From the Readers
- A Guy Called LULU 4 days ago
- Richard Day 4 days ago
- oldenGoldenDecoy 1 week ago
- Richard Day 1 week ago
- Flavius 1 week ago
- NCD 1 week ago
- Flavius 1 week ago
- NCD 2 weeks ago
- Richard Day 2 weeks ago
- oldenGoldenDecoy 2 weeks ago
Creative corner
- barefooted 1 week ago
- Richard Day 2 weeks ago
- PeraclesPlease 3 weeks ago
- Richard Day 1 month ago
- Richard Day 2 months ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Maiello 1 day 11 hours ago
- Doctor Cleveland 1 week 3 days ago
- Michael Maiello 1 month 1 day ago
- Danny Cardwell 1 month 2 days ago
- Michael Maiello 1 month 1 week ago
- Danny Cardwell 1 month 2 weeks ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 month 2 weeks ago
- Doctor Cleveland 1 month 3 weeks ago
- Ramona 1 month 3 weeks ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 month 3 weeks ago
Unintended Consequences
By moat on Fri, 04/13/2018 - 7:04pm |Cohen's attempt at damage control just added fuel to the fire.
URL:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/13/michael-cohen-hearing-fbi-raid-522053
- Add new comment
- 3181 reads
Comments
Overall these guys are really shitty at what they do. How come they've had such a free ride for decades?
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 04/15/2018 - 11:15am
and get $550 an hour for it.
by artappraiser on Sun, 04/15/2018 - 12:06pm
The above is Manhattan standard, nothing special. The better guys/gals get $750 per hr. and up. But here is a more applicable number I just ran across:
by artappraiser on Sun, 04/15/2018 - 7:17pm
The two days Cohen's team bought was expensive. It allowed the Government to present information that would usually have had to wait until the indictment.
I went to hear the arguments but stayed for the redactions. Point 3 on page 12 is a great example.
by moat on Sun, 04/15/2018 - 12:27pm
Dr. Cleveland's mob boss description can be heard again in Daly's piece in the Daily Beast.
Daly's account of some of the proceedings show legal representation like it ought to be:
Play with the big girls and you might get hurt.
by moat on Sun, 04/15/2018 - 2:00pm
She's toying with him as if she were playing with a doll or something - wonder where she learned to do that?
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 04/15/2018 - 3:18pm
oh I was not paying attention to the ID of the judge until now. Recognized the name immediately from pre-internet news junkie days. From the Wikipedia entry on her, she had these 15 minutes of fame:
Should also note something in the enry that I did not know: she was a Reagan appointee to the Southern District, recommended by Al D'Amato, eventually became Chief Judge in 2006, and has been Senior Status since 2009, so that she has choice of cases and how many.
by artappraiser on Sun, 04/15/2018 - 5:32pm
this part too should also be noted about Kimba:
by artappraiser on Sun, 04/15/2018 - 5:42pm
Sweet (previous) and double sweet (this). And sweeter - she sentenced Milken to 10 years in jail) later reduced, plus this chestnut:
Trump & Cohen got a great venue for this one. Keep up the gamez, doodz - you'll have your asses handed to you toot d'suite.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 04/15/2018 - 7:45pm
Ms Daniels will be present at the hearing on Monday.
by moat on Sun, 04/15/2018 - 8:10pm
And the mystery 3rd client is:
(drum roll)
(if you could choose one man to be the 3rd client, who would it be)
(someone completely absurd and yet so utterly perfect)
(no, not Bill Cosby)
(another drum roll)
(the tinkle of 1000 triangles)
SEAN HANNITY!!!!
by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 04/16/2018 - 2:57pm
the sad irony is I thought you were making it up, and then I googled, and I've just got to learn that in the crazy world of Trump we live in: NO ONE WOULD MAKE THIS STUFF UP....which brings to mind the whole faux news shit and I get a headache about fiction/reality.
Let's go back to start of the story where the young woman gives up on working as a Playboy bunny in London and goes on to become an important judge who....
by artappraiser on Mon, 04/16/2018 - 3:08pm
cuts her teeth on Michael Milken...
(becomes known for dressing down negligent advocates in-chamber...)
and then runs into Michael Cohen...
a morality play in 3 axe
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 04/16/2018 - 3:13pm
p.s. I am wondering crazy shit (there is endless potential for that), i.e., is Hannity pay to Cohen really not for legal purposes at all but just to get inside info on the Trumpian brain? Not that I can't envision Hannity wanting to get in on a totally unrelated (or not!) taxi medallion deal with Russian emigres or something similar....
by artappraiser on Mon, 04/16/2018 - 3:16pm
I think Sean (and now everyone else) has a pretty good understanding of Michael Cohen's expertise.
PS There really isn't much mystery to the Trumpian brain.
by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 04/16/2018 - 3:38pm
I hear he's multilingual - "I breaka you face" in English Russian and Italian - maybe even Yiddish. Picture hom in Harvey Keitel's role in Pulp Fiction - suddenly it's Reservoir Dogs II.
by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 04/16/2018 - 3:53pm
Hannity says he never got an invoice from Cohen, and Cohen says he never sent one to Trump for the 130k "out of my pocket" Stormy payoff.
Cohen solely and exclusively does pro bono work for millionaires and billionaires........is that normal..?...something rotten in Denmark...!!!!
by NCD on Mon, 04/16/2018 - 4:31pm
It is a peculiar business model, for sure.
by moat on Mon, 04/16/2018 - 4:54pm
So I presume there is no attorney-client privilege then?
by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 04/16/2018 - 4:58pm
while it's ridiculous in this situation, I'd hate to think anyone who has a pro-bono lawyer doesn't have privilege because they didn't pay anything
But you made me delve into what's really going on in court this a bit.The arguments involved are actually pretty fascinating, as we are really delving into unusual territory with this case. I found this good piece from NPR from yesterday: LAW: Cohen, Trump Push To Decide What's Protected By Attorney-Client Privilege And this two pager from the ABA Confidentiality, Privilege: A Basic Value in Two Different Applications.
Makes pretty clear to me that everyone is doing what they are supposed to now in Judge Wood's court. It's like a trial in itself where we've got a strict advocacy situation where it's Cohen's job and Cohen's attorney's job (paid or not) to argue not to let them see a single damn thing (unless Trump and Hannity say they can). Both ethically and legally, it's their job to argue over every damn item. And it's the prosecutor's job to try to prove they've got adequate safeguards in place for any privileged information and also that there's significant threat to rule of law if they don't get it what they need. Judge Wood decides.
Makes clear the privilege, it's not ironclad, and its different in each jurisdiction, and it can be picked at if the opponent really wants to and makes a convincing case. But ethics seems to prescribe that the attorney should fight like hell over each and every piece of information.
by artappraiser on Mon, 04/16/2018 - 6:56pm
He's not just saying that he didn't pay Cohen. He's saying that Cohen isn't his lawyer.
by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 04/16/2018 - 7:00pm
More on this in my last comment below. You do not have to hire an attorney to get it, just to seriously ask the attorney for advice as if you might hire him for your problem. The point: attorney's are just not supposed to talk to anyone else about what you told them when asking for advice.
Yeah the Hannity situation and what he says are ridiculous. But we don't want to throw out our principles just to get Sean Hannity.
The Judge decides. Luckily we have a good one in this case. Who knows bullshit when she sees it, and therefore said already: let his name be known. But she also is letting Cohen have copies of everything they took. Which puts Hannity in the place of being able to say: there's nothing to this if he and Cohen think they can argue it has nothing to do with the Feds.
by artappraiser on Mon, 04/16/2018 - 7:21pm
yeah
by moat on Mon, 04/16/2018 - 7:22pm
Quite interesting to see what (Atty./Prof) Seth Abramson saw in the very same Hannity tweet, hah:
by artappraiser on Mon, 04/16/2018 - 10:41pm
You are right. The compensation involved is not a factor in the decisions to be made by the court per se. Unless evidence of compensation is a part of the case we cannot see.
That is the problem with us trying to figure out what is happening inside of these processes designed not to show what is going on.
by moat on Mon, 04/16/2018 - 7:12pm
I am reminded of Socrates asking if you go to a doctor to fix your door......
by moat on Mon, 04/16/2018 - 4:36pm
Jake Tapper has it right:
by barefooted on Mon, 04/16/2018 - 6:31pm
From the third link there, by
Brings up a point of interest to me. I just saw the anchor at CNN ask the reporter Shimon Prokupecz about attorney-client privilege in general and he said you do not have to have signed a retainer with a lawyer to have attorney client privilege. I.E., you can call a lawyer about a problem and get initial advice in a consultation, and you've got it, forever. Even if you end up hiring someone else.
So all of this is really up to the Judge. And the FBI was really going out on a limb here. Which to me says: they were confident it was important and a judge would end up agreeing with them.
The ruling today was actually in the favor of both sides. She's letting Cohen see and go over everything they took. Which means he could argue over every damn piece of info. At risk of angering the Judge if the arguments are flippant on either side. One clue is she already said: let Hannity's name be known.
by artappraiser on Mon, 04/16/2018 - 7:11pm
I read Hannity's statement to simply mean he did not hire Cohen to pay off any Third Parties.
As if to say:
I am not a dog like Trump.
by moat on Mon, 04/16/2018 - 7:43pm
hah. but ya know, I was thinking earlier on his whole Whitey Bulger/Mueller shtick, that could be all projection about some relative or another. His public persona certainly has the some of the Irish mob character ticks where he could easily play one in a drama
by artappraiser on Mon, 04/16/2018 - 8:11pm
In this case, I think the problem is more specific.
All your friends go to a certain massage parlor to relieve stress. That is how you heard about the place.
But that is not why you went to the establishment. The charge for it came up on a credit card and the wife wants to know what is going on before she writes the check for it.
by moat on Mon, 04/16/2018 - 8:38pm
And your response is that you went for the same reasons as your friends ... how it is proven to be otherwise is the question.
by barefooted on Mon, 04/16/2018 - 8:51pm
That excuse only works if your wife knows and trusts the integrity of your friends, more than she trusts you.
by ocean-kat on Mon, 04/16/2018 - 9:13pm
This response is an attempt to distance himself from those friends.
Whatever falls out from this connection, Hannity is no longer a player.
He just wrote himself out of the script.
by moat on Wed, 04/18/2018 - 7:03pm
The above is just borrowing from many poets and playwrights who observed that It takes many years to build up trust but only an afternoon to throw it all away.
by moat on Wed, 04/18/2018 - 8:34pm
Yes - we've all seen the ads and know the fact that you can consult an attorney for free for legal advise without ending up as their client, with the conversation being protected by privilege.
What the judge is ultimately deciding here is not whether there was privilege, but whether it's of the sort that is protected.
by barefooted on Mon, 04/16/2018 - 7:46pm
As I've repeated ad nauseam we still don't know what Mueller has found. But there's only two possibilities. Either he has some very compelling evidence or there's a grand conspiracy involving Mueller and all his attorneys, the DOJ, the state attorney and at least many of the attorneys in his office, and several judges. He got a no knock warrant for Manafort's documents and a warrant to search documents of Trump's attorney despite the protections of attorney client privilege. Neither of those warrants are easy to get. I almost never believe in grand conspiracies.
by ocean-kat on Mon, 04/16/2018 - 9:19pm
Agreed.
by artappraiser on Mon, 04/16/2018 - 9:17pm
Judge Wood should not get all the credit, according to Bertrand, who was in the courtroom:
by artappraiser on Mon, 04/16/2018 - 11:59pm
Unintended consequences indeed:
by artappraiser on Mon, 04/16/2018 - 9:49pm
"it was such a minor relationship" - I think he got that excuse from Roy Moore. Wondering if that's a a Fraudian slit?
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 04/17/2018 - 2:04am
by artappraiser on Mon, 04/16/2018 - 10:01pm
Of course, the most & the best. It's a combination of The People's Court/Judge Judy and The Sopranos - all like on TV (though skipping any of the serious stuff). I'm rather tired of being on this bastard's RealityTV, and I will hold no end of a grudge against the party that continues to enable it (that includes you, weasel Ryan, your sneaky Gollum-in-the-shadows Nunes and Supreme Court-stealer McConnell - rule of law my ass).
by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 04/17/2018 - 2:02am
Constitutional law expert Noah Feldman @ Bloomberg.com:
Trump Should Be Worried by Cohen Probe. Really Worried.
Federal prosecutors can dog him for the rest of his presidency, and he has no power to fire them.
April 16, 12:28 PM EDT
by artappraiser on Tue, 04/17/2018 - 1:11am
Same opinion in a less legal, more eloquent, (and to me, more convincing) frame:
Michael Cohen and the End Stage of the Trump Presidency by Adam Davidson @ NewYorker.com, April 14 (yes, way back on Saturday unless it's a typo!)
by artappraiser on Tue, 04/17/2018 - 2:56am