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.

 

Is Michael Cohen a rat? his actions say yes.

page: 1
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2018 @ 01:46 PM
link   
www.washingtonexaminer.com...

President Trump has long given his adversaries original nicknames to mock and diminish them. In 2016, he dubbed Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton “Crooked Hillary.” GOP primary rival Jeb Bush was known as “low-energy Jeb.” He labeled another Floridian, Sen. Marco Rubio, “Little Marco.” He has already given his potential 2020 Democratic rivals nicknames: “Crazy Bernie" Sanders, "Sleepy Joe" Biden, and "Pocahontas" Elizabeth Warren. On Sunday morning, he extended the naming ritual to his former longtime fixer and lawyer Michael Cohen. This time, however, the nickname was not original and appeared to be borrowed from conservative Internet entrepreneur and highly influential news aggregator Matt Drudge. Drudge has used the “rat” moniker on his eponymous website to refer to Cohen since at least July.


Whatever happens, is what will happen. We have zero control over it. But to defend Cohen, is wrong in my opinion. He is/was a lawyer. His job is to protect his clients. He even has a code of ethics that governs how he should do some things. he willfully and with malice of forethought, disregarded some of those ethics. He secretly recorded some of his meetings with his client, then released those recordings without his clients permission. (disclaimer-I'm full of crap and know nothing of the law, this is all opinion)

His actions regarding the payment of "ladies of the night" were likely directed by Trump. Trump can deny that, and likely will, but the real argument is, does that make Trump guilty of a crime? His finances and the difference between that and his "campaign" finances will have to be explained, and once that is done, a legal precedent will be set. (again, opinion, I know nothing) The ramifications for this can and should go directly to the slush fund that exists to pay off accusers, where any and all who used that system, should be outed. Even if they are all republicans.

So in conclusion, it's my opinion that Michael Cohen was correctly named by Drudge, and subsequently, Trump. he is indeed a rat.




posted on Dec, 17 2018 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Blackmailed

😎



posted on Dec, 17 2018 @ 01:56 PM
link   
I do not know nor really care what Cohen says, either way.
However, the traditional definition of ''rat'' is a person who ''knows'' the truth about a criminal organization from the inside who then spills that truth to authorities.

By Trump calling Cohen a ''rat'' it indicates by definition that there was ''illegal'' goings on within the Trump organization which Cohen was privy to and who is now ''spilling the beans''



posted on Dec, 17 2018 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

MEH......Screw Cohen
Could care less in regards to this whole thing.
Also don’t really care about Orange dude and his sexual affairs.

I will say that Cohen messed up big time and got what he deserved.
I can’t wait to see Manafort put behind bars for life. Same with Flynn JR.



posted on Dec, 17 2018 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire
you have a good point there

makes one wonder



posted on Dec, 17 2018 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Allaroundyou

Flynn Jr? for what


+5 more 
posted on Dec, 17 2018 @ 02:30 PM
link   
So according to the President of the United States, somebody cooperating with law enforcement is now a "rat"? Or is it just if it involves him?



posted on Dec, 17 2018 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Can’t be a rat if there’s nothing to rat on.

*taps forehead



posted on Dec, 17 2018 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks
Can’t be a rat if there’s nothing to rat on.

*taps forehead


You just made me see Eddie Murphy without saying his name....

First time I've envisioned a meme purely with someone using text.

You're a witch, aren't you? I bet you float. lol



posted on Dec, 17 2018 @ 02:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
He is/was a lawyer. His job is to protect his clients.

This is true, to a point, but in regards to the whole issues of NDAs and the "Pecker Payment," as I'm calling it (because I'm childish), if it was illegal, he should have talk that to Trump and then not had any part in it.

Instead, what we're hearing from Cohen are statements similar to, "Well, Trump should have known it was wrong," or, "Trump knew it was wrong."

That's cute and all, but what we don't have Cohen saying (to my knowledge), is that he specifically addressed and advised his client on the illegalities of the actions. If that didn't happen, assuming legal understanding on Trump's behalf is irrelevant because, while ignorance is rarely a defense, it was the attorney who made these things happen.

And don't forget, I recall seeing the NDA that Stormy Daniels signed (under her real name), along with her attorney and Cohen--Trump didn't sign it. That's deniability right there, sans any real smoking guns that don't seem to exist at the moment, other than the squeaking of a rat.


He secretly recorded some of his meetings with his client, then released those recordings without his clients permission. (disclaimer-I'm full of crap and know nothing of the law, this is all opinion)

Now you know something of the law: New York has a "one-party consent law," meaning that only one participant in any conversation must know that it's being recorded. Cohen could record those conversations legally and release them legally, barring any sort of guidelines for which I'm unaware as it pertains to attorney-client relationships. To my knowledge, though, there is nothing stopping an attorney from doing what Cohen did, other than personal integrity.


... but the real argument is, does that make Trump guilty of a crime? His finances and the difference between that and his "campaign" finances will have to be explained, and once that is done, a legal precedent will be set.

From what I understand from listening to Judge Andrew Napolitano is that campaign finance laws state that as long as there is any personal element to the use of personal funds during a campaign, the use of those dollars will not be considered to fall under campaign finance laws.

It would be easy for Trump to say that the NDAs and other things were so that he didn't want his family to know, or business partners to know, or anything of the sort. Even if making himself look better in the campaign was one of them, as long as there are other personal reasons, it won't matter if there was a positive outcome during the election from it.

Disclaimer: I have not read the pertinent campaign finance laws, so I'm going off of what I hear from legal experts on that matter. Rudy Giuliani said the same thing in an interview, and said that they have a couple dozen witnesses that can attest to the personal reasons why Trump wanted these payments done.

I think that this will be a non-issue in the end, for better or worse.

Take Giuliani for whatever he's worth:



posted on Dec, 17 2018 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sabrechucker
a reply to: Allaroundyou

Flynn Jr? for what


I just don’t like the dude....
Not a very valid reason though. Just my own bias.



posted on Dec, 17 2018 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Allaroundyou

Fair enough...You are not a judge are you?



posted on Dec, 17 2018 @ 02:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: network dude
He is/was a lawyer. His job is to protect his clients.

This is true, to a point, but in regards to the whole issues of NDAs and the "Pecker Payment," as I'm calling it (because I'm childish), if it was illegal, he should have talk that to Trump and then not had any part in it.

Instead, what we're hearing from Cohen are statements similar to, "Well, Trump should have known it was wrong," or, "Trump knew it was wrong."

That's cute and all, but what we don't have Cohen saying (to my knowledge), is that he specifically addressed and advised his client on the illegalities of the actions. If that didn't happen, assuming legal understanding on Trump's behalf is irrelevant because, while ignorance is rarely a defense, it was the attorney who made these things happen.

And don't forget, I recall seeing the NDA that Stormy Daniels signed (under her real name), along with her attorney and Cohen--Trump didn't sign it. That's deniability right there, sans any real smoking guns that don't seem to exist at the moment, other than the squeaking of a rat.


He secretly recorded some of his meetings with his client, then released those recordings without his clients permission. (disclaimer-I'm full of crap and know nothing of the law, this is all opinion)

Now you know something of the law: New York has a "one-party consent law," meaning that only one participant in any conversation must know that it's being recorded. Cohen could record those conversations legally and release them legally, barring any sort of guidelines for which I'm unaware as it pertains to attorney-client relationships. To my knowledge, though, there is nothing stopping an attorney from doing what Cohen did, other than personal integrity.


... but the real argument is, does that make Trump guilty of a crime? His finances and the difference between that and his "campaign" finances will have to be explained, and once that is done, a legal precedent will be set.

From what I understand from listening to Judge Andrew Napolitano is that campaign finance laws state that as long as there is any personal element to the use of personal funds during a campaign, the use of those dollars will not be considered to fall under campaign finance laws.

It would be easy for Trump to say that the NDAs and other things were so that he didn't want his family to know, or business partners to know, or anything of the sort. Even if making himself look better in the campaign was one of them, as long as there are other personal reasons, it won't matter if there was a positive outcome during the election from it.

Disclaimer: I have not read the pertinent campaign finance laws, so I'm going off of what I hear from legal experts on that matter. Rudy Giuliani said the same thing in an interview, and said that they have a couple dozen witnesses that can attest to the personal reasons why Trump wanted these payments done.

I think that this will be a non-issue in the end, for better or worse.

Take Giuliani for whatever he's worth:



Didn't we hear Cohen's recording where he discussed the payment with Trump? I don't recall Cohen ever bringing up legality (or lack thereof) with Trump. That's a problem for Cohen, because he's the damn lawyer, not Trump. There was nothing in the recording to suggest either of them thought they were doing anything wrong.

Campaign finance violations only become criminal if they're committed knowingly. Inadvertant violations are a civil matter that is normally handled by imposing a fine.



posted on Dec, 17 2018 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sabrechucker
a reply to: Allaroundyou

Fair enough...You are not a judge are you?


HAHAHA nope
But man if I was our justice system would be really messed up.



posted on Dec, 17 2018 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker


You're a witch, aren't you? I bet you float. lol


Hehe.




posted on Dec, 17 2018 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Yeah, and if you want to believe Giuliani, he also notes that Cohen, under oath, said on more than one occasion that he paid off Stormy without Trump's knowledge and then approached Trump for repayment afterwards.

But NOW we're supposed to believe Cohen, because he has zero reason to lie...to get a lesser sentence or anything...

"Mr. Cohen, in return for your plea agreement, here is the actual statement that you meant to be saying all along...do you prefer it in paragraph or bullet form?"

ETA: Also, if memory serves, wasn't there already a fund set up from which Cohen could take from at will for things like NDAs and other items that needed "fixed?"


edit on 17-12-2018 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2018 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: tinner07
So according to the President of the United States, somebody cooperating with law enforcement is now a "rat"? Or is it just if it involves him?



so you would be totally cool with your lawyer recording your privileged conversations, then leaking them to the press?

That is the context of this OP.



posted on Dec, 17 2018 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Criminals use the term RAT for people who tell the cops about the illegal activity they've been up to. A rat has to have something to tell.
Trumps been watching too many Jimmy Cagney movies.


edit on 12172018 by Sillyolme because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2018 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

In doing CCTV work, I had to familiarize myself with the laws on recording voice, but (again, I know nothing) should an attorney really be recording his clients, then use that against them? As far as ethics goes, I would consider that unethical.

And I'm pretty sure Trump isn't quite at Jesus Christ level, so I'd wager he has sinned before, to what extent remains to be seen. So the Rat, may indeed have dirt on Trump that is a real crime. But sad for Cohen, I don't think Trump was involved in his illegal taxi stuff, that's all on him.



posted on Dec, 17 2018 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

If trump was my client I'd tape him too. The man cant tell the truth to save his own life.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join