Feds probing how Stormy lawyer got Cohen’s banking info

a reply to: Grambler

I don't know. I'm not an attorney either. I've never filed a third party subpoena to a bank.

But I was deposed once.


I don't think Avenatti is so stupid as to be broadcasting an illegal act he was party to. Do you?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Grambler

I don't know. I'm not an attorney either. I've never filed a third party subpoena to a bank.

But I was deposed once.


I don't think Avenatti is so stupid to be broadcasting an illegal act he was party to. Do you?

I dont know.

If you would have told me two days ago he would be so stupid as to publicly release bank records for people that have nothing to do with Trump and just happened to have the name Michael Cohen, I would have probably laughed at you and thought no way.

But that happened.

So who knows.

Maybe he doesnt care that its illegal cause he knows he will get a slap on the wrist, or the people that gave him the info will be the ones investigating him, or he truly hates trump so much its worth the risk to him.

But given his release of bank records of the wrong people, I dont think we should hang our hat on any arguments that he is too smart for anything.

a reply to: Grambler

That's pretty much where I am on the third-party subpoena issue.

A lawyer has no special powers under the law, other than as a member of the bar he is allowed to plead cases before a court. That means if a lawyer can write a third-party subpoena for banking records, so could I if I knew how to word it. So instead of having to show my ID to look at my bank records, I could just present a piece of paper to get the same information without ID in person?

I understand that a legal order from a court may override the privacy expectation of a bank client, but a legal order from anyone who writes out a document? That makes no sense whatsoever. And it certainly doesn't make sense that the other Michael Cohen was included... what, did Avenatti just send a subpoena to every bank across the globe?

Then there's the issue of the amounts... one of the wrong Michael Cohens was reported to have received $980. That's far less than the $10,000 SAR threshold I am familiar with. So how could the information have come from the Treasury? So far as I know, the Treasury doesn't have those kind of records.

Same with the raids... how could a raid on one Michael Cohen have turned up information on another Michael Cohen?

Mueller, maybe? But why would he have banking information on people not even associated with Trump but still named Michael Cohen?

I have racked my brain trying to understand how this leak could have happened... and I got nothing that makes sense. I wondered if there were some sort of super-secret agency buried in the government that is tracking all of our records (this IS a conspiracy site!) but then what would be the use of SAR in the first place? And why would there be raids on anyone for records? I have wondered if maybe there were some dark web site where anyone's bank records could be found... but I tend to spend way too much time snooping around that particular part of the web and haven't seen anything that extensive (although it could be there and I haven't seen it). Even the crazy conspiracy theories have holes one could drive a semi through sideways.

At this point I am backing away to do some more reading... the speed with which the Treasury announced the investigation gives me some hope they are serious and we'll get some answers.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Your correct treasury would only have transactions above 10000.00. This was a leak from a bank where someone did a search by name not knowing soc sec number.

originally posted by: Phage
You think that he obtained the information illegally and made it public? He seems to be brighter than that.

Bright enough to think he's bullet-proof apparently. But that remains to be seen.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

But you said it to Phage. He didn't start the thread. Xuechen did and I agree his threads are all propaganda but I take it that he just reports that stuff to get people going. I don't think he believes half of what he posts.

a reply to: yeahright

Yeah. That's the forth or fifth time that's been brought up.

a reply to: dragonridr

This was a leak from a bank where someone did a search by name not knowing soc sec number.

Or perhaps it was a perfectly legal third party subpoena. I'm not sure Avenatti would know Cohen's SS#.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I understand that a legal order from a court may override the privacy expectation of a bank client, but a legal order from anyone who writes out a document

Not just anyone. A litigant.

Subpoenas are commonly used in civil litigation to obtain evidence from individuals, corporations and other entities who are not parties to a lawsuit.

www.weil.com...


The SCOTUS has ruled that there is no expectation of privacy for bank deposit records as they are the property of the bank and not the client.

a reply to: Boadicea

He never had to be part of the leak at all.. he could have done it anonymously or have told whoever offered it up to find another middleman..

There is no reason the leak needed to come from avanetti specifically..


Avanetti chose to leak it because HE WANTED THE CREDIT..

Since it was a scripted document leak, not something the blurted out in an interview. I assume he would have checked the legality of it coming from him.

That’s a pretty safe bet I think..


I am only objecting to 2 points..

1) somehow this makes the bank records inadmissible in court..


2) that avanetti himself will be prosecuted for the leak.

a reply to: Sillyolme

I checked phases op history..


That said I only read titles, I didn’t read any content. So the title could have leaned one way while the point went the other..

I retract my statement.

a reply to: Phage

My , out of my butt guess is that the leak is from a bank or government official who chose avanetti because of the exposure he has gotten from the Daniels case.


Maybe even the leaker wanted to get paid for the leak and avanetti seems like the lawyer who would pay.


It is VERY specific to have been legally obtained.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Apparently a subpoena for documents need be fairly specific.

The categories of documents sought (if the subpoena commands the production or inspection of documents).

www.weil.com...


E.g., "You are hereby commanded to produce for inspection and/or copying on or before April 1, 2018, any and all deposit records which are in your possession for the accounts of one Michael Cohen and/or Essential Consultants."
www.wikihow.com...

Because he could only receive the info on 1 Michael Cohen, not everybody named M. Cohen.
Your arg can only account for Trumps lawyer, not anyone else. The fact that 2 names from 2 different people cannot be possible. It looks like the 2nd name can only be planted in order for someone to find and assume they are the same person. What happened where the different people who have the same name got treated as 1 person
Nobody has yet addressed that in any way that makes sense.

And my point about election interference by a foreign entity has EVERYTHING to do with who is paying the lawyer and for what and why.
It literally has nothing to do with Avenatti. He is a paid actor


a reply to: Phage

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Apparently a subpoena for documents need be fairly specific.

The categories of documents sought (if the subpoena commands the production or inspection of documents).

www.weil.com...


E.g., "You are hereby commanded to produce for inspection and/or copying on or before April 1, 2018, any and all deposit records which are in your possession for the accounts of one Michael Cohen and/or Essential Consultants."
www.wikihow.com...

When you say "specific" certainly you mean as in individual specific and not specific like "everyone named Cohen"

a reply to: bulwarkz

Because he could only receive the info on 1 Michael Cohen, not everybody named M. Cohen.

Why?

The fact that 2 names from 2 different people cannot be possible.

Why?

What happened where the different people who have the same name got treated as 1 person
Nobody has yet addressed that in any way that makes sense.

If your question made sense, maybe I could answer it.

And my point about election interference by a foreign entity has EVERYTHING to do with who is paying the lawyer and for what and why.
It literally has nothing to do with Avenatti. He is a paid actor

You think Avenatti is being paid by a foreign entity? Which country?

When you say "specific" certainly you mean as in individual specific and not specific like "everyone named Cohen"

Right. Just Michael Cohen. Unless you have Cohen's social security number (not likely), that's about all you can ask for.

Because they are different people. The onus is on you to prove it is normal for any agency to give info on someone by name alone. With this logic app it is a good thing they aren'taddressing hair color for a match.

Am I missing something. Is there 2 Michael Cohen's in the info by Avenatti?
Is he that stupid? I think the evidence points to him being duped. Because nobody is that stupid.
reply to: Phage

a reply to: bulwarkz

The onus is on you to prove it is normal for any agency to give info on someone by name alone.

I can't prove anything. All I can do is find out what a third party subpoena is and that the SCOTUS has determined that bank deposit records are subject to subpoena. I don't know that is how Avenatti got the information he did. But it makes sense that he got it legally.

I think the evidence points to him being duped.

Then the onus is on you to prove it.

Well, because to assume he knew makes Avenatti a complete tool and a dolt beyond simple deductive reasoning skills in understanding and using simple logic, i.e., 2 people cannot occupy the same space because they carry the same name.
So if he knew and did it anyway there is no long game strategy, just short term headlines with no legs.

Using your logic he is a complete idiot.
So, now we wait. I bet I am closer to the truth than you.
There is no clear reason to try and trick people by using 2 people with the same name. NONE!
It can only backfire and be used to discredit Avenatti.
He had a gambit run on him!a reply to: Phage

a reply to: bulwarkz

Using your logic he is a complete idiot.

Actually, I think he's quite bright.
Certainly not stupid enough to publicly disseminate illegally obtained information.