Options

[Michael Cohen thread] SDNY cases against Cohen, Stormy Daniels case, bribes through Cohen

15960626465100

Posts

  • Options
    ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor changed Registered User regular
    edited May 2018
    Davidson was placed there and promoted by the powerful men who prey on these women. That’s how he was able to “represent” a lot of these women.

    This has been my suspicion, do you have a citation on this?

    I considered that they're all in the adult entertainment industry, but we're talking about LA, and that isn't exactly a niche industry there. I don't care how many San Bernardino Valley bus benches he has his face on, there's bound to be plenty of lawyers, better than him, with this specialty, so three out of three GOP mistress hush-deals is still a bit suspicious,

    (I could possibly accept that we're only seeing his clients because he is bad at this)

    ArbitraryDescriptor on
  • Options
    ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor changed Registered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »
    Maguano wrote: »
    Bloomberg (and others) are reporting that Cohen/Trump were made aware of Schneiderman's assaults years ago
    link


    Cohen and Trump had blackmail material on Schneiderman while he was investigating Trump University?

    Ok I really want to hear Schneiderman's side on this. Did they try to use it?

    "How about I keep on living my life and you pay $25M?" doesn't seem like the best deal when the guy's entire career and professional reputation was one National Enquirer article away from ruin.

  • Options
    SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    Henroid wrote: »
    I am not a lawyer, but if someone is seeking new or additional counsel, they're allowed to read the thing right? I mean, they are lawyers. Stormy Daniels wasn't showing it off to the press or anything.

    She should be allowed to read the thing regardless.

    Lawyers aren't supposed to collude against you behind your back.

    There have been several episodes of Suits where they do that, but they always make it clear that they are breaking a lot of rules so they better be damned sure they don't get caught.

  • Options
    JoeUserJoeUser Forum Santa Registered User regular
    Davidson has done a lot of questionable Hollywood work, like negotiating the same of sex tapes. He was busted by the FBI trying to sell the Hulk Hogan tape to Hogan.

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-sex-tape-lawyer-who-worked-with-michael-cohen-to-silence-trumps-women
    Called “the ‘Better Call Saul’ of D-list celebrities,” Davidson represented a woman soliciting cash for a sex tape of Austin Powers actor Verne Troyer. He also tried to profit off a sex tape of reality TV star Tila Tequila, who sued him.

    And as to how Daniels found him:
    Daniels was connected to Davidson through her former manager, Gina Rodriguez, according to an October 2016 Smoking Gun report. Davidson told the site that Rodriguez, a former adult actress who’s represented Michael Lohan and “Octomom” Nadya Suleman, has referred him multiple clients over the years.

  • Options
    HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    On Morning Joe this morning they discussed the money and what happened to it, at great length. One of the people brought on briefly offered the idea that Cohen wasn't telling these companies "this is what I can do for you" as a positive, but rather it was a shakedown. Which is to say, he was threatening them with "I can whisper things about you to the president." That makes sense to me. But they also go into Trump's motivation on this, that he probably got a cut of the money because there's no way in hell he helped Cohen grift out of the goodness of his heart (if such a thing exists). They bring up the fact that Cohen couldn't afford the initial $130k payment. That if Trump is seriously worth the $10 billion as he claims, why would he be going after $49.99 from the people at Trump university, why would he sell steaks?

  • Options
    ElvenshaeElvenshae Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    So, lawyers.... Um SummaryJudgment "So It Goes" ...

    Is "Deemed Attorney Eyes Only" actually a thing?

    I think it is, but might be being misused in this case?

    IIRC, there was a case against ... Assange? ... recently where certain privileged communications by the other party had to be shared with Assange's team but were deemed to be attorney's eyes only. Then Assange attempted to represent himself to get around that, and the judge slapped him down. I'll hunt for references.

  • Options
    Anarchy Rules!Anarchy Rules! Registered User regular
    Elvenshae wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    So, lawyers.... Um SummaryJudgment "So It Goes" ...

    Is "Deemed Attorney Eyes Only" actually a thing?

    I think it is, but might be being misused in this case?

    IIRC, there was a case against ... Assange? ... recently where certain privileged communications by the other party had to be shared with Assange's team but were deemed to be attorney's eyes only. Then Assange attempted to represent himself to get around that, and the judge slapped him down. I'll hunt for references.

    You're thinking of Milo Yiannopoulos. He tried representing himself in his case when the book publisher dropped him to get access to the documents.

  • Options
    KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    I can think of very narrow instances where lawyers get stuff their clients can't see - I have friends who work in government contracts, and when litigating over whether a company should have gotten a particular contract or not, often the lawyers get documentation with details that their clients aren't allowed to look at (competitor's price quotes for example). So there are redacted versions of those documents for the clients/public filings, and the court sees the unredacted versions.

    I'm having trouble coming up with how that would analogue in Daniels' case.

  • Options
    PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    edited May 2018
    https://splinternews.com/politico-playbook-can-fuck-right-off-1825951911

    Politico helpfully points out this kind of "corruption" is the norm and we are all pearl clutchers for even raising an eyebrow at blatant bribery. This is the part of the Cohen/Trump stuff that scares me, that people we expect to enforce what we think are the law, are directly involved in breaking it.

    Preacher on
    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    pleasepaypreacher.net
  • Options
    GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited May 2018
    The Yiannopoulos thing was a judges order because the judge thought that Milo would dox the person involved in the document. There would almost certainly be no such order in the Cohen/Davidson proceedings

    Goumindong on
    wbBv3fj.png
  • Options
    AstaerethAstaereth In the belly of the beastRegistered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    https://splinternews.com/politico-playbook-can-fuck-right-off-1825951911

    Politico helpfully points out this kind of "corruption" is the norm and we are all pearl clutchers for even raising an eyebrow at blatant bribery. This is the part of the Cohen/Trump stuff that scares me, that people we expect to enforce what we think are the law, are directly involved in breaking it.

    Yes, I remember when Politico was equally blase about the Clinton Foundation

    ACsTqqK.jpg
  • Options
    SimpsoniaSimpsonia Registered User regular
    edited May 2018
    Elvenshae wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    So, lawyers.... Um SummaryJudgment "So It Goes" ...

    Is "Deemed Attorney Eyes Only" actually a thing?

    I think it is, but might be being misused in this case?

    IIRC, there was a case against ... Assange? ... recently where certain privileged communications by the other party had to be shared with Assange's team but were deemed to be attorney's eyes only. Then Assange attempted to represent himself to get around that, and the judge slapped him down. I'll hunt for references.

    Yeah, it's being misused here. It's pretty common in discovery where there's an agreement on confidentiality of documents. Often times you'll get confidentiality branding on the bottom of produced documents that's something like "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEY'S EYES ONLY".

    Either way it would only apply to an opposing party. The document, as an end-product belongs to the client regardless. The client can do whatever she wants with it.

    Simpsonia on
  • Options
    nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    not to mention I think you'd have trouble claiming privilege on a document where you're screwing your client behind their back

  • Options
    HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    This Supreme Court ruling just came to my attention, and how it may make the pursuit of justice against Trump & Cohen harder. This happened just a couple years ago.
    Chief Justice John Roberts authored the unanimous opinion.[2] McDonnell's conviction was vacated on the grounds that the meaning of "official act" does not include merely setting up a meeting, calling another public official, or hosting an event.

  • Options
    durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    Yeah that's been discussed for a while. The Supreme Court did rule bribery essentially legal so long as you don't literally in writing say "you will do this and in exchange I will transfer this money to your account" years ago.

    That's part of why Avenatti has been taking this to the media. People in general still understand this is obvious graft and corruption, regardless of how much of it will produce definite charges.

    Take a moment to donate what you can to Critical Resistance and Black Lives Matter.
  • Options
    BogartBogart Streetwise Hercules Registered User, Moderator Mod Emeritus
    Not a general media thread, so comments about totally unrelated shit a website said about Clinton are off-topic.

  • Options
    kaidkaid Registered User regular
    Yeah that's been discussed for a while. The Supreme Court did rule bribery essentially legal so long as you don't literally in writing say "you will do this and in exchange I will transfer this money to your account" years ago.

    That's part of why Avenatti has been taking this to the media. People in general still understand this is obvious graft and corruption, regardless of how much of it will produce definite charges.

    Yup at this point people voting against the people supporting this nonsense is really the main recourse. It may see a cohen and stormy daniels first lawyer getting disbarred but with the last decade of SCOTUS rulings I am not sure you can actually win any kind of bribery case any more. Once money = speech that ship kinda sailed. I think cohen is in some serious trouble though as a lot of what he was doing at least could/should destroy his legal career but mostly it is going to be showing how very very swampy Trump is and has always been.

  • Options
    KetBraKetBra Dressed Ridiculously Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    https://splinternews.com/politico-playbook-can-fuck-right-off-1825951911

    Politico helpfully points out this kind of "corruption" is the norm and we are all pearl clutchers for even raising an eyebrow at blatant bribery. This is the part of the Cohen/Trump stuff that scares me, that people we expect to enforce what we think are the law, are directly involved in breaking it.

    It is fascinating how this parallels the initial reaction to Watergate, where Republicans sold the notion that this was a bunch of bumbling idiots who couldn't even bug an office correctly, and that it was completely business as usual even if they did.

    KGMvDLc.jpg?1
  • Options
    KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    There was some speculation a little while ago that there is a solid bribery case against Trump for promising pardons (assuming it could be proved he did so) in exchange for not testifying against him. Pardons are long-established "official acts", and exchanging one (or offering to do so) in exchange for something of value (non-cooperation with investigations/lawsuits) would still fit easily into SCOTUS's neutered definition of bribery.

  • Options
    ViskodViskod Registered User regular
    edited May 2018
    Henroid wrote: »
    This Supreme Court ruling just came to my attention, and how it may make the pursuit of justice against Trump & Cohen harder. This happened just a couple years ago.
    Chief Justice John Roberts authored the unanimous opinion.[2] McDonnell's conviction was vacated on the grounds that the meaning of "official act" does not include merely setting up a meeting, calling another public official, or hosting an event.

    Yeah see McDonnell was only acting officially as the Governor to do those things, he would have had to Officially act Officially and make the Official Governor proclamation of Officiality.

    That probably takes a parchment, inkwell, and giant quill pen and then a wax seal that reads “this is a crime.”

    Viskod on
  • Options
    SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    Attorney client privilege is meant to protect the client. Which means that the attorney can't reveal privileged information without the clients permission.

    Earlier on in this scandal, Davidson was trying to get stormy to release him from privilege so that he could share "his side" of the story. Which doesn't come across as suspicious at all.

  • Options
    SmurphSmurph Registered User regular
    I'm imagining a desperate, flustered White House staffer having to come up with a "DO NOT PARDON" list made up of all the people that were involved in payoffs coming to or from Trump. And then trying to get POTUS to actually abide by it.

  • Options
    Dark_SideDark_Side Registered User regular
    Yeah that's been discussed for a while. The Supreme Court did rule bribery essentially legal so long as you don't literally in writing say "you will do this and in exchange I will transfer this money to your account" years ago.

    That's part of why Avenatti has been taking this to the media. People in general still understand this is obvious graft and corruption, regardless of how much of it will produce definite charges.

    Even the wikipedia page on the McDonnell case mentions the fact the supreme court justices are very used to getting gifts and comped whatever as part of their business. And from what preacher posted above you definitely get the sense that everyone in DC very much lives in that same sort of bubble -"gifts and favors are just how it gets done and I don't want to suddenly be taken to task for accepting free dinners at famous restaurant X." I also don't think anybody in DC is too keen to shine a light on the fact apparently for mega corps it's standard practice to throw fat stacks at morons who don't produce anything. (which is clearly a great fucking gig if you can get it.)

    I'm not so naive as to not understand favor trading is part and parcel of the business, but it seems there's a lot of failing to mention that this same slush fund was used to pay off one or multiple porn stars. Or that a huge chunk of that money came from a Russian Oligarch while Trump was being investigated for working with Russia. Or the fact that Cohen was so clearly up to something that a judge signed off on raids of his offices.

  • Options
    SpoitSpoit *twitch twitch* Registered User regular
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    Yeah that's been discussed for a while. The Supreme Court did rule bribery essentially legal so long as you don't literally in writing say "you will do this and in exchange I will transfer this money to your account" years ago.

    That's part of why Avenatti has been taking this to the media. People in general still understand this is obvious graft and corruption, regardless of how much of it will produce definite charges.

    Even the wikipedia page on the McDonnell case mentions the fact the supreme court justices are very used to getting gifts and comped whatever as part of their business. And from what preacher posted above you definitely get the sense that everyone in DC very much lives in that same sort of bubble -"gifts and favors are just how it gets done and I don't want to suddenly be taken to task for accepting free dinners at famous restaurant X." I also don't think anybody in DC is too keen to shine a light on the fact apparently for mega corps it's standard practice to throw fat stacks at morons who don't produce anything. (which is clearly a great fucking gig if you can get it.)

    I'm not so naive as to not understand favor trading is part and parcel of the business, but it seems there's a lot of failing to mention that this same slush fund was used to pay off one or multiple porn stars. Or that a huge chunk of that money came from a Russian Oligarch while Trump was being investigated for working with Russia. Or the fact that Cohen was so clearly up to something that a judge signed off on raids of his offices.

    I mean, Clarence Thomas and his lobbiest wife alone

    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    People are aware of this, and thus Trump was elected (partially) on the promise to 'drain the swamp'.
    (And he's done a fantastic job of that, hasn't he?)

    Smurph:
    I suspect that would have as much effect as the "DO NOT CONGRATULATE" memo that he got before making the call to Putin.

  • Options
    enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Republicans revel in this kind of corruption, because it breaks people's faith in government and furthers their goal of destroying it utterly.

    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Options
    Mr KhanMr Khan Not Everyone WAHHHRegistered User regular
    Henroid wrote: »
    This Supreme Court ruling just came to my attention, and how it may make the pursuit of justice against Trump & Cohen harder. This happened just a couple years ago.
    Chief Justice John Roberts authored the unanimous opinion.[2] McDonnell's conviction was vacated on the grounds that the meaning of "official act" does not include merely setting up a meeting, calling another public official, or hosting an event.

    Bribery's not the problem legally, the problem is the fact that the money's likely being laundered to the President via Cohen (if not in this specific case, certainly in many others of Cohen's dealings with Trump).

    It's scummy as hell, but legal and merely serves as bread crumbs towards actual illegal shit that went on.

  • Options
    InqInq Registered User regular
    Mr Khan wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    This Supreme Court ruling just came to my attention, and how it may make the pursuit of justice against Trump & Cohen harder. This happened just a couple years ago.
    Chief Justice John Roberts authored the unanimous opinion.[2] McDonnell's conviction was vacated on the grounds that the meaning of "official act" does not include merely setting up a meeting, calling another public official, or hosting an event.

    Bribery's not the problem legally, the problem is the fact that the money's likely being laundered to the President via Cohen (if not in this specific case, certainly in many others of Cohen's dealings with Trump).

    It's scummy as hell, but legal and merely serves as bread crumbs towards actual illegal shit that went on.

    Even if it's not ever going into Trump's pocket, it's going in one side as Payment for Insights into the President and coming out the other side as payoffs to keep Trump's mistresses quiet. Apparently that's just a thing that Cohen does when he has extra money because he loves Trump so much.

  • Options
    AtomikaAtomika Live fast and get fucked or whatever Registered User regular
    Spoit wrote: »
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    Yeah that's been discussed for a while. The Supreme Court did rule bribery essentially legal so long as you don't literally in writing say "you will do this and in exchange I will transfer this money to your account" years ago.

    That's part of why Avenatti has been taking this to the media. People in general still understand this is obvious graft and corruption, regardless of how much of it will produce definite charges.

    Even the wikipedia page on the McDonnell case mentions the fact the supreme court justices are very used to getting gifts and comped whatever as part of their business. And from what preacher posted above you definitely get the sense that everyone in DC very much lives in that same sort of bubble -"gifts and favors are just how it gets done and I don't want to suddenly be taken to task for accepting free dinners at famous restaurant X." I also don't think anybody in DC is too keen to shine a light on the fact apparently for mega corps it's standard practice to throw fat stacks at morons who don't produce anything. (which is clearly a great fucking gig if you can get it.)

    I'm not so naive as to not understand favor trading is part and parcel of the business, but it seems there's a lot of failing to mention that this same slush fund was used to pay off one or multiple porn stars. Or that a huge chunk of that money came from a Russian Oligarch while Trump was being investigated for working with Russia. Or the fact that Cohen was so clearly up to something that a judge signed off on raids of his offices.

    I mean, Clarence Thomas and his lobbiest wife alone

    hehe

    “lobbiest”


    I like it <3

  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited May 2018
    Thought this was SCOTUS thread, whoops

    Fencingsax on
  • Options
    ViskodViskod Registered User regular
    Rudy Giuliani has the perfect example of how Cohen’s payouts didn’t work and the President wasn’t bought...

    https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5af606e6e4b0e57cd9f979c7
    “Whatever lobbying was done didn’t reach the president,” Giuliani said, offering as proof the fact that AT&T’s proposed merger with Time-Warner has not gone through. “He did drain the swamp ... The president denied the merger. They didn’t get the result they wanted.”

    See The President denied the merger. He drained the swamp by interfering in the DOJ to get the result he personally wanted.

  • Options
    PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Yeah uhh Rudy uhh the president can't like deny a telecom merger...

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    pleasepaypreacher.net
  • Options
    TaramoorTaramoor Storyteller Registered User regular
    Viskod wrote: »
    Rudy Giuliani has the perfect example of how Cohen’s payouts didn’t work and the President wasn’t bought...

    https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5af606e6e4b0e57cd9f979c7
    “Whatever lobbying was done didn’t reach the president,” Giuliani said, offering as proof the fact that AT&T’s proposed merger with Time-Warner has not gone through. “He did drain the swamp ... The president denied the merger. They didn’t get the result they wanted.”

    See The President denied the merger. He drained the swamp by interfering in the DOJ to get the result he personally wanted.

    I imagine some lawyers over at AT&T rubbing their temples hard enough to burn themselves right now.

    Just muttering “These fuckin’ people...” over and over again.

  • Options
    Marty81Marty81 Registered User regular
    a
    Viskod wrote: »
    Rudy Giuliani has the perfect example of how Cohen’s payouts didn’t work and the President wasn’t bought...

    https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5af606e6e4b0e57cd9f979c7
    “Whatever lobbying was done didn’t reach the president,” Giuliani said, offering as proof the fact that AT&T’s proposed merger with Time-Warner has not gone through. “He did drain the swamp ... The president denied the merger. They didn’t get the result they wanted.”

    See The President denied the merger. He drained the swamp by interfering in the DOJ to get the result he personally wanted.

    Also the judge hasn't ruled yet soooooo

  • Options
    Captain InertiaCaptain Inertia Registered User regular
    Does this give ATT standing to take action now? In addition, wasn’t there a demand to sell CNN to get approval?

    This whole deal is a shit sandwich smushed into a turd turducken and everyone involved needs to fuck off

  • Options
    SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    http://www.businessinsider.com/demeter-direct-michael-cohen-essential-consultants-paid-money-2018-5
    Avenatti, responding to attacks from Trump's lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, on Friday, tweeted that Cohen's shell company, Essential Consultants, LLC, paid "large sums of money" to a California-based entity called "Demeter Direct, Inc." State public records show it's linked to someone named Mark S. Ko.

    The public records list Demeter Direct, Inc. as a Korean food retailer, but an archive of the company's website describes it as a business strategy consulting and investment firm.

    So why is a California based company posing as a Korean food retailer?

    And why did Cohen funnel money to that company?

    I'm sure this will turn up nothing.

  • Options
    CogCog What'd you expect? Registered User regular
    You guys, I'm starting to think the world, as a whole, is pretty shady.

  • Options
    RchanenRchanen Registered User regular
    edited May 2018
    Cog wrote: »
    You guys, I'm starting to think the world, as a whole, is pretty shady.

    I am starting to think that Trump is going to fulfill all his campaign promises about clearing draining the swamp.

    Maybe not like he intended to. But hey Karma's a bitch sometimes.

    Rchanen on
  • Options
    KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    edited May 2018
    Rchanen wrote: »
    Cog wrote: »
    You guys, I'm starting to think the world, as a whole, is pretty shady.

    I am starting to think that Trump is going to fulfill all his campaign promises about clearing draining the swamp.

    Maybe not like he intended to. But hey Karma's a bitch sometimes.

    Trump promised to drain the swamp but instead drops
    Image.ashx?multiverseid=383425&type=card
    to maximize
    Image.ashx?multiverseid=393883&type=card.

    Unfortunately that also makes him vulnerable to
    Image.ashx?multiverseid=49011&type=card


    KalTorak on
  • Options
    HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    http://www.businessinsider.com/demeter-direct-michael-cohen-essential-consultants-paid-money-2018-5
    Avenatti, responding to attacks from Trump's lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, on Friday, tweeted that Cohen's shell company, Essential Consultants, LLC, paid "large sums of money" to a California-based entity called "Demeter Direct, Inc." State public records show it's linked to someone named Mark S. Ko.

    The public records list Demeter Direct, Inc. as a Korean food retailer, but an archive of the company's website describes it as a business strategy consulting and investment firm.

    So why is a California based company posing as a Korean food retailer?

    And why did Cohen funnel money to that company?

    I'm sure this will turn up nothing.
    This is very much a baiting tactic from Avenatti, which has done before. "Hey this thing looks suspicious, gee golly I wonder what it is." So the Cohen defense will respond, and then Avenatti reveals that he has the actual answer - with proof - and was demonstrating how full of shit Cohen and his team are.

This discussion has been closed.