It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The story is that what the lawyers said about cohens bank records is the truth..
My guess is Comey still has a few tidbits and he’s leaking...
Who else but he could’ve known this?
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.
Cohen probably gave them up for a B.J. , scumbags that they are.
Why? Serious question.
Everything Avenatti published is now inadmissible in court.
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?
It's called "tainted evidence." One cannot have illegally obtained evidence presented against them.
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.
So that means no prosecution? Can you provide examples of precedence for this?
It would be almost impossible to find an unbiased jury to meet legal requirements, even in different venues.
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.