that the emails are old ones that were planted.   FBI agents in NY have had sole custody of that computer for a while.  That the overwhelming majority of FBI agents are honest and competent I am certain.  But I am equally certain that not all of them are, that is just how it is.  I worked for the IRS for 24 years, believe me I know. …..

Thus, unless the FBI has already verified by technological means that the emails were accessed on that computer during the time HRC was actually Secretary of State, I think the chances are greater than 50% that the emails were planted by “deplorables.”  Comey has been grossly negligent in giving the situation legitimacy and publicity if this very likely scenario has not been ruled out.  

pogo and other abogados out there, what do you make of this interesting advice to abedin’s lawyers from angrybear with regard to possible plant?

So there are three steps that Huma Abedin should take, immediately. First, she should have her lawyers file an emergency court petition tomorrow requesting the immediate sealing and impoundment of Weiner’s laptop and of all other electronic devices taken through the search warrant concerning Weiner’s online sexual activities.

The petition also should request that she be allowed to have Weiner’s computer examined by an independent, non-government computer forensics experts, in the company of FBI computer forensics experts who are from an office far, far away from NYC and Washington, DC, and who have never worked at either of those offices.

And the petition should request disclosure to her of the identities of the FBI agents who, by Comey’s apparent acknowledgement, threatened him with leaks of what they claim are on Weiner’s computer.

Second, she or her lawyers should file a formal complaint with the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General, requesting investigation into who was threatening Comey with leaks and damage to Comey’s reputation if Comey himself did not make public the existence of State Department-related emails on Weiner’s computer.

The complaint also should request inquiry into Comey’s decision to make public raw information gained by dint of the FBI’s police powers and the Justice Department’s prosecutorial powers, for what he himself has stated was for the purpose of affecting votes for national elective office.

Third, she should ask that her lawyers, immediately after those are filed, hold a press conference detailing what is in the emergency petition and the complaint to the Inspector General’s Office.

from aba journal: …experts considering whether any laws were broken or whether any rights were violated.

[….]

Kerr says he assumes the FBI obtained a warrant to search Weiner’s computer, as is required absent special circumstances. The search warrant presumably authorized a search relating relating only to Weiner’s communications with underage girls, Kerr says.

The first issue, he says, is whether the FBI was permitted to search through Abedin’s email account for records of Weiner’s improper messages to underage girls. He notes a Colorado Supreme Court case—which he has criticized—that dealt with officers who had a warrant to search for texts between a suspect and an undercover officer posing as an underage girl. The court found a search of a different folder that contained texts to a real underage girl violated the Fourth Amendment.

There might be similar problems in Clinton’s case because Weiner’s alleged texting crimes occurred in 2016. Hillary Clinton was secretary of state from 2009 to 2013. “If I’m right that there was a several-year gap between the warrant crime and the second investigation, it’s not clear the government could search through older emails for evidence of such a recent crime,” Kerr writes.

A second issue is whether the FBI could seize the Abedin emails because they were outside the scope of the warrant, Kerr says. The “plain view” exception allows a law enforcement official who is searching a computer to obtain a second warrant to search for items in plain view that are evidence of a second crime. That standard may not be satisfied in the Clinton case, Kerr says.

“The plain view exception does not allow evidence to be seized outside a warrant unless it is ‘immediately apparent’ upon viewing it that it is evidence of another crime. Just looking quickly at the new evidence, there needs to be probable cause that it is evidence of a second crime to justify its seizure, which would presumably be necessary to apply for the second warrant,” Kerr writes.

“The Fourth Amendment plain view standard doesn’t allow a seizure of emails based on a mere we-hope-to-later-determine standard. The government can’t seize the emails just because the Clinton investigation is extra important and any possible evidence is worth considering.”