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.
It's inconvenient to lose your phone contacts – whether through an ordinary mishap or an FBI raid. When longtime Donald Trump lawyer Michael Cohen lost his, due to the later, he reached out to Keith Davidson, the former attorney to porn star Stormy Daniels, to get back in touch. Daniels' current lawyer, Michael Avenatti, says the email directly rebuts the claim by Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani that 'of course' Cohen is no longer representing Trump. Avenatti further claims that the email to reestablish contact with Davidson – who helped negotiate a non-disclosure agreement between Cohen, Daniels, and Donald Trump – could show an effort to obstruct justice, though he doesn't say how. Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk... Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
It looks like Muellers investigation is selectively leaking stuff to take off some pressure.
Asked how he obtained it, Avenatti told DailyMail.com: 'I demanded it from Mr. Davidson.'
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Grambler
I don't know.
It's probably safe to assume that Avenatti does. One way or the other.
originally posted by: Jefferton
So, the level crybabyness going on here, I surmise this is a right-wing-anti-left thread.
Am I close?
originally posted by: rickymouse
Everyone seems to be breaking the law lately and getting away with it. I think maybe we should redo our Judicial system and revoke the licenses of many lawyers and require them to reapply for them and sign affidavits that they will follow some rules. These lawyers are out of control.
originally posted by: 1947boomer
Keep in mind this is a civil case, not a criminal case. Under the rules governing civil cases each side is entitled to get a preview of the evidence and arguments that the other side is going to use to make its case and entitled to demand evidence (such as documents) that the other side might have that would support the other side's case. (I hope that sentence is not too convoluted). This process is called "discovery". Discovery is supposed to happen as quickly as possible once both parties have agreed to contest the case--usually within a time frame of a few weeks. When Avenatti says that he demanded the information, I'm pretty sure he means that it was produced in the process of discovery. The parties are only required to produce information through discovery that is not protected by some privilege. My interpretation is that means that the information produced via discovery is, ultimately, publicly releasable.
a reply to: Grambler
FRCP Rule 26 provides general guidelines to the discovery process, it requires Plaintiff to initiate a conference between the parties to plan the discovery process after the initial complaint had been filed. The parties must confer as soon as practicable — and in any event at least 21 days before a scheduling conference is to be held or a scheduling order is due under Rule 16(b). The parties should attempt to agree on the proposed discovery plan, and submit it to the court within 14 days after the conference. The Discovery Plan must state the parties' proposals on subject of the discovery, limitations on discovery, case management schedule and timing deadlines for each stage of the discovery process, including the end-date of the discovery, dispositive motions and pre-trial order deadlines.