Stormy Daniels' lawyer: Cohen was paid $500K by Putin-tied company after election

a reply to: Phage
a reply to: DanteGaland

The banks in question are not located in the US.

a reply to: DanteGaland
Then how did he get info on the wrong Michael Cohen?

Why do you think it is the "wrong" Michael Cohen?

originally posted by: DJW001
Why do you think it is the "wrong" Michael Cohen?

Because it’s been admitted

Some but not all of the info he released was in two Michael cohens that have nothing to do with trump

So how would stromys lawyer get their info they a subpoena on trumps lawyer?

originally posted by: DJW001
Why do you think it is the "wrong" Michael Cohen?

Because the Michael Cohens in question already contacted him and demanded he print a retraction and clarification.

a reply to: TheRedneck

My assessment of his guilt is not contingent on the source being SARs. It is based on the fact that he published personal confidential information, which he had no legal right to even possess, illegally on not just Michael Cohen, but on others with the same name who are not connected to Trump. It doesn't matter if he got the information from little green men from Saturn.

Again, can you quote the specific laws he has broken? We cannot say anything unless we know the specific language of the laws and what direction he takes his defense.

Legally they are. You are trying to argue morality while I am arguing legality. Please keep up.

Legally, they are not very similar. Morality has nothing to do with the false equivalence.

They seem accurate enough in this case.

That's illogical. Your emotions and feelings are irrelevant.

Statements openly made and admitted to on Twitter, along with official verification from AT&T, Columbus Nova, and others listed on Twitter.

Ok. But which laws did he break. Be specific.

So you don't believe Avernatti revealed Cohen's financial data, then? Interesting position. Does that make Avernatti a liar for lying about having what he published and about publishing it?

I said nothing of the sort. Why you decided to pose those questions based on what I said is confusing.

You have no clue as to what his legal status is and your assertions seem highly-illogical and based on assumptions.

Ah, so you DO believe Avernatti lied. OK, good to know. That means there is zero evidence on Cohen, since all those accusations cannot be believed.

That does not address what I posted.

It appears you are letting your emotions and feelings cloud your judgement, as you continue to make illogical rebuttals that do not address what I said or the questions I posed.

There is no value in knowing how to properly use quotations tags if you lack the ability to read what is between them.

So I am accusing Cohen of posting information on Twitter. OK, good to know. How's that dog doing? Still not hunting? Still going "moooo"?

No. You are accusing him of being guilty of crimes, yet lack all the information and cannot even state which laws he has broken.

It is mindsets such as your as to why we have the legal system in place that we do. People have to be protected from those that would condemn another person before they even have a clue what is truly going on.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Phage

I don't even have enough information to speculate.

Exactly my point.

a reply to: introvert

All your questions have already been addressed previously. You're arguing in circles again. Have a nice day.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: introvert

All your questions have already been addressed previously. You're arguing in circles again. Have a nice day.

TheRedneck

Yes, they have. Just not logically or backed by information to prove what you claim.

Hell, you can't even state which laws have been broken, but you are sure they've been violated.

a reply to: DanteGaland

I need to know more about these 'third party subpoenas.' On the surface, it sounds like they circumvent every legal protection concerning private records. What would stop me from issuing a subpoena for your bank records out of curiosity?

There is also the issue of the wrong Micheal Cohens being targeted, which has already been admitted to.

Thank you for the lead, but I will say this possibility is both unexpected and confusing. I'm interested to see if Phage sniffs anything out on this.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

So you are coming from a place of ignorance and will wait for more information.

Talk about coming full circle...

a reply to: Xcathdra

The banks in question are not located in the US.

Actually, they are.

But what's your point?

a reply to: TheRedneck

On the surface, it sounds like they circumvent every legal protection concerning private records.

According the the SCOTUS, the records belong to the bank.

(a) The subpoenaed materials were business records of the banks, not respondent's private papers. Pp. 425 U. S. 440-441.

According to the SCOTUS, the records are not private.

(b) There is no legitimate "expectation of privacy" in the contents of the original checks and deposit slips, since the checks are not confidential communications, but negotiable instruments to be used in commercial transactions, and all the documents obtained contain only information voluntarily conveyed to the banks and exposed to their employees in the ordinary course of business.

That 1976 Court was not all that liberal, either.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Xcathdra

The banks in question are not located in the US.

Actually, they are.

But what's your point?

Since when are banks that are not located in the US and not doing business with a US citizen subject to US law?

a reply to: Xcathdra

I think that since banks deal with each other internationally there are certain requirements.

But what makes you think a foreign bank would not honor a legal request? Apparently, these were not "numbered accounts."

Guess he's trying to deflect people from his impending disbarment for unpaid taxes regarding multiple companies he owns and his unpaid $160k coffee bill!

Stormy also said she's not paying his legal fees. He says the opposite.

How did he get bank records again?

There is nothing illegal about any of the payments made to Cohen!!
Corporations and people are allowed to hire lobbyists any time they want. They can also pay them any amount they want !
There is also nothing illegal about some one accepting payment and signing a non disclosure agreement (NDA)

originally posted by: Bob350
There is nothing illegal about any of the payments made to Cohen!!
Corporations and people are allowed to hire lobbyists any time they want. They can also pay them any amount they want !
There is also nothing illegal about some one accepting payment and signing a non disclosure agreement (NDA)

The only thing illegal was the governments illegal leak of this info to Stormy's lawyers.

a reply to: Xcathdra

There was a brief press release today that the U.S. Treasury is now investigating this leaking of Lawyer Cohen's private financials. I'm thinking that some one on the Mueller Investigation has left differing versions of their seized hoard of Cohen's private papers, out, just to see which recipient's versions got leaked. This is a trap which can put someone into Federal Prison.

If Stormy's lawyer did get Cohen's bank records from the banks, they would only be about the correct Cohen, DUH!

a reply to: Phage

I think you just answered my question...

(b) There is no legitimate "expectation of privacy" in the contents of the original checks and deposit slips, since the checks are not confidential communications, but negotiable instruments to be used in commercial transactions, and all the documents obtained contain only information voluntarily conveyed to the banks and exposed to their employees in the ordinary course of business.

Checks and deposit slips are not the same as deposit and withdrawal records. All bank employees do not have unfettered access to account records either. You are falsely equating written demands on the bank by the customer to records of activity.

TheRedneck