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.

 

Feds probing how Stormy lawyer got Cohen’s banking info

page: 2
33
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2018 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

And her we are right back to where we started

What is the proof of pay for play and collusion?

Is it just getting half a million from a Russian is proof of those things?




posted on May, 9 2018 @ 06:20 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

He is a lawyer and knew he was signing his name to the release..


Don’t you think he double and triple checked the legality of the releasing it????


Daniel’s lawyer knew he was signing his name to it, and could have leaked it anonymously through the media...but he didn’t..


This is REAL easy math.. the investigation is targeting the leaker. Not the lawyer..



posted on May, 9 2018 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Hillary Clinton is a lawyer too.

So is James Comey.

😀



posted on May, 9 2018 @ 06:25 PM
link   
It is likely a leak from the corrupt alphabet agencies.

These people need to go and go now.



posted on May, 9 2018 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Pay for play is legal a lot of times (I think, being fair) BUT you have to file the paperwork of registering as a lobbiests and foreign agent..

It is a disgusting set up that there is a legal way, but citizens united and all... a conservative policy..


So my guess is that AT MINIMUM they have him breaking half a dozen election and finance laws, because he didn’t report ANY of it..

I really didn’t believe the lawyer , but if they are investigating how they found out.....



posted on May, 9 2018 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox


The story is that what the lawyers said about cohens bank records is the truth..

Doesn't matter. Everything Avenatti published is now inadmissible in court.

He just potentially saved Cohen's buttinski (assuming it needed saving; no formal charges yet) while sacrificing his own.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 9 2018 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

EXACTLY And neither one of them is in jail not even under investigation...



posted on May, 9 2018 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Oh ok so you have no proof of any laws being broken.

That’s what I thought



posted on May, 9 2018 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Christosterone


My guess is Comey still has a few tidbits and he’s leaking...
Who else but he could’ve known this?

Actually, quite a few people in the Treasury... possibly Mueller and his team... potentially someone in the SDNY who illegally copied data before turning it over to the court.

I actually doubt Comey leaked this. If he did, that means he has contacts still inside the FBI that are also leakers.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 9 2018 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox


Don’t you think he double and triple checked the legality of the releasing it????

Obviously, no.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 9 2018 @ 06:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
Looks like somebody got ahold of those "Cohen" documents too soon.

Probably illegally obtained.

Now the Inspector General is gonna have a look see.

Another fumble.flop in the making.

Feds probing how Stormy lawyer got Cohen’s banking info

The Treasury Department’s inspector general is investigating whether confidential banking information related to President Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen was leaked, the Washington Post reported Wednesday.

Rich Delmar, a counsel to the IG, said that in response to media reports, the office was “inquiring into allegations” that Suspicious Activity Reports on Cohen’s banking transactions were “improperly disseminated.”

Michael Avenatti, the lawyer for porn star Stormy Daniels, released a summary of the information Tuesday, showing that a number of companies, including one connected to a Kremlin-linked Russian billionaire, paid Cohen’s firm more than $1 million, supposedly for assorted services.


and if that's not enough....

Avenatti Accuses The Wrong Michael Cohens Of Making ‘Fraudulent’ Payments

Michael Avenatti, porn star Stormy Daniels’ lawyer, released a seven-page dossier on Tuesday containing a list of payments purportedly made to Michael Cohen, the lawyer for President Donald Trump.

But there is one problem with the document: two of the allegedly “fraudulent” payments were made to men named Michael Cohen who have no affiliation with Trump.
🤦👋



[/quote

Cohen probably gave them up for a B.J. , scumbags that they are.



posted on May, 9 2018 @ 06:34 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




Everything Avenatti published is now inadmissible in court.
Why? Serious question.



posted on May, 9 2018 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Pay for play (as in, requiring payment in direct exchange for political actions) is never legal.

Lobbying and seeking information on political stances is a gray area, if that is what you are referring to. There's even a bit of grey in using financial favors to influence political decisions, but not as much.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 9 2018 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Same reason a cop violating the scope of a search warrant would find his discoveries outside that scope inadmissible. It's called "tainted evidence." One cannot have illegally obtained evidence presented against them.

It is likely, since it was published nationally, the disclosure of that evidence could lead to a complete refusal of any prosecution of Cohen now. It would be almost impossible to find an unbiased jury to meet legal requirements, even in different venues. Any potential conviction would be thrown out on that basis alone.

They even have satellite TV and Internet in rural Mississippi now-a-days.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 9 2018 @ 06:44 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

I think Stormy's lawyer needed an Admiral Ahkbar to tell him "It's a trap!"



posted on May, 9 2018 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

It's called "tainted evidence." One cannot have illegally obtained evidence presented against them.
You can go with the assumption that the information was illegally obtained but it seems the question of its inadmissibility may not be so cut and dried. Avenatti is a private party, not a cop. Right?


In Burdeau v. McDowell, the Supreme Court held that searches or seizures by private parties are outside the scope of the fourth amendment. As a result, evidence discovered in a private search and transferred to the government is generally not subject to the exclusionary rule.

www.jstor.org...


It would be almost impossible to find an unbiased jury to meet legal requirements, even in different venues.
So that means no prosecution? Can you provide examples of precedence for this?

More on privately obtained evidence


edit on 5/9/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2018 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Well, that went quicker than I thought it would. I am starting to have a little teeny weeny more faith in our Feds now.



posted on May, 9 2018 @ 07:03 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Whomever gave him this information needs the maximun
sentence thrown at them. This is criminal on many levels.

This guy is nothing more than a thug the msm loves to use
right now to "get Trump".



posted on May, 9 2018 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Why aren't they investigating if these were bribes for Trump?????????????

Isn't that the obvious and logical conclusion? Wouldn't that be impeachable?



posted on May, 9 2018 @ 07:21 PM
link   
a reply to: CB328

The rule of law applies here, as Avenatti is a lawyer and
can be disbarred for ethical violations, look for that
to happen in this instance.



A Federal, State, local, territorial, or Tribal government authority, or any director, officer, employee, or agent of any of the foregoing, shall not disclose a SAR, or any information that would reveal the existence of a SAR, except as necessary to fulfill official duties consistent with Title II of the Bank Secrecy Act. For purposes of this section, “official duties” shall not include the disclosure of a SAR, or any information that would reveal the existence of a SAR, in response to a request for disclosure of non-public information or a request for use in a private legal proceeding, including a request pursuant to 31 CFR 1.11.

www.law.cornell.edu...

People can not just go around leaking for the sake of selective
prosecution and expect to get away with it.

Avenatti could be barred from the courtroom for these violations.....



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join