Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

Mumha

amandstu wrote: »

Is that kind of supposed behaviour enough to get a lawyer disbarred?

Paying off potential witnesses without checking with one's client even if it is presented as being in their interest?

I mean ,if genuine it still brings suspicion on the client as being responsible.

How common an action is this?. I have never heard of it before. Would it be so unusual as not to be covered in any sollicitors' code of conduct?

Maybe it was done with a nod and a wink "do whatever you have to to get her off my back".

Was that around the time Trump was encouraging violent ejections in his rallies?

Paying Stormy himself won't get him disbarred, but if it were to emerge that Trump re-imbursed him, then that's a serious campaign violation, which could well get him disbarred, if convicted of that.

It was in the aftermath of the Grab'em by the pussy tape and I would suspect they panicked that this could be the death knell for his Presidential chances, so they paid them off to hush them up.

Mumha

Quality trolling by Avenatti .... thug thug thug thug thug thug thug thug thug thug thug thug

https://youtu.be/9AlLw09I_Sk

Mumha

Igotadose

Mumha wrote: »

Paying Stormy himself won't get him disbarred, but if it were to emerge that Trump re-imbursed him, then that's a serious campaign violation, which could well get him disbarred, if convicted of that.

IANAL, however, have some in the family. If Cohen represented to Stormy that he was paying on behalf of his client (Trump) without Trump explicitly authorizing him to do so, he's in violation of the Bar rules and can be disbarred. Lawyers can't do things on behalf of clients without explicit authorization, especially involving money. Most Bars look very closely at lawyers and client's money. Heard a story about a lawyer whose secretary handed him the wrong checkbook and he inadvertently paid something out of client's funds (the courts actually control these, not the lawyers fees but the awards due to lawsuits), and said lawyer was disbarred for 5 years.

If his defense is, it was his own money, then he merely is in violation of campaign finance laws as was covered in the 60 minutes - might end up fined for that, might get disbarred for it as well.

Mumha

Igotadose wrote: »

IANAL, however, have some in the family. If Cohen represented to Stormy that he was paying on behalf of his client (Trump) without Trump explicitly authorizing him to do so, he's in violation of the Bar rules and can be disbarred. Lawyers can't do things on behalf of clients without explicit authorization, especially involving money. Most Bars look very closely at lawyers and client's money. Heard a story about a lawyer whose secretary handed him the wrong checkbook and he inadvertently paid something out of client's funds (the courts actually control these, not the lawyers fees but the awards due to lawsuits), and said lawyer was disbarred for 5 years.

If his defense is, it was his own money, then he merely is in violation of campaign finance laws as was covered in the 60 minutes - might end up fined for that, might get disbarred for it as well.

I do remember reading about numerous complaints about him to the NY Bar Association, so maybe something might come of that. That said, I think disbarring is the least of his problems, when Mueller is finished with him. He is rumoured to have been deeply involved in the Russian money laundering on behalf of Trump for the last 15-20 years.

Water John

Cohen is totally tied to Trump going way back. Trump in any trouble, so is Cohen.

Loafing Oaf

Just out of interest, what would have hindered Trump from paying off the bould Stormy out of his own money, nothing to do with campaign funds? He's clearly a guy who wouldn't be stuck for a couple of hundred K. It would be embarrassing if it came out, but it seems to me it would have fewer legal reprecussions than getting your lawyer to do it, if it did turn out that Cohen was somehow rewarded for his 'loyalty'...

everlast75

Mumha wrote: »

I do remember reading about numerous complaints about him to the NY Bar Association, so maybe something might come of that. That said, I think disbarring is the least of his problems, when Mueller is finished with him. He is rumoured to have been deeply involved in the Russian money laundering on behalf of Trump for the last 15-20 years.

Mueller's strategy will be to get Cohen on any charge, be it campaign contribution violation or whatever he can, and leverage it against DT.


By the way, I am utterly relieved that Trump and his hot shot lawyers are as incompetent as they are. Can you imagine the damage they could do if they were in any way efficient and professional in their conduct?

There were certain formalities which presidential candidates attended to in the past, such as tax returns being released etc. As a result of Trump flaunting those, I can envisage laws being passed so as to tighten up those matters previously taken for granted

Igotadose

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Just out of interest, what would have hindered Trump from paying off the bould Stormy out of his own money, nothing to do with campaign funds? He's clearly a guy who wouldn't be stuck for a couple of hundred K. It would be embarrassing if it came out, but it seems to me it would have fewer legal reprecussions than getting your lawyer to do it, if it did turn out that Cohen was somehow rewarded for his 'loyalty'...

It would have been a campaign expense (since it was Trump doing this during the campaign, like, october 2016) and it's o.k. for Trump to use his own money subject to whatever limits there are - if any- for the candidate. I think the former FEC head talked about that in the interview, it's o.k. for Trump to spend whatever as long as it's declared.

It would've had to be made public as a campaign expense. As I understand it, if you're running for office, any and all funds you disburse are tracked as 'campaign expenses' so it would minimally have to be made public.
The business others have quoted with the money being laundered through Trump hotels (could be a coincidence, wink wink) seems like an attempt to circumvent this. That should be something the FEC is interested in as well.

Trump might be doing some squirming about this, but he's probably not. Narcissists are usually pretty oblivious and gullible.

Mumha

Mumha wrote: »

What?

If that's meant to be a serious point just think about what she's done in front of cameras. Answering a few questions while armed with the truth is fairly straightforward compared to it.

everlast75

Deleted User wrote: »

What?

If that's meant to be a serious point just think about what she's done in front of cameras. Answering a few questions while armed with the truth is fairly straightforward compared to it.

i think the point is that Ms. DeVos should have been armed with the truth (as she was being asked about her policies) and it was anything but straightforward for her!

https://twitter.com/AshaRangappa_/status/978409649589374978

This is an interesting precedent to be taking out of the bag...

Leroy42

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Just out of interest, what would have hindered Trump from paying off the bould Stormy out of his own money, nothing to do with campaign funds? He's clearly a guy who wouldn't be stuck for a couple of hundred K. It would be embarrassing if it came out, but it seems to me it would have fewer legal reprecussions than getting your lawyer to do it, if it did turn out that Cohen was somehow rewarded for his 'loyalty'...

I think the reason being put forward as to why Cohen ended up paying is that Trump had already missed two agreed deadlines.

Its just a theory, but lets think it through. Trump seems to be at his 'best' when up against it and I am sure that he was using his usual tactic of letting the other side think they had more to lose. Look at how he treats subcontractors, dragging things out until they settle, or even the Trump University when he pushed it all the way to the courthouse before agreeing to a deal.

This appears to be his modus operandi, to see who will break first. And usually he wins at it cos what has he got to lose. Pay 130k now, of 1m later. In terms of his wealth, either is small fry. But compare that for Daniels. 130k now or refuse that on the basis that she might get something later.

Now, he became POTUS (which nobody was predicting with any confidence at the time) so it seems like she took the cheap option, but had he lost what value what her story have then? Probably next to nothing.

But Cohen sees that the risk of her going public so close to the election was pretty big and would potentially be terrible, and so maybe he felt forced to get the deal done, and would settle with Trump later.

Water John

Everlast, that was the point being made by the two guys who made the podcast, a few weeks ago. Further back, on this thread. Some one may have a direct link.
The point was, because the request was illegal, then the NDA could not be enforced, as it was invalid. This is where her lawyer was getting to, all the time.

Found it. First posted by Akrasia post 1674, page 112. About 1 hour, must watch it again.

http://pca.st/VGrp

amandstu

https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti

Avenatti's last tweet says no DNA but claims progress on "assault/stalking"

Might it be T's other lawyers are quitting/not joining (partly) because of this guy's seeming misconduct?

Mumha

Mumha wrote: »

Quality trolling by Avenatti .... thug thug thug thug thug thug thug thug thug thug thug thug

https://youtu.be/9AlLw09I_Sk

Now I've figured out how to show youtubes....enjoy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AlLw09I_Sk

Leroy42

I do start to wonder what the overall aim is here for Daniels and the lawyer.

They have got the story out already, is this now all just a ruse to generate far more in the way of additional coverage? Compare this to Karen McDougal, essentially the exact same story, yet it was a single days news.

I get the feeling that all this carry on from the lawyer is more a publicist role than anything to do with the case itself. (not that I begrudge them that or feel any sympathy for Trump et al)

Mumha

Deleted User wrote: »

What?

If that's meant to be a serious point just think about what she's done in front of cameras. Answering a few questions while armed with the truth is fairly straightforward compared to it.

Facts would help too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzOpEU8olU4

Professor Moriarty

Leroy42 wrote: »

I do start to wonder what the overall aim is here for Daniels and the lawyer.

They have got the story out already, is this now all just a ruse to generate far more in the way of additional coverage? Compare this to Karen McDougal, essentially the exact same story, yet it was a single days news.

I get the feeling that all this carry on from the lawyer is more a publicist role than anything to do with the case itself. (not that I begrudge them that or feel any sympathy for Trump et al)

No such thing as bad publicity when you're a porn star trying to sell your story. Besides which, they've already started suing for defamation so the more people talk about her on the media the better.

mcmoustache

Leroy42 wrote: »

I do start to wonder what the overall aim is here for Daniels and the lawyer.

I think it's likely just money via fame. I don't think either are really pursuing this out of a sense of justice or something like that. Then again, maybe I'm too cynical here.

Whatever their reasons, I'm just going to enjoy the show.

everlast75

Leroy42 wrote: »

I do start to wonder what the overall aim is here for Daniels and the lawyer

The overall aim is to get as much money as possible I reckon. That is the aim for most cases.

At this point in time, I reckon Avenatti wants to take Cohen down a peg or two also because of his (well known) brutish tactics.

And finally, Avenatti worked as Counsel for the dems so if his actions help in any way DJT being taken down, he won't lose any sleep at night

Mumha

Leroy42 wrote: »

I do start to wonder what the overall aim is here for Daniels and the lawyer.

They have got the story out already, is this now all just a ruse to generate far more in the way of additional coverage? Compare this to Karen McDougal, essentially the exact same story, yet it was a single days news.

I get the feeling that all this carry on from the lawyer is more a publicist role than anything to do with the case itself. (not that I begrudge them that or feel any sympathy for Trump et al)

Yes it's hard to understand, as it can't be cheap to do this. Avenatti clearly has a game plan which is working wonderfully well so far.

Mumha

everlast75 wrote: »

The overall aim is to get as much money as possible I reckon. That is the aim for most cases.

At this point in time, I reckon Avenatti wants to take Cohen down a peg or two also because of his (well known) brutish tactics.

And finally, Avenatti worked as Counsel for the dems so if his actions help in any way DJT being taken down, he won't lose any sleep at night

What I would LOVE is if Daniels gets a successful outcome, that it then emerges that she was financially underwritten by George Soros !!! :D:D:D

Can you imagine the number of RW heads that would explode ?

ECO_Mental

This Avenatti dude is some lawyer he is pulling clause and laws out from all angles to get Stormy out of the NDA. I like this one where there is where in the State of New York its illegal to cover up adulterous conduct oops....



https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti/status/978638340080766978

Loafing Oaf

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

No such thing as bad publicity when you're a porn star trying to sell your story.

But you'd have to think people will tire of them pretty quickly if they don't have more 'dirt'.

Professor Moriarty

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

But you'd have to think people will tire of them pretty quickly if they don't have more 'dirt'.

I suspect this is a carefully orchestrated drip feed.

Mumha

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

But you'd have to think people will tire of them pretty quickly if they don't have more 'dirt'.

I'd agree with that, but there's Karen McDougal as well as another woman whose name escapes me at the moment, to keep this ticking over.

As was said this morning, there are only two people who have stopped Trump bad mouthing them, one is Putin and the other is Stormy Daniels. Either he's not sure what she has, or he knows what she has.

Loafing Oaf

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I suspect this is a carefully orchestrated drip feed.

Seems to be, but it's conceivable they could be spinning it out and not actually have a 'money shot' at the end...:P

aloyisious

Leroy42 wrote: »

I do start to wonder what the overall aim is here for Daniels and the lawyer.

They have got the story out already, is this now all just a ruse to generate far more in the way of additional coverage? Compare this to Karen McDougal, essentially the exact same story, yet it was a single days news.

I get the feeling that all this carry on from the lawyer is more a publicist role than anything to do with the case itself. (not that I begrudge them that or feel any sympathy for Trump et al)

Plus the free air-time for the lawyers to promote themselves, even though the mouthing-off at each other get's tiring after a while. Some ridiculous things like marks on the skin of persons polygraphed, and the "that's another $1 million"...

everlast75

aloyisious wrote: »

Plus the free air-time for the lawyers to promote themselves, even though the mouthing-off at each other get's tiring after a while. Some ridiculous things like marks on the skin of persons polygraphed, and the "that's another $1 million"...

Yeah- that was Trump's lawyer's lawyer friend who was being a goon saying that.

Avenatti has a plan - rile Cohen and Trump up so much that they make (even more) mistakes. Do not discount Avenatti. He scooped over $430m dollars for his clients in a case last year which made history.

Btw - his Twitter followers the day he began acting for Daniels? 400.

Now - over 130,000

Water John

That State of New York law re adulterous conduct, is first mentioned in the podcast mentioned above.
Great find by Akrasia