Jump to content

Michael Cohen Investigation

DanTheHorn

By DanTheHorn
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Chooky
Chooky

Now we go live to Rudy Guliani:

Chooky
Chooky

Ms. Bechard is deeply distressed that someone has revealed that she allowed a gelatinous, half-amphibian half-man thing caterpillar across the bedroom on its belly like a walrus, bellowing like a dyin

Chooky
Chooky

If it's revealed he lied I'm as positive about anything that Brisket Goth wouldn't hesitate even a second to call him a pants on fire doo doo head. But what's fascinating here is your sudden into

Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105161

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

“Because although Mr Cohen only handles a tiny slice of my client’s business, that tiny slice represents a substantial majority of the legal work Mr. Cohen performs.  Most of his seized files relate to my client and are protected by a privilege owned by my client.” 

The posters I typically agree with are doing a lot of overreaching lately.  Trump is shady as fuck.  But don’t overplay your hand.  

What percentage of Mr. Cohen's legal work is relating to your client, ballpark?

And of the materials seized, what percentage relate to legal work -- that is, documents that might be protected by privilege, as opposed to documents that relate just to business and other matters?  I need to understand what  slice of the documents, overall, we're concerned about with respect to Mr. Trump?

 

Trump created a reason to conduct that inquiry.  That was fucking stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105161

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest that Michael Avenatti has done a little trolling in his time on earth.

He's really fucking good at it.

When you have an erratic fuckstick as an opposing party/witness, one of your strategies is usually to poke him until he blows up/says something stupid/insane.  With Trump on the other side, it's not that hard...but Avenatti is still bringing his A-game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pig Bellmont

Pig Bellmont 8719

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

“Because although Mr Cohen only handles a tiny slice of my client’s business, that tiny slice represents a substantial majority of the legal work Mr. Cohen performs.  Most of his seized files relate to my client and are protected by a privilege owned by my client.” 

The posters I typically agree with are doing a lot of overreaching lately.  Trump is shady as fuck.  But don’t overplay your hand.  

You’re assuming this argument can be supported by the seized documents, yet Cohen’s attorneys have been unable to substantiate claims regarding the predicted volume of privileged materials 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pig Bellmont

Pig Bellmont 8719

Posted
Posted

Here it is: 

also, the government is asking for the special master to make initial calls on priv materials and then give docs to all parties. Cohen is asking for the same thing he did originally- for his attorneys to exclusively review, only provide a priv log to the parties and have special master weigh in on docs the government objects to. I don’t see any way the Court goes for that

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted

Isn't the significance of Trump's statement more about the character of the "legal work" than the quantity?   I would think the characterization he'd want to avoid most is "Cohen doesn't do Trump's legitimate legal work, just his super sketchy stuff like paying off porn stars with questionably sourced funds."   I'm not saying that he stone-cold fucked himself on Fox and Friends, but "Cohen handles a tiny fraction of my stuff, like this Stormy Daniels thing" is the type of thing I would think he should not be saying. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31509

Posted
Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

I don't think it's been done -- I suspect that she'll enter an order 1) appointing a specific special master and 2) outlining procedures all at once.  She's already selected the likely special master, she just wants to nail down the process.

And it's the safe, smart thing for her to do.  Give the defendant what he asked for, then he has one less thing to bitch about.  It's the prudent course of action, makes the case more appeal-proof, etc.

Oh, I agree that it is the thing to do, especially given the apparent volume of materials seized.  But, I can see pressure from the USAO/Criminal Division not to make their life any more difficult on attorney search warrants.  I, of course, applaud the difficulty.

 

And on the volunteering to review documents the key question someone should ask is, "with all due respect, Mr. President, what could you possibly add to that process?"

 

And Trump is the poster boy, should be in the dictionary really, for the proposition that "all it takes to 'make' money is money."  It's why I have abhorred that fraud since he first came to my attention decades ago.  And also why I pull my punches a little when discussing Trump;  I have a lot of preexisting antipathy.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Here it is: 

also, the government is asking for the special master to make initial calls on priv materials and then give docs to all parties. Cohen is asking for the same thing he did originally- for his attorneys to exclusively review, only provide a priv log to the parties and have special master weigh in on docs the government objects to. I don’t see any way the Court goes for that

Wow that was fucking fast!  Already in a filing like an hour later? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105161

Posted
Posted
Just now, TwiceHorn said:

Oh, I agree that it is the thing to do, especially given the apparent volume of materials seized.  But, I can see pressure from the USAO/Criminal Division not to make their life any more difficult on attorney search warrants.  I, of course, applaud the difficulty.

Yep.  The process on attorney search warrants is extra-difficult, and that's how it should be.  And if there's another layer in certain cases, tough -- better safe than sorry when it comes to the privilege.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105161

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Mojo Hand said:

Wow that was fucking fast!  Already in a filing like an hour later? 

I suspect that the drafters were sitting in front of the TV with their fingers on the keyboard to edit a nearly-complete document.  Actually, that's one of my favorite things to do -- flip around a complex court filing in a matter of an hour or two.  It always throws the other side for a loop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SuingToGetAMessageBoard?

SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Here it is: 

also, the government is asking for the special master to make initial calls on priv materials and then give docs to all parties. Cohen is asking for the same thing he did originally- for his attorneys to exclusively review, only provide a priv log to the parties and have special master weigh in on docs the government objects to. I don’t see any way the Court goes for that

This stuff is my favorite.  You can’t spell Admissions Against Interestpu without Trump. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted
32 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I suspect that the drafters were sitting in front of the TV with their fingers on the keyboard to edit a nearly-complete document.  Actually, that's one of my favorite things to do -- flip around a complex court filing in a matter of an hour or two.  It always throws the other side for a loop.

That shit impresses the hell out of me.  I could never be a litigator.  Everything is too fast for me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
High Plains Drifter

High Plains Drifter 11050

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Here it is: 

also, the government is asking for the special master to make initial calls on priv materials and then give docs to all parties. Cohen is asking for the same thing he did originally- for his attorneys to exclusively review, only provide a priv log to the parties and have special master weigh in on docs the government objects to. I don’t see any way the Court goes for that

 

Damn, its like playing cards with my 7 yr old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
Posted

Avenatti this morning on Morning Joe:

“So, Mika, you are familiar with the fact that a week ago, Judge (Kimba) Wood ordered Michael Cohen’s attorneys to disclose all of his clients for the last three years,” Avenatti said, “and there were three clients listed — three clients listed. Do you recall which three?”

Brzezinski listed Trump, Fox News host Sean Hannity and Republican donor Elliott Broidy — but Avenatti said she was making the same mistake everyone else had.

“No, no, no,” he said. “Mr. Trump, the Trump organization and Sean Hannity. Mr. Broidy was not disclosed in open court as one of Michael Cohen’s clients.”

Co-host Joe Scarborough asked the attorney what that meant.

“I think at some point we are going to find out, if in fact, the client in connection with the ($1.6 million) settlement was, in fact, Mr. Broidy. I’m going to leave it at that.”

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

Avenatti this morning on Morning Joe:

“So, Mika, you are familiar with the fact that a week ago, Judge (Kimba) Wood ordered Michael Cohen’s attorneys to disclose all of his clients for the last three years,” Avenatti said, “and there were three clients listed — three clients listed. Do you recall which three?”

Brzezinski listed Trump, Fox News host Sean Hannity and Republican donor Elliott Broidy — but Avenatti said she was making the same mistake everyone else had.

“No, no, no,” he said. “Mr. Trump, the Trump organization and Sean Hannity. Mr. Broidy was not disclosed in open court as one of Michael Cohen’s clients.”

Co-host Joe Scarborough asked the attorney what that meant.

“I think at some point we are going to find out, if in fact, the client in connection with the ($1.6 million) settlement was, in fact, Mr. Broidy. I’m going to leave it at that.”

 

 

That's not accurate.   After I pushed back on this earlier, Hugo posted the actual letter to the court.  Broidy was one of the three.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Here it is again.   Second to last paragraph -- 3 legal clients, all individuals, one is Trump, another is Broidy, and another is the guy they didn't want to name who turned out to be Hannity.

30F764C2-4189-4A38-A18E-198A80D75273_zps

Is that what was stated in open court? 

I’m just saying it’s still possible what Avenatti said wasn’t inaccurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mojo Hand

Mojo Hand 4580

Posted
Posted

That's a distinction without a difference.   Avenatti's quote refers to Cohen's three legal clients over the last three years.   The letter filed with the court says the three were Trump, Broidy, and Hannity.   Whether the letter was quoted in open court a few hours later is irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
yaqdum

yaqdum 182

Posted
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Is that what was stated in open court? 

I’m just saying it’s still possible what Avenatti said wasn’t inaccurate.

question all along is that broidy may be trying to cover for someone a little too hot to reveal.  interesting that avenatti is hinting that, i gather.

edit:  someone a good deal hotter than hannity we might assume.

Edited by yaqdum
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
Posted
Just now, Bat Guano said:

So wait, now Avenatti's hinting that Trump paid for an abortion and Broidy stepped up to take the fall for it? Is this new or have I missed it earlier?

A few of us speculated Broidy was the fall guy when his news dropped.  He’s also knee deep in the Mueller investigation. 

Avenatti hinting at it really doesn’t come as a shock.

Avenatti also predicts Trump will not finish his first term once the shit really hits the fan.

Of course he’s keeping up the hype and remaining as relevant as you would expect any media savvy attorney to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chooky

Chooky 13317

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, kevwun said:

It's been out there for awhile as a theory.  I kind of hope it's true just to see the evangelical mental gymnastics.

The woman was of such unprecedented ill repute that the only moral thing to do was terminate her corrupted lineage.  Bless Trump.  He did it to protect our country and our moral slate.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
Posted (edited)

Even if Avenatti mis-stated who Cohen's reported clients are, he's hinting that he knows who the 1.6M payout involved.  I don't think he'd say that without actual knowledge and risk the blowback and embarrassment.  That would be a huge unnecessary unforced error.  Mis-stating Cohen's clients is peripheral.

Edited by triplehorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hayden_horn

hayden_horn 11362

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Considering today’s hearing where a federal judge is considering whether it’s necessary to appoint a special master to review “thousands” of privileged communications, this has to be the dumbest thing he could have said. Seriously, so so dumb 

yeah, i posted that on the trump thread:

Quote

Trump said that Cohen had represented him in a “tiny little fraction” of legal cases: “Like with this crazy Stormy Daniels deal, he represented me.” Trump previously said he did not know of the $130,000 payment that Cohen arranged to Daniels in exchange for his silence about an alleged past affair with Trump.

Underscoring the danger of such a free-wheeling interview, federal prosecutors in Manhattan filed court documents less than two hours later citing Trump’s “tiny little fraction” remark to bolster their claim that most of the documents seized from Cohen are not privileged.

it's really fucking incredible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45986

Posted
Posted

The only person who should care that Avenatti might have misrepresented what had been stated in open court is Stormy Daniels, and even so, it's so close to irrelevant that it essentially is irrelevant.  Avenatti might be the worst attorney in the world but it doesn't mean his hints that Broidy isn't Dad don't hold water.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Chooky

Chooky 13317

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
1 hour ago, sheeeit said:

Do we think Brisket will now post that Avenatti is a “lying liar”.   

If it's revealed he lied I'm as positive about anything that Brisket Goth wouldn't hesitate even a second to call him a pants on fire doo doo head.

But what's fascinating here is your sudden intolerance for someone who might've lied once.  We're not even sure he's lying at all yet.  But you're challenging another poster to call out what might not even be a lie. 

Because you hate people who don't tell the truth, especially this nuisance of a lawyer representing a porn star.  You've honed in on this particular lie with laser focus.  Somehow, though, you're seemingly unconcerned about the other lie that came within minutes of that lie, where Trump admitted that Michael Cohen represents him "a little bit" on the "Crazy Stormy Daniels thing" after he already said that he knew nothing about Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen.  But let's not get distracted by that.  Let's get to the bottom of that other lie.  Because lying is unconscionable to you.   

  • Like 10
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BrickHorn

BrickHorn 18241

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, Ted Lange said:

It is almost unbelievable what a liar Trump is, only thing more incredible are the idiots that refuse to admit it.  

The Trump White House is the CERN of psychology and sociology.  This administration is generating terabytes of unexpected data demonstrating the fundamental weirdness of the human mind.  

The reaction to his incessant lying is one salient example of that.  Prior to Trump’s ascendency, who expected that open, obvious, and almost constant lying would be perceived as “telling it like it is?”  And that a shameless pathological liar would be viewed as more honest than others who lie only rarely and about less significant issues?  The Trump experiment has revealed a new paradox of psychology.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105161

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, sheeeit said:

Do we think Brisket will now post that Avenatti is a “lying liar”.   

I dunno.  I might.  What I've seen of the "three clients" discussion is on this thread.

I'm not sure what was STATED in open court.  But the letter disclosed Broidy, so if what Avenatti said was that Cohen did not reveal that Broidy was his client, then Avenatti was either quite mistaken or lying.  And if he's lying, that will hurt his credibility and was a dumb and pointless thing to do.

16 minutes ago, Chooky said:

If it's revealed he lied I'm as positive about anything that Brisket Goth wouldn't hesitate even a second to call him a pants on fire doo doo head.

But what's fascinating here is your sudden intolerance for someone who might've lied once.  We're not even sure he's lying at all yet.  But you're challenging another poster to call out what might not even be a lie. 

Because you hate people who don't tell the truth, especially this nuisance of a lawyer representing a porn star.  You've honed in on this particular lie with laser focus.  Somehow, though, you're seemingly unconcerned about the other lie that came within minutes of that lie, where Trump admitted that Michael Cohen represents him "a little bit" on the "Crazy Stormy Daniels thing" after he already said that he knew nothing about Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen.  But let's not get distracted by that.  Let's get to the bottom of that other lie.  Because lying is unconscionable to you.   

And most definitely this.  How about this, Sheeit, since you like asking questions so much:

Is lying generally good, or generally bad?

If it's generally bad, does the volume/quantity of lies matter?  That is, if someone has lied just once or twice about middling things, is that better or worse than someone who lies thousands of times about things from the trivial to the profound, and everything in between?  

Are the lies lesser or greater depending on the person telling them?  That is, is it of greater impact if a waitress tells a single patron a lie versus the head of the restaurant chain telling all of its customers a lie?

I'm just asking questions.  I'm very concerned.

Is that how this is done?  I haven't really done the "concern troll" thing before.

But I really do think you owe us some answers.  I've told you where I stand. It's your turn.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sheeeit

sheeeit 129

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

I dunno.  I might.  What I've seen of the "three clients" discussion is on this thread.

I'm not sure what was STATED in open court.  But the letter disclosed Broidy, so if what Avenatti said was that Cohen did not reveal that Broidy was his client, then Avenatti was either quite mistaken or lying.  And if he's lying, that will hurt his credibility and was a dumb and pointless thing to do.

And most definitely this.  How about this, Sheeit, since you like asking questions so much:

Is lying generally good, or generally bad?

If it's generally bad, does the volume/quantity of lies matter?  That is, if someone has lied just once or twice about middling things, is that better or worse than someone who lies thousands of times about things from the trivial to the profound, and everything in between?  

Are the lies lesser or greater depending on the person telling them?  That is, is it of greater impact if a waitress tells a single patron a lie versus the head of the restaurant chain telling all of its customers a lie?

I'm just asking questions.  I'm very concerned.

Is that how this is done?  I haven't really done the "concern troll" thing before.

But I really do think you owe us some answers.  I've told you where I stand. It's your turn.

Wow.  You guys are really unstable.  I was just poking fun at Brisket.  I kind of liked the line "lying liar" (as opposed to truth telling liar?)

Yes lying is generally bad.

Yes the volume matters.  As does the impact on me.  Lying about the size of crowds or how many illegals are in the country or crime is rising or best potus ever do not really affect me.  Lying about a healthcare plan that promised not to add even $1 to the deficit that caused my personal family health insurance to more than double and my dedictible to triple affects me more.  Both are bad.

Yes who tells the lies is important.  

If you are really asking me if Trump lies, then yes, repeatedly.

As for Avenatti, here is what he said:

“So, Mika, you are familiar with the fact that a week ago, Judge (Kimba) Wood ordered Michael Cohen’s attorneys to disclose all of his clients for the last three years,” Avenatti said, “and there were three clients listed — three clients listed. Do you recall which three?”

Then he went on to speculate that Broidy was not an actual client.  Of course that is a lie and Broidy was listed.

  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...