Seems from here the main signal is that very little amongst the seized material would qualify as protected by attorney-client relationships.
However, if it became necessary for Il Douche to say the exact opposite tomorrow, and assert that it is the truth as it ever was and ever will be…no prob.
And a near majority in Alabama who voted for a child molester over a Democrat.
Trump just fucking said Cohen represented him in the matter, as has already been shown to you.
You’ll refuse to believe he’s scum even when he tells you himself, won’t you? :rolleyes:
Maybe he just has a really serious “Bejeweled” addiction… :dubious:
If the president does ever go to trial, he will wish with all his might for a jury pool of Fotheringays-Phipps, whose definition of reasonable doubt is apparently looser than Michelle Duggar’s baby chute.
Barmy, you seemed smarter when you claimed to be a Libertarian, and Libertarians are idiots.
Who’s Barmy?
(Aside from “We’s all a bit barmy, mate!”)
THERE’S the V-T we all know and love… 
Just wondering if you had to look up Michelle Duggar’s name to compose that masterpiece.
I know there are threads telling me that, yes, innocent people should sometimes take the Fifth. But whom should I listen to? Lawyers? or the greatest president since Abe Lincoln? In this clip Orange Leader suggests that innocent people do not assert their Fifth Amendment rights. Yet in another clip, he acts like a mobster and says Cohen would never “flip” on him.
What gives? I know what you Trump-haters think, but are there any Republicans who care to answer? C’hump? octopus? Hurricane? Starving? Silver Watchamacallit?
It used to be that only scoundrels invoked the 5th, but that was before the Justice Dept was taken over by the Derp State and started persecuting Christians.
Isn’t Cohen a Jew?
He got his name from Cyril “Barmy” Fotheringay-Phipps in the Jeeves universe. He knows who I’m talking about.
Why would you think that?
My favorite thing today was Michael Avenotti pointing out that Cohen’s attorneys claimed in court that he had only three clients:
That means that whatever role Cohen played in the 1.6 million dollar payout for Broidy’s mistress’ abortion - Broidy wasn’t the client (or else Cohen’s attorneys were covering something up).
The client had to be one of the three named persons (two of whom are actually the same person).
I’m liking this.
“In Warning to Trump, Senators Advance Bill to Protect Mueller”
Meh, it won’t go anywhere. There is as much chance of this legislation being voted on as there was of the house’s 67th repeal of Obamacare becoming law.
I see an article from The Root saying this, but I can’t find the video and NPR seems to confirm that Broidy was listed as one of his clients.
Can someone find a link to the video? I’d trust that Avenatti would know, but I’m somewhat suspicious that it was actually said.
Sage Rat -
Avenatti made the claim on Morning Joe yesterday. I happened to catch it in passing. Here’s a link to the clip of Avenatti’s segment -
It’s ten minutes long. The part to which I’m referring begins at 4:00.
Here’s a partial transcript/report from a RawStory article about it:
So maybe Avanatti is mistaken, but in the clip he clearly says that the only clients who could have made that 1.5 million dollar payments are the clients that were ordered disclosed in court. Either Cohen’s arrangement with Broidy was for his clients, Trump and/or Hannity, or Cohen disobeyed the judge.
Reading more up on this today, I seem to see suggestions that while Broidy was mentioned in a filing, in open court, where Cohen was ordered to name his clients - he didn’t mention Broidy. He (or his attorneys) listed Trump, the Trump org and, after much whining and foot dragging, Hannity.
Someone asked him on Twitter about Broidy being named in a filing:
And Avenatti replied:
** That’s not what was represented in court.**
So we’ll see. It sounds like Avenatti is saying that he knows that Broidy is not the client of record in that payoff and that Cohen is trying to play coy about that in his testimony to the court. And that he (Avenatti) seems confident doubling down on that.
Interesting times.
I was not familiar with Avenatti until this blew up. He seems to operate incredibly well on this stage as a gadfly lawyer who knows the details. Is he well regarded in legal circles? I would assume that on legal message boards, his strategy choices are seen as good moves for his client and him. ??
Avenatti’s Wikipedia page is pretty impressive. Some highlights: