It is an obvious avenue of investigation, true. I think the news is more to the idea that (1) what everyone knows is happening has been verified, and (2) this goes straight to Trump’s actions and not to something done by an associate.
ETA: To what Northern Piper said.
EETTAA: Trumpty Dumpty will probably soon tweet “I don’t write my own tweets!”
I imagine some intern might have physically gathered up the tweets early on. But what Mueller would be doing at this point is seeing how these tweets tie in - and shed light on - other evidence that he’s gathered in the course of his obstruction investigation.
I admit every time I saw le dipshit tweet or rail at a rally about Sessions, Comey or McCabe, I secretly rejoiced. He truly is his own worst enemy.
Saw another article this morning on The Hill noting that a federal district judge is allowing a lawsuit filed by 18 states to go forward that challenges Wilbur Ross’s attempt to put a citizenship question on the 2020 census. The judge made a point of saying that plaintiffs had “plausibly” alleged there is a “heightened risk in the current political climate” that the question will lead to a lower response rate “because of Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric." He specifically included Trump’s comments about persons from “shithole” countries.
This is potentially huge. Weisselberg know even more about where the bodies are buried than does Michael Cohen. And there’s no such thing as “financial adviser/client privilege”.
Yes, this has been out there for a few days. If the information was going to get out anyway, due to a ruling by the judge that the crime/fraud exception applied, then they’d have to endure all the “Trump-Cohen Conversations Ruled Potentially Criminal” headlines for nothing.
Since he has had two Eastern European wives, I assume that either he has a fetish for Slavic accents or he simply likes white women with less liberal home values.
I had figured that it was because they support the argument that Trump had Cohen on retainer to handle these sorts of issues, since before the campaign, thus making campaign spending irrelevant.
After thinking about the purposes of the secret ballot, mail in ballots do cease making sense. They enable a dominant partner in a relationship to force their partner into voting against their intent.
According to Avenatti, that’s not what was actually declared, that’s just what we all thought he was going to declare. According to Avenatti, Cohen’s clients were Trump, the Trump Org, and Hannity, strongly implying that Broidy’s abortion deal was at the request of Trump.
Yeah, it’s tough to tell if he really thinks he has a chance, or if, instead, he’s just doing it as a “whistling in the dark” show of bravado (‘you’ll never make those charges stick to me! I’m so sure I’ll be cleared that I’m running for Speaker!!!!’)
I don’t know how that’ll work out. There would seem to be a distinct lack of teenage wrestlers to watch being molested without reporting it in the Speaker’s office.
Not at all. Hannity as a Cohen client was announced by Cohen attorney Stephen Ryan in a court hearing. Avenatti had nothing to do with identifying Hannity as a client - it was Cohen’s own lawyer who did so when ordered to by Judge Kimba Wood.
What type of person needs an attorney on retainer to follow him around and clean up the mess he leaves behind. That person is now the President of the USA.
Yes IMHO if the money came from campaign funds, it is irrelevant. Trump is a broken person. Always was, always will be. He grew up and was raised that way. He has no morals or ethics. Not a one.
That article is from April, when Cohen was refusing to release the name of his clients (as it says in your article). The writer is making an assumption.
The official filing that was later made by Cohen is redacted, so I can’t confirm, but Avenatti was - I believe - sitting in the court when Cohen finally issued an official request for a special master to review his papers for privilege. At that time, according to Avenatti, Cohen said “Trump, Trump Org, and Hannity”. The media didn’t have anyone present in the court, and so they’ve continued to repeat the earlier reporting, since they have something they can cite, which was based on the assumption that Broidy was a client and a leak to the effect that Hannity was a client. The first report was wrong and by the time someone could cite Avenatti, the subject had moved on.
I’m sorry, but that is not correct. Yes, Avenatti may have speculated about Broidy, but as things stand now, this info is still correct:
According to their testimony, presented to the judge by Cohen’s attorneys via this letter, Broidy is client #2. As there has been no other movement on this front… official movement like new filings, letters, etc… we should assume that Cohen’s lawyers were correct.
I will note the CNBC article contradicts itself. At one point it says none of the clients have been revealed, then 10 paragraphs later states that 2 of the clients has been revealed. Sorry for the bad cite.
