It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

F.B.I. Raids Office of Trump’s Longtime Lawyer Michael Cohen

page: 23
53
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 10 2018 @ 10:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
While I want to learn more about updates surrounding this, why do I feel that, at this point, reading through the thread would be pointless?


Trump quotes on the matter:

“I just heard that they broke into the office of one of my personal attorneys, a good man,” Trump told reporters at the White House.

“It’s a disgraceful situation. … I’ve been saying it for a long time. I have this witch hunt constantly going on.”

“It's an attack on our country, in a true sense,” Trump declared.

“It's an attack on what we all stand for.”

On Mueller:
“We’ll see what happens,” he said. “Many people have said you should fire him.”

Again on Sessions Recusal:
“He made what I consider to be a very terrible mistake for the country, but you’ll figure that out,” Trump declared.

www.politico.com...

And this I found interesting:

Same link above.

Essentially saying since both Trump and Cohen have repeatedly said Cohen was not working on behalf of the President with the Stormy Daniels pay-off, then Attorney-Client Privilege does not exist on that subject.


"Comments to the press by both President Trump and Michael Cohen cast doubt whether Mr. Cohen’s communications and actions were part of legal representation of Mr. Trump or his organization, or instead had some other context or purpose. This raises significant questions about whether the attorney-client privilege or attorney work product protection applies," Garber said.


Some Legal Commentary based on the speculation that this was centered on the Stormy Daniels payment:


If Cohen lied to obtain credit from a federally insured financial institution, that is a felony punishable by up to 30 years’ imprisonment.

willful violation of campaign contribution limits, a separate felony punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment.

If the FBI seized evidence showing that Trump directed Cohen’s payment to Daniels, Trump may also have committed a felony violation of campaign finance law.



www.politico.com...


edit on 10-4-2018 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 10 2018 @ 10:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
But again, from what I can gather, Trump isn't really a signatory in any of the Stormy Daniels "hush money" (NDA), so if there is something going on, it's probably only against Cohen and, once again, won't have much, if anything, to do with Trump (unless, maybe, there's some secret fund funneling going on, and the money ends up coming from Trump through Cohen).


The NDA involves 3 parties, Cohen, Peggy Peterson, and David Dennison. The latter two were aliases used for anonymity, so that if the NDA ever leaked there wouldn't be proof as to who was who. Daniels proved she was Peggy. Trump has denied he was David, and continues to deny that.

If that is true, it brings up several questions as to why Cohen was paying money on Trumps behalf, and who this mysterious client was. It also means that there's no NDA between Daniels/Trump.

If it is false, and Trump is DD, the crimes get a bit more serious due to campaign finance laws.



posted on Apr, 10 2018 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

I didn't say he knows nothing. Don't put words in my mouth. I said he is fully aware and is still flapping his wings and making noise.



posted on Apr, 10 2018 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

I didn't say he knows nothing. Don't put words in my mouth. I said he is fully aware and is still flapping his wings and making noise.



posted on Apr, 10 2018 @ 10:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
My concern is what this does to attorney-client privilege and national security.



What attorney-client privilege???

In FEC filings and interviews Cohen has said he made the payment at his own volition, with his own money without Trump being aware.

Trump has also said he was unaware of the NDA and transaction.

If we are to take the Attorney and President at their word and signed legal filings by Cohen with the FEC as legitimate, then this transaction was not made on behalf of, by direction of or in any way, shape or form consultation with a client.

It was Cohen, on his own, deciding to pay Stormy Daniels his own money without Trumps knowledge.

I ask again, What Attorney-Client privilege?



posted on Apr, 10 2018 @ 10:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Sillyolme

insider.foxnews.com...


"If this were Hillary Clinton [having her lawyer's office raided], the ACLU would be on every TV station in America jumping up and down," he said. "The deafening silence of the ACLU and civil libertarians about the intrusion into the lawyer-client confidentiality is really appalling."

It is odd to me that this is so far out there, lifelong dems like Dershowitz opinions have no standing.
He is only yale law after all, worked under SCOTUS justices, but he knows nothing.........

Fun fact: Contrary to what you clearly think, Democrats aren't lock step in every decision another Democrat makes. They are allowed to disagree with each other


Did you miss the secret online nationwide meeting last night? That's like the second or third time isn't it? How are we going to implement this insurance policy without 100% participation? No slackers allowed. We have a party wide agenda to maintain.



posted on Apr, 10 2018 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus




In FEC filings and interviews Cohen has said he made the payment at his own volition, with his own money without Trump being aware.

Link to said filings please?



posted on Apr, 10 2018 @ 10:34 AM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

Right. I forgot another headline case he knocked out of the park.



posted on Apr, 10 2018 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody


syc·o·phant

ˈsikəˌfant,ˈsikəfənt/

noun

a person who acts obsequiously toward someone important in order to gain advantage



His pedigree doesn't preclude it. Not by this definition.



posted on Apr, 10 2018 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme
www.politico.com...



However, Jan Baran, a GOP campaign finance lawyer, called the reasoning of the Common Cause complaint “fallacious.” “The money spent for Edwards in 2004 or for Trump in 2016 is not covered by the election law,” Baran said. “As the jury concluded in the Edwards case, money spent for a candidate is not necessarily money spent for a campaign and, therefore, is not a regulated contribution or expenditure. Both times the purpose of the expense was highly personal, to say the least, and not campaign related in the legal sense.”


It will be interesting to hear from the fec in this case.



posted on Apr, 10 2018 @ 10:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Especially since the defense of O.J. Simpson is a notch on his belt.



posted on Apr, 10 2018 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

We have NOT been shown the judicial system is tainted. Just because trump says it doesn't make it true. As a matter of fact if trump says it it's pretty damn certain it's not true.

And there is too much at stake for Mueller to get out of control. That's not happening. He's methodical and focused and relentless in his prosecutions.



posted on Apr, 10 2018 @ 10:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: soberbacchus




In FEC filings and interviews Cohen has said he made the payment at his own volition, with his own money without Trump being aware.

Link to said filings please?





"In a private transaction in 2016, I used my own personal funds to facilitate a payment of $130,000 to Ms. Stephanie Clifford," Michael Cohen said in a statement. "Neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford, and neither reimbursed me for the payment, either directly or indirectly."


"The payment to Ms. Clifford was lawful, and was not a campaign contribution or a campaign expenditure by anyone," Cohen said.

Cohen also said he filed a reply with the FEC, but that filing will not be public until the agency has resolved the matter.


www.cnn.com...

You google it yourself. In Cohens public statement he has said what he filed with FEC was identical to his official statemen outlined above.



posted on Apr, 10 2018 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

How do you expect anyone but yourself to answer this?



posted on Apr, 10 2018 @ 10:59 AM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

So you don't actually have the fec filings or a link just the cnn story?



posted on Apr, 10 2018 @ 11:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: soberbacchus

So you don't actually have the fec filings or a link just the cnn story?


There are several stories, interviews etc. that summarize Cohen's public statement, not just CNN, because Cohen made a PUBLIC statement where he explained what he filed with the FEC.

Your posts seem troll or lazy. Not my job to look up crap for you.

As far as the FEC filing, Cohen said he sent he filed a response to the FEC complaint identical to his public statement.

He also said the FEC will not make that public until it resolves the case. (AS I JUST POSTED TO YOU)

If you doubt Cohen or the FEC, then go ask them for a link.

I won't be playing fetch a link then (not good enough) trolly games with you any longer.

Look up your own stuff.


edit on 10-4-2018 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2018 @ 11:06 AM
link   
This is interesting as well...
www.cnn.com...



Statement of Michael D. Cohen, Esq. to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on September 19, 2017




I emphatically state that I had nothing to do with any Russian involvement in our electoral process.

Guess that just leaves the events with Ms. Clifford?



posted on Apr, 10 2018 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan


It depends.

You just re-stated what I said using your own words.


An attorney isn't allowed to just act on their own like that.

Actually, they are. An attorney is allowed to take action to legally protect their client, unless their client has directed them otherwise. If, as you say, an attorney is not allowed to take some independent action, then every legal document that is filed must be independently reviewed and approved by a client, which I assure you is not the case.

I will admit that it is somewhat unusual for an attorney to take this drastic a step (utilizing personal funds) to protect their client, but seeing as Trump was apparently Cohen's sole client, it is also understandable. What is more concerting is that the payoff happened "days before the election." This just reinforces my belief that if there was an affair, it wasn't a big deal to Daniels until Trump was about to be elected, and that is tampering with an election.

Whether or not Trump was signatory is irrelevant to anything other than jurisdiction. If the NDA was between Daniels and Cohen, then Daniels is still in violation of the NDA. As such, Cohen should sue her for not only the original $130k payment, but also for mental anguish, professional damage, and punitive damages. I have absolutely no, zero, none, nada sympathy for anyone who violates an NDA. Daniels should be forced to live in a cardboard box under a bridge and eat dirt for the rest of her life.


If Trump was overpaying Cohen with the expectation that Cohen would use those excess funds out of his own pocket to solve this stuff, and keep Trumps name clear from it, that is very illegal (it's called tax evasion and money laundering) and also unethical for the lawyer.

I'd like to see the statute you speak of. I know of no such legal restriction; as a matter of fact, if there is one, would that not invalidate all escrows in existence?

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 10 2018 @ 11:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
But again, from what I can gather, Trump isn't really a signatory in any of the Stormy Daniels "hush money" (NDA), so if there is something going on, it's probably only against Cohen and, once again, won't have much, if anything, to do with Trump (unless, maybe, there's some secret fund funneling going on, and the money ends up coming from Trump through Cohen).


The NDA involves 3 parties, Cohen, Peggy Peterson, and David Dennison. The latter two were aliases used for anonymity, so that if the NDA ever leaked there wouldn't be proof as to who was who. Daniels proved she was Peggy. Trump has denied he was David, and continues to deny that.

If that is true, it brings up several questions as to why Cohen was paying money on Trumps behalf, and who this mysterious client was. It also means that there's no NDA between Daniels/Trump.

If it is false, and Trump is DD, the crimes get a bit more serious due to campaign finance laws.


No, the NDA involves TWO parties.

Party one: EC and/or DD
Party two: PP



For some reason, few people seem to realize this.



posted on Apr, 10 2018 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus




Not my job to look up crap for you.

Then don't make statements you can't back up.



In FEC filings and interviews Cohen has said he made the payment at his own volition, with his own money without Trump being aware.

You are the one who referenced "FEC filings" then was unable to produce them.
If you intend to just parrot cnn what is your point for discussing this?



If you doubt Cohen or the FEC, then go ask them for a link. I won't be playing fetch a link then (not good enough) trolly games with you any longer.

Don't post things without a source, and no one will call you on it.




top topics



 
53
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join