Stormy Daniels' lawyer: Cohen was paid $500K by Putin-tied company after election

dailycaller.com...

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.

lol
nice
this guy can't even vet the information he releases
this has a link to the Avenatti dossier
www.jillwinebanks.com...

a reply to: shooterbrody

mmmm...Good luck with that?

Maybe start a thread about "improperly disseminating data"?

I am more interested in Cohen apparently selling the office of the President of The United States and if he was acting as an agent for the President or all on his own.

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
BUSTED: Treasury Dept. Inspector General Opens Federal Probe of how Stormy Daniels’ Lawyer got Cohen’s bank Intel

As Thomas Paine notes, Michael Avenatti stupidly revealed his source, PLUS he implicated himself for receiving illegally leaked data.

Gonna be fun reading about Avenatti's disbarment hearings.

Where did Avenatti state that those SAR's were his source?

In his own Tweet:
"Why is no media outlet doing a story on the refusal of the Treasury Department to release to the public the 3 Suspicious Activity Reports that were filed concerning Essential Consultants, LLC's bank account? This deserves immediate attention. The SARs should be released now."

Thomas Paine made these replies:
"You wouldn't know about about SARs unless you have pipeline of feds providing illegal Intel. FINCEN data and breaches/access is a federal crime. 3 reports = 3 crimes. Congrats on outing your sources. @USTreasury should audit this FINCEN file immediately, see who fed this leach."

"Congrats on outing your fed source. Keep us updated on their trial: SAR confidentiality provisions clarify that both the SAR itself and any information that would reveal the existence of a SAR are confidential, and shall not be disclosed. 3 31 U.S.C. §§ 5318(g)(2), 5321, and 5322"

Again, where did he state those SAR's were his source?

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: introvert

Michael Avenatti ‏ Verified account @MichaelAvenatti 4h4 hours ago
Why is no media outlet doing a story on the refusal of the Treasury Department to release to the public the 3 Suspicious Activity Reports that were filed concerning Essential Consultants, LLC's bank account? This deserves immediate attention. The SARs should be released now.

Cool. Where did he state anything about his sources?

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: soberbacchus

As a taxpayer, "unnammed sources" = "i made this crap up so I could stay in the news". Because it isn't whistleblowing...its slander, libel, and obstruction of justice. Things that only seem to matter when it can be used to 'get Trump'

Except it is not made up? Not slander. Not Libel.
AT&T, Novartis, The South Korean Aerospace Company and the Russian Oligarchs company have all confirmed the payments.

You don't seem to find it in the Public's interest whether or not the Presidents Personal Attorney was receiving millions of dollars into a secret slush fund from companies with business going on with the WH as well as Russian Oligarchs that have been officially sanctioned for election interference.

We differ there.

I find it interesting that none of those companies received anything for their money (the AT&T deal is stalled due to antitrust concerns, the Russian guy's company got sanctioned last year, and the other companies didn't get anything as far as anyone knows). It's perfectly legal to act as a consultant, and it doesn't appear that Cohen broke any laws.

originally posted by: soberbacchus
a reply to: shooterbrody

mmmm...Good luck with that?

Maybe start a thread about "improperly disseminating data"?

I am more interested in Cohen apparently selling the office of the President of The United States and if he was acting as an agent for the President or all on his own.

sorry that what you think "is in the public interest" is clearly protected information according to federal law

or do you only care that some laws are enforced?

oh and how about the protections for the "wrong" cohens information?
That guy is gonna sue the pants off of those who exposed his info

a reply to: introvert

the sars are protected information and he references 3 of them in his tweets

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: soberbacchus

As a taxpayer, "unnammed sources" = "i made this crap up so I could stay in the news". Because it isn't whistleblowing...its slander, libel, and obstruction of justice. Things that only seem to matter when it can be used to 'get Trump'

Except it is not made up? Not slander. Not Libel.
AT&T, Novartis, The South Korean Aerospace Company and the Russian Oligarchs company have all confirmed the payments.

You don't seem to find it in the Public's interest whether or not the Presidents Personal Attorney was receiving millions of dollars into a secret slush fund from companies with business going on with the WH as well as Russian Oligarchs that have been officially sanctioned for election interference.

We differ there.

I find it interesting that none of those companies received anything for their money (the AT&T deal is stalled due to antitrust concerns, the Russian guy's company got sanctioned last year, and the other companies didn't get anything as far as anyone knows). It's perfectly legal to act as a consultant, and it doesn't appear that Cohen broke any laws.

In other words, they got conned. Surprise.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: introvert

the sars are protected information and he references 3 of them in his tweets

Ok. Again, where did he say anything about his sources?

He may know of their existence due to the dealings with legal discovery.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
dailycaller.com...

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.

lol
nice
this guy can't even vet the information he releases
this has a link to the Avenatti dossier
www.jillwinebanks.com...

This is a huge clue. The fact that 2 other guys named Michael Cohen got included means that the leak must have come from someone at the Treasury Department, not the bank. One of the wrongly-attributed reports is a wire transfer from a Malaysian company to a bank in Toronto. Cohen's bank (presumably in New York) almost certainly wouldn't know anything about this.

Also, this is starting to look like collusion (heh) between Mueller's team, Rosenberg (who approved the raid), and Avenatti. All sorts of potential for civil rights lawsuits, and maybe even criminal conspiracy charges.

a reply to: shooterbrody

sorry that what you think "is in the public interest" is clearly protected information according to federal law

Which law and how does it apply to him, acting as a personal lawyer?

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: introvert

the sars are protected information and he references 3 of them in his tweets

Ok. Again, where did he say anything about his sources?

He may know of their existence due to the dealings with legal discovery.

he is still not allowed to leak that
jesus
only enforce the laws you like?

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Also, this is starting to look like collusion (heh) between Mueller's team, Rosenberg (who approved the raid), and Avenatti. All sorts of potential for civil rights lawsuits, and maybe even criminal conspiracy charges.

rico

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: shooterbrody

sorry that what you think "is in the public interest" is clearly protected information according to federal law

Which law and how does it apply to him, acting as a personal lawyer?

i linked the laws earlier in this thread

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: introvert

the sars are protected information and he references 3 of them in his tweets

Ok. Again, where did he say anything about his sources?

He may know of their existence due to the dealings with legal discovery.

Except two of his examples cite the wrong Michael Cohen. How is he supposed to have "discovered" those? his information can only have come from a leak at the Treasury Department. As a lawyer, he should certainly know that he has no legal right to see that info.

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: shooterbrody

sorry that what you think "is in the public interest" is clearly protected information according to federal law

Which law and how does it apply to him, acting as a personal lawyer?

i linked the laws earlier in this thread

Indeed you did. Can you show me the section that applies to him specifically?

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Except two of his examples cite the wrong Michael Cohen. How is he supposed to have "discovered" those? his information can only have come from a leak at the Treasury Department. As a lawyer, he should certainly know that he has no legal right to see that info.

Sure. Again, and I'm not sure why I have to keep asking this, where does he state anything about his sources?

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

his information can only have come from a leak at the Treasury Department.

You're positive about that?

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: shooterbrody

sorry that what you think "is in the public interest" is clearly protected information according to federal law

Which law and how does it apply to him, acting as a personal lawyer?

i linked the laws earlier in this thread

Indeed you did. Can you show me the section that applies to him specifically?

www.fdic.gov...

(2) The Secretary of the Treasury may impose an additional civil penalty on a person not filing a report, or filing a report containing a material omission or misstatement, under section 5316 of this title or a regulation prescribed under section 5316. A civil penalty under this paragraph may not be more than the amount of the monetary instrument for which the report was required. A civil penalty under this paragraph is reduced by an amount forfeited under section 5317(b) of this title

you can read the rest for yourself
notice the portion here that reads "a person not filing a report"

it is illegal to release someone elses sars report information
the fact that he referenced 3 in his twitter post shows this
he is stupid

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Cohen's bank (presumably in New York) almost certainly wouldn't know anything about this.

You presume.