Feds probing how Stormy lawyer got Cohen’s banking info

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Grambler

Trump broke laws lol..

I still don’t see how you even remotely see a win here..

I guarantee you avanetti made sure it was legal or he would have leaked the records anonymously..

He didn’t need to sign his name to it.. if he could be charged or debarred. He does it anonymously..


You are literally making the argument that it doesn’t matter if trump committed crimes, because other people did too..


.

That is not what I am “literally” saying

I have said all along that if trump committed crimes he should be held accountable

I said I think Cohen should be investigated for these payments

You are the only one saying you are ok with crimes being committed as long as they hurt trump

Oh and can you please show me any kind of proof that this Cohen matter proves trump broke the law?

a reply to: Grambler



I said that I’m betting avanetti didn’t do anything illegal and That if he did, no one will care if he goes down..


I was playing devils advocate...


“If avanetti did do something illegal by leaking the records. No one will care if he goes down..”

a reply to: JoshuaCox

I guarantee you avanetti made sure it was legal or he would have leaked the records anonymously..

Oh dear... You "guarantee" it? Really??? Because you have personal knowledge of such? Or perhaps because Avenatti's reputation proves Avenatti is such a stickler for following the letter of the law?

LOL! Hahaha! Tee hee hee!!! That's just too funny...

a reply to: Boadicea

I love these arguments made

“He’s a lawyer so he wouldn’t do something dumb”

Well this brilliant lawyer leaked financial records of the wrong Michael Cohen

But I guess this was all just part of his master lawyer plan as well

a reply to: Boadicea

Just the logic of him choosing to leak it publicly when he didn’t have to . Plus the fact he is a lawyer means he has access to legal advise from both his education and other lawyers..


Wanna bet on it??

Not a money bet, but a gentleman’s bet for bragging rights...

a reply to: JoshuaCox

It's a bit funny that your whole argument is based on the part where Avanetti is a "lawyer" so he wouldn't make stupid mistakes, yet you seem to miss the part where Cohen is also a lawyer. If he's guilty, then he made some mistakes, so why the double standard? Asking for a friend.

a reply to: Grambler

Oh no lawyers do dumb stuff constantly, but how often do they do something dumb AND ILLEGAL publicly WHEN THEY DONT HAVE TO and they have the time and ability to check the legal ramifications..


Wanna make a gentlemen’s bet for bragging rights??!


If avanetti is not charged I win, if he is charged you win..

a reply to: network dude

No the centerpiece of my argument isn’t that he is a lawyer lol..
it is that he knowingly and publicly chose to sign his name on it..


The lawyer part just establishes he has the knowledge and resources to check the legality of middle manning the leak..


Avanetti didn’t have to sign his name on it.. he could have leaked it a thousand different ways..

He chose to sign his name to it AND he knew it would be big. So if it was illegal, he would have to face the music.



With Cohen he didn’t think it would ever get out.. if he thought it would get out. Then he filed paperwork to be a lobbiests and a forign Agent. Which would likely make all of this perfectly legal.. if not still super shady.


I’m only assuming people do what is in their best intrest at the time they make the decision.


Avanetti isn’t ruining his whole career by signing his name to an illegal leak.. not when he could just leak it as John Doe.

a reply to: network dude

No the centerpiece of my argument isn’t that he is a lawyer lol..
it is that he knowingly and publicly chose to sign his name on it..


The lawyer part just establishes he has the knowledge and resources to check the legality of middle manning the leak..


Avanetti didn’t have to sign his name on it.. he could have leaked it a thousand different ways..

He chose to sign his name to it AND he knew it would be big. So if it was illegal, he would have to face the music.



With Cohen he didn’t think it would ever get out.. if he thought it would get out. Then he filed paperwork to be a lobbiests and a forign Agent. Which would likely make all of this perfectly legal.. if not still super shady.


I’m only assuming people do what is in their best intrest at the time they make the decision.


Avanetti isn’t ruining his whole career by signing his name to an illegal leak.. not when he could just leak it as John Doe.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Boadicea

Just the logic of him choosing to leak it publicly when he didn’t have to . Plus the fact he is a lawyer means he has access to legal advise from both his education and other lawyers..


Wanna bet on it??

Not a money bet, but a gentleman’s bet for bragging rights...

You missed the point of my snark... I was questioning your "guarantee."

I'm quite sure Avenatti had plenty of... um... uh... advice from someone. But given his well documented track record of flouting the law, I'm also quite sure he was more interested in loopholes and backdoors in the letter of the law. Avenatti has proven he's not big on following the spirit of the law.

a reply to: burntheships

What about using the internat?

a reply to: burntheships

 13 Angry Democrats

The special counsel staff stake up two floors of a federal building near the DOJ.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Not just that but you don’t have to put your real name on a letter to CNN lol..

ALSO he is assuming that avanetti couldn’t use the mail because it is illegal, but thinks he signed his name to it even though it was illegal..

a reply to: Boadicea

So then you agree with my guarantee lol..

Then what’s the problem??

The fact that I said I guarantee on an issue that is 99.9% exactly how I spelled it out?!?!



If him personally releasing it is the only way it gets out, MAYBE he decides it is worth the risk, but I doubt it..

But it wasn’t the only way to release the data..


HE CHOSE WILLINGLY AND VOLUNTARILY to sign his name to it..

That means the publicity dwarfs any legal ramifications...

Which means the legal ramifications are nil.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

So then you agree with my guarantee lol..

Only to a certain extent. You personally cannot guarantee anything... just an educated guess. And to that extent -- the educated guess -- I do agree. But to the extent that I think Avenatti (and his puppetmasters) were interested in honoring the spirit of the law, not for a New York minute.

HE CHOSE WILLINGLY AND VOLUNTARILY to sign his name to it..

That means the publicity dwarfs any legal ramifications...

"Willingly and voluntarily"??? I'm not so sure about that. Perhaps after being threatened with further prosecution and/or release of presently unknown information... I guess that's a "choice" he might make "willingly and voluntarily" to protect his own ass. But I don't think it's "the publicity" dwarfing the legal ramifications. I think it's blackmail and extortion.

Avenatti is a paid lawyer. But Stormy is not the one paying. This obviously is important.
Avenatti answers to who is paying him, not Stormy.
Avenatti leaked it for propoganda and no matter his circumstances or repercussions he is still getting paid and has assurances. His goal is not to defend Stormy but to discredit the Prez.

Motive is clear.

So, where dic he get the info?
IMO, it came from discovery and it came from the raid on Cohens office.

This is thd only reason I can come up with why Avenetti never vetted the info. Since it came from Cohens own file in his office as the fruit of the NYPD raid it was a given that it was the same Cohen but was used as an alias using different SS numbers or something.
They thought they have the smoking gun.

But I suspect this is a sting and the files they have were used to expose the sources and leaks just like how they used Gen. Kelly's phone when he pretended to leave it behind.

IMO, there is only one way Avenatti and others could believe that the 2 Cohens are actually the same guy. They got the info from Cohens office. If so it would be a natural presupposed conclusion to believe they had a criminal link to expose that would negate the criminality of leaking it.

There goal is certainly not about properly prosecuting Stormy's case. It is to entrap a Prez.

But I see sting.

a reply to: bulwarkz

So, where dic he get the info? IMO, it came from discovery and it came from the raid on Cohens office.

More likely what is known as a third party subpoena to the banks. A subpoena from Avenatti.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: bulwarkz

So, where dic he get the info? IMO, it came from discovery and it came from the raid on Cohens office.

More likely what is known as a third party subpoena to the banks. A subpoena from Avenatti.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This does not explain at all the bank records for TWO different Michael Cohen.

In fact you elaborate more on why I believe the only source for the info can only be Michael Cohens own files. Why else would all these very intelligent investigators assume 2 seperate people with the same name are the same person?
Trumps people might have known of the raid in advance. Pffft, his camp might have instigated it.
This looks like another sting to expose leakers. If so then it leads to the exposure of who is behind Avenatti and who is paying him.

Remember Trump has already filed to run for Prez in 2020. Are these people now interfering with our elections?
Not good if it is found the financial supporter of Avenatti is a foreign entity.

a reply to: bulwarkz

This does not explain at all the bank records for TWO different Michael Cohen.

Why not? A subpoena for the deposit records of Michael Cohen would have not produced those records?

Why else would all these very intelligent investigators assume 2 seperate people with the same name are the same person?

Because they were provided in response to a subpoena for the deposit records of Michael Cohen?

Remember Trump has already filed to run for Prez in 2020. Are these people now interfering with our elections?

Avenatti? No. But he's made it quite clear he doesn't like Trump. I don't either.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: bulwarkz

This does not explain at all the bank records for TWO different Michael Cohen.

Why not? A subpoena for the deposit records of Michael Cohen would have not produced those records?

Why else would all these very intelligent investigators assume 2 seperate people with the same name are the same person?

Because they were provided in response to a subpoena for the deposit records of Michael Cohen?

Remember Trump has already filed to run for Prez in 2020. Are these people now interfering with our elections?

Avenatti? No. But he's made it quite clear he doesn't like Trump. I don't either.

I admit to being a novice when it comes to the law, so maybe I am missing something.

But let me see if this is what your are suggesting.

Say I have a lawsuit against my boss who is named John Smith.

I subpoena a bank for the records of John Smith.

They then comply with that subpoena by giving me the banking records of every person named John Smith that they have records for?

I cant believe that is how it works.

So they dont use middle names, social security numbers, nothing like that?