Michael Cohen Investigation

[hayden_horn 11362]

3 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

It's buried in a shitheap of a website, which prevents it from being thrown in my face on a daily basis.  But some months ago when Avenatti first filed that lawsuit, I dismissed the lawsuit as "stupid" and said something to the effect that he may be the worst lawyer I'd ever heard of.

Now every day I feel like the British first leftenant in Pirates of the Caribbean: 

 

That's got to be the best lawyer I've ever seen.

he's going to be the lawyer who very nearly single-handedly, though admittedly with the great help of trump and assoc, took down a sitting president for corruption. 

[ChiTownDoc 21152]

7 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

It's buried in a shitheap of a website, which prevents it from being thrown in my face on a daily basis.  But some months ago when Avenatti first filed that lawsuit, I dismissed the lawsuit as "stupid" and said something to the effect that he may be the worst lawyer I'd ever heard of.

Now every day I feel like the British first leftenant in Pirates of the Caribbean: 

 

That's got to be the best lawyer I've ever seen.

I'm not sure if it was you or not, but I recall a couple lawyerly types, much smarter than myself, calling him out.  I admit I kind of went along with it for a short while, but I realized, rather quickly, this motherfucker knows what he's doing.  

Not calling you out at all, I just clearly remember seeing that type of sentiment when he first came into the public eye.  

/CSB

[Ghost of LL 15531]

And I can't help but notice that the British first leftenant bears more than a passing resemblance to Michael Avenatti.

[TahoeHorn 107]

2 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

he's going to be the lawyer who very nearly single-handedly, though admittedly with the great help of trump and assoc, took down a sitting president for corruption. 

I don't think it's him.  I think he's very talented but I think the person who started this ball rolling was the person who saw what was on the SAR and leaked it.

I have a wild speculation:

I have a theory that the person found Avenatti, not the other way around.  I think the SAR showed Cohen paying  Daniels and Davidson, and the individual in possession of the SAR knew that was a way to "pry open"  a lot of things about Cohen and Trump.  Ithink Avenatti has had the SAR as a roadmap from Day One.  And it's a hell of a roadmap.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

No man. I’m not Michael Cohen.  You’re Michael Cohen.  I’m the Dude.  So that’s what you call me. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

It did look like a frivolous lawsuit though.

[ChiTownDoc 21152]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

It did look like a frivolous lawsuit though.

I hope you were donning a hazmat suit when you waded into that shitheap. 

[BrickHorn 18219]

4 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

No man. I’m not Michael Cohen.  You’re Michael Cohen.  I’m the Dude.  So that’s what you call me. 

No Michael Cohen.  No Michael Cohen.  You’re Michael Cohen!  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

4 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

I hope you were donning a hazmat suit when you waded into that shitheap. 

I haven’t been there in weeks... I didn’t see any shit either.  Kevin has a new logo and everything at the top for his ghost town.

Edited May 9, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Brisketexan 105096]

49 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

I think that's correct in one sense and not in another.  It's correct if people can be made to see it for what it is.  But I'm sure you know that money is fungible and if the payment is not direct you can bet your life that showing it gets tougher.  Trump will argue that the Novartis money went to Cohen and he had no idea, and Cohen "paid his mortgage"  because Cohen was his buddy.

 

I have no doubt that Cohen was functioning as a bagman.  I've been crystal clear on that.  I am unclear how easy that will be to prove.

If your defense is that Person X sent money to person Z, and person Z used some of that money to provide me benefit NOT as consideration for a transaction, but because he genuinely likes me -- then your defense is too clever by half.

Cohen is his business associate and attorney.  He's not his lover, hoping to make up for that time he was rude over dinner.  Money is used as valuable consideration.  The nature of the transactions will indicate that there is something to be gained from me for providing such consideration.  That's how these sort of cases work.  Your "defense" is one of the most common ones in money laundering and illegal transfer cases.  It does not have a high rate of success, from what I understand.

 

But I'm sure you'll buy it.  You'll say "look, it LOOKS shady, but it doesn't prove guilt beyond a shadow of any possible doubt, so I'm sticking with him."  Might as well save my post here, and save you the time of re-typing your inevitable take.

Edited May 9, 2018 by Brisketexan

[Tuco 5076]

21 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

It did look like a frivolous lawsuit though.

It still looks like a frivolous lawsuit.  I still don't see where it has much chance of winning in court, unless the changing story on whether Trump knew about it has some bearing.  But I think at this point Trump and his merry bands of idiots would pay 100x the original settlement to get Stormy and her deft little bulldog to stop trolling them in the media.  I don't see where any of it has to do with her claims, or even the chance of successful prosecution of the investigation(s), but it's funny as hell. 

[TahoeHorn 107]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

If your defense is that Person X sent money to person Z, and person Z used some of that money to provide me benefit NOT as consideration for a transaction, but because he genuinely likes me -- then your defense is too clever by half.

...

I'm not issuing a defense.  I'm explaining the realities of arguing what money went for when money is fungible.  It's not MY argument.  If you aren't aware of this then you haven't argued "money" cases. 

You used term "that money".  A lot of people have different ideas about "that money". A lot of people in this world don't understand that money is fungible and can be bamboozled about what "that money" means.  You need somebody "good at explaining" to get them to "get it".

[Mojo Hand 4580]

34 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

It's buried in a shitheap of a website, which prevents it from being thrown in my face on a daily basis.  But some months ago when Avenatti first filed that lawsuit, I dismissed the lawsuit as "stupid" and said something to the effect that he may be the worst lawyer I'd ever heard of.

Now every day I feel like the British first leftenant in Pirates of the Caribbean: 

 

That's got to be the best lawyer I've ever seen.

In fairness, IIRC, the initial report made it sound like he was trying to get the contract voided on the basis that it lacked a signature from Trump as a formalistic matter, even though she was paid and all parties performed.  And your reaction, reasonably, was that Trump could clearly enforce the agreement as a legal matter.  What Avenatti knew, and I don't think we did at that time, is that Trump didn't want to admit that he was a party to the contract.  He wanted the agreement to bind her, but without publicly admitting so, which he would have to do to enforce it.   Filing the lawsuit forces him to take a stand one way or the other - either he's a party and she can't get out of it, which creates other problems for him with the payoff, or he's not a party and the agreement may not be enforceable.   Which is why it was, actually, brilliant. 

[Brisketexan 105096]

1 minute ago, TahoeHorn said:

I'm not issuing a defense.  I'm explaining the realities of arguing what money went for when money is fungible.  It's not MY argument.  If you aren't aware of this then you haven't argued "money" cases. 

You used term "that money".  A lot of people have different ideas about "that money". A lot of people in this world don't understand that money is fungible and can be bamboozled about what "that money" means.  You need somebody "good at explaining" to get them to "get it".

I get it.  It requires evidence, and showing the web of transactions.  We're not stupid, and you're not particularly smart.

Your point amounts to "money's fungible, so how can you prove anything?"  A stack of convictions for money laundering and other transactions tells us that criminal wrongdoing is proven, regularly, without tripping on the hurdle of "money is fungible."

[TahoeHorn 107]

6 minutes ago, Tuco said:

It still looks like a frivolous lawsuit.  I still don't see where it has much chance of winning in court, unless the changing story on whether Trump knew about it has some bearing.  But I think at this point Trump and his merry bands of idiots would pay 100x the original settlement to get Stormy and her deft little bulldog to stop trolling them in the media.  I don't see where any of it has to do with her claims, or even the chance of successful prosecution of the investigation(s), but it's funny as hell. 

I find the role of Keith Davidson EXTREMELY troubling.  I went from being very prejudiced against her case to heavily in favor when I learned that her lawyer seemed to be in cahoots with Cohen.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Just now, TahoeHorn said:

I find the role of Keith Davidson EXTREMELY troubling.  I went from being very prejudiced against her case to heavily in favor when I learned that her lawyer seemed to be in cahoots with Cohen.

How do you feel about Elliott Broidy? 

[TahoeHorn 107]

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I get it.  It requires evidence, and showing the web of transactions.  We're not stupid, and you're not particularly smart.

Your point amounts to "money's fungible, so how can you prove anything?"  A stack of convictions for money laundering and other transactions tells us that criminal wrongdoing is proven, regularly, without tripping on the hurdle of "money is fungible."

You can't read.  I certainly didn't argue that money laundering can't be proven, or that when money is fungible you can't prove anything.  Your reading or logic is bad.

I think proving money laundering to the public, which is where this will be tried, may be difficult depending on how clear the facts are.  You don't.  That's that.  It has nothing to do with how smart I am or you are.

Edited May 9, 2018 by TahoeHorn

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

I think Trump could actually survive money laundering charges, politically speaking.

[Tuco 5076]

2 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

...is that Trump didn't want to admit that he was a party to the contract.  He wanted the agreement to bind her, but without publicly admitting so, which he would have to do to enforce it.   Filing the lawsuit forces him to take a stand one way or the other - either he's a party and she can't get out of it, which creates other problems for him with the payoff, or he's not a party and the agreement may not be enforceable.   Which is why it was, actually, brilliant. 

And I don't really get this.  I don't know why Trump would need to be party to it if the deal was between Essential Consulting and Stormy Daniels.  I assume I could contract with neighbor to never discuss WC Fields, and, if he did, he'd be in violation.  WC Fields would not have to be party to the contract.  I guess damages would be difficult to show, but the question of whether she violated the contract would be clear.

3 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

I find the role of Keith Davidson EXTREMELY troubling.  I went from being very prejudiced against her case to heavily in favor when I learned that her lawyer seemed to be in cahoots with Cohen.

This I agree with.  Also, if there is any truth to the intimidation factor.  If there are reasons why the contract should be nullified - corrupt representation or threats of violence - she has a case. 

[Tuco 5076]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I think Trump could actually survive money laundering charges, politically speaking.

It's the story, not the charge.  The Clinton scandal was about a blowjob, not the perjury.  If the money laundering is related to influence peddling, that could bring him down. 

[Brisketexan 105096]

4 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

And I think proving money laundering to the public, which is where this will be tried, may be difficult depending on how clear the facts are.  You don't.  That's that.  It has nothing to do with how smart I am or you are.

So...you literally just said absolutely nothing.

"Proving X to an audience may be difficult depending on how clear the facts are."  Well, holy fucking shit -- alert the world's legal scholars, we have an unprecedented insight on our hands!  Burn all the legal commentaries, we have to start ALL OVER now.  Apparently....proving certain claims may be difficult depending on how clear the facts are.   FUCK.   This changes everything.  EVERYTHING.

Seriously, do you think you're imparting ANY insight?  To anyone? 

No fucking shit the prosecution needs to gather and present facts.  That's called "meeting your burden of proof."   Jesus.

[TahoeHorn 107]

1 minute ago, Tuco said:

...

This I agree with.  Also, if there is any truth to the intimidation factor.  If there are reasons why the contract should be nullified - corrupt representation or threats of violence - she has a case. 

Yes.  That too.  I went from "You signed a contract.  Tough shit" to "You got cheated.  Get 'em girl."

[TahoeHorn 107]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

So...you literally just said absolutely nothing.

"Proving X to an audience may be difficult depending on how clear the facts are."  Well, holy fucking shit -- alert the world's legal scholars, we have an unprecedented insight on our hands!  Burn all the legal commentaries, we have to start ALL OVER now.  Apparently....proving certain claims may be difficult depending on how clear the facts are.   FUCK.   This changes everything.  EVERYTHING.

Seriously, do you think you're imparting ANY insight?  To anyone? 

No fucking shit the prosecution needs to gather and present facts.  That's called "meeting your burden of proof."   Jesus.

I said that there will be one element which will have a profound effect on how difficult it is to prove: whether Cohen paid Trump large soums or paid him out of the LLC.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

5 minutes ago, Tuco said:

It's the story, not the charge.  The Clinton scandal was about a blowjob, not the perjury.  If the money laundering is related to influence peddling, that could bring him down. 

Oh, Trump is going down.  I was just saying in isolation, money laundering might not be enough.

It will be the fraud, graft, conspiracy, accessory, obstruction, racketeering, and money laundering that takes him down when presented all together.

Edited May 9, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Mojo Hand 4580]

10 minutes ago, Tuco said:

And I don't really get this.  I don't know why Trump would need to be party to it if the deal was between Essential Consulting and Stormy Daniels.  I assume I could contract with neighbor to never discuss WC Fields, and, if he did, he'd be in violation.  WC Fields would not have to be party to the contract.  I guess damages would be difficult to show, but the question of whether she violated the contract would be clear.

This I agree with.  Also, if there is any truth to the intimidation factor.  If there are reasons why the contract should be nullified - corrupt representation or threats of violence - she has a case. 

The reason is that here, WC Fields made promises that would bind him too.  If he didn't sign it and disputes ever being a party, then he wouldn't be bound by those promises, and you didn't get what you bargained for.   That is, money isn't the only thing that Stormy got in exchange for her agreement not to talk.  Avenatti has said this about the deal:

“By failing to sign the Agreement, Mr. Trump failed to supply essential consideration to Plaintiff in the form of a release, covenant not to sue, and representations and warranties."

If Trump's not a party, Stormy didn't get those things from him like she bargained for when she agreed to it. 

Edited May 9, 2018 by Mojo Hand

[Mdhorn 5948]

1 hour ago, Chooky said:

Some lifer is gonna consult Michael Cohen's butthole.

My guess is it will be an extended group consultation with multiple drop ins.  But hey, anything for a fat, orange clown.  

[Gil Bang 25944]

20 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

You can't read.  I certainly didn't argue that money laundering can't be proven, or that when money is fungible you can't prove anything.  Your reading or logic is bad.

I think proving money laundering to the public, which is where this will be tried, may be difficult depending on how clear the facts are.  You don't.  That's that.  It has nothing to do with how smart I am or you are.

It won't be tried in the public dude. It will be tried in federal court.  The trial in public will come after the actual trial.

[Hornius Emeritus 12458]

8 hours ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Payments by AT&T were made to Cohen in 2017, right?  That’s a pretty big fucking deal. God knows what the $500k was for- Avenatti probably knows it wasn’t for the Stormy payment, but is Trump/Cohen going to reveal their true dealings with that oligarch? I’m sure that’s not a conversation they want public. 

Avenatti may be able to get us closer to a Trump resignation than Mueller can. Avenatti will shout loudly about all incriminating evidence on every news channel irrespective of investigative norms... just a thought 

Wasn't Cohen already being wiretapped at this point?

[Mojo Hand 4580]

There was no wiretap

[TahoeHorn 107]

7 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

It won't be tried in the public dude. It will be tried in federal court.  The trial in public will come after the actual trial.

Trump will be tried by the public.  The question for the public will be: Was Cohen doing this to benefit himself or was he a bagman for Trump?

If there is big money from Cohen to Trump or if there is money from the LLC to Trump I think the facts are inescapable.  If the money comes out of the LLC to Cohen and spins around the world from Cohen to Bob to Billy to John to Trump, then arguing that Vekselberg or Novartis was bribing Trump gets much more difficult.

[NameAlreadyInUse 5112]

1 hour ago, TahoeHorn said:

I don't think it's him.  I think he's very talented but I think the person who started this ball rolling was the person who saw what was on the SAR and leaked it.

I have a wild speculation:

I have a theory that the person found Avenatti, not the other way around.  I think the SAR showed Cohen paying  Daniels and Davidson, and the individual in possession of the SAR knew that was a way to "pry open"  a lot of things about Cohen and Trump.  Ithink Avenatti has had the SAR as a roadmap from Day One.  And it's a hell of a roadmap.

I could buy this speculation.  

[burntorangebongos 10710]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Oh, Trump is going down.  I was just saying in isolation, money laundering might not be enough.

It will be the fraud, graft, conspiracy, accessory, obstruction, racketeering, and money laundering that takes him down when presented all together.

...and the abortion. 

[Francisco 2.0 32389]

Lulz.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/09/politics/michael-cohen-avenatti-false-information/index.html

Quote

Donald Trump's longtime personal attorney Michael Cohen is denying the accuracy of some of the information made public by the attorney representing Stormy Daniels.

Cohen's attorneys accused Michael Avenatti in a court filing on Wednesday of circulating some false information by including private bank records from other people named Michael Cohen who are not Trump's personal attorney.

 

Cohen's attorneys also acknowledged that some of the information Avenatti circulated about Cohen on Tuesday is correct. 

 

 

[Francisco 2.0 32389]

Hmm.  This might be interesting 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/09/politics/michael-cohen-trump-lobbying/index.html

Quote

A former Trump campaign official who worked on the transition said "everybody knew" Cohen had taken on consulting work after the election. It was widespread practice among high-ranking Trump associates who did not go into the administration to provide consulting services after Trump won in November 2016, this person said, noting that Cohen was far from the only person to do so.

 

"You don't need access to (Trump). All you need is the perception of access to (Trump)," the former campaign official said.

 

 

[Brisketexan 105096]

28 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Hmm.  This might be interesting 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/09/politics/michael-cohen-trump-lobbying/index.html

 

 

Interesting, but with this crowd, utterly not shocking.  

The real question is...did they collect cash and keep it all for themselves...or did the Godfather insist on a 10% vig?

[shnsajax 3591]

...and the abortion. 

Eric?

[DiceHands 349]

Reports say Mueller knew about the payments to Cohen over 6 months ago.  Yeesh, Cohen is def fucked. 

[Francisco 2.0 32389]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Interesting, but with this crowd, utterly not shocking.  

The real question is...did they collect cash and keep it all for themselves...or did the Godfather insist on a 10% vig?

10%?.  He probably wanted 25% minimum.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

10 minutes ago, DiceHands said:

Reports say Mueller knew about the payments to Cohen over 6 months ago.  Yeesh, Cohen is def fucked. 

[Ted Lange 16084]

Remember when....

 

[burntorangebongos 10710]

So this article a while back about Gawker selling a portion of themselves to....Columbus Nova. And in the article, it mentions their ties to the Russian Oligarch that they claim now they don't have ties to.

 

 

Edited May 10, 2018 by burntorangebongos

[Mojo Hand 4580]

Lulz

 

 

 

[bolverk 29668]

34 minutes ago, burntorangebongos said:

Gawker story

 

Such tangled fucking webs.

Edited May 10, 2018 by bolverk

[Mojo Hand 4580]

Funny how the response to this totally innocent activity is lies. 

[ShaggyBevo RIP 3868]

2 hours ago, Tuco said:

And I don't really get this.  I don't know why Trump would need to be party to it if the deal was between Essential Consulting and Stormy Daniels.  I assume I could contract with neighbor to never discuss WC Fields, and, if he did, he'd be in violation.  WC Fields would not have to be party to the contract.  I guess damages would be difficult to show, but the question of whether she violated the contract would be clear.

This I agree with.  Also, if there is any truth to the intimidation factor.  If there are reasons why the contract should be nullified - corrupt representation or threats of violence - she has a case. 

This gets to Cohen coming out of a bottom of the barrel law school.  All Cohen needed was something in that document declaring him an agent of X with the power to handle the matter on X's behalf.  Instead he put a signature line on the document for Trump's alias to sign.

[Grade of D as in David 13253]

3 hours ago, Chooky said:

Some lifer is gonna consult Michael Cohen's butthole.

He's not going to prison. He will go home and sit in a hot bath before it comes to sentencing, he might even have a little party before he does it.

[Grade of D as in David 13253]

1 hour ago, DiceHands said:

Reports say Mueller knew about the payments to Cohen over 6 months ago.  Yeesh, Cohen is def fucked. 

[burntorangebongos 10710]

This little gif needs a comeback. fuck the traitors!!

[shnsajax 3591]

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

51 minutes ago, burntorangebongos said:

This little gif needs a comeback.

Chunk gifs are amazing