Jump to content

Michael Cohen Investigation


DanTheHorn

Recommended Posts

I keep coming back to two or three things - a zillion documents and a zillion players, and maybe phone recordings.  There is a massive chance of getting caught lying.  Somebody (e.g. some AT&T executive who didn't do anything wrong) is going to tell the government everything he knows.  Bet the farm on that.  All we have to do is wait.  The truth will come out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how is there not cause to terminate the contract when it became clear that cohen couldnt perform the duties required under the contract? if he couldnt deliver, he is in breach and they can terminate the deal. but of course that is not what was going on here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Longhorn94 said:

how is there not cause to terminate the contract when it became clear that cohen couldnt perform the duties required under the contract? if he couldnt deliver, he is in breach and they can terminate the deal. but of course that is not what was going on here. 

Yeah that was kinda my point.  No company like that issues a contract without a termination clause unless it's to cover their ass.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Longhorn94 said:

how is there not cause to terminate the contract when it became clear that cohen couldnt perform the duties required under the contract? if he couldnt deliver, he is in breach and they can terminate the deal. but of course that is not what was going on here. 

They didn't want to terminate the deal.

The remaining 11 months of the contract was petty cash for potentially a much larger chunk of influence peddling, profit making, etc.

The company's spin that they couldn't terminate it was spin from the real story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

They didn't want to terminate the deal.

The remaining 11 months of the contract was petty cash for potentially a much larger chunk of influence peddling, profit making, etc.

The company's spin that they couldn't terminate it was spin from the real story.

agreed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Contracts require consideration for both sides.  It doesn't matter the language of the contract, if one side doesn't provide consideration, the contract is technically in breech and the other side has the right exit the contract and sue.  The people at Novartis are fucking stupid if they are telling the truth. I think the simpler explanation is they are lying now that this has come to light.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Upgrayedd said:

I also could have gotten them nothing for a fraction of the cost.  Idiots.

I'd have entered into a contract with them as well for, oh,  $500 a week.

But as long as they were willing to pay Cohen $100K per month, then I gotta take that into consideration as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

 Contracts require consideration for both sides.  It doesn't matter the language of the contract, if one side doesn't provide consideration, the contract is technically in breech and the other side has the right exit the contract and sue.  The people at Novartis are fucking stupid if they are telling the truth. I think the simpler explanation is they are lying now that this has come to light.

It depends totally on the language of the contract.  Companies enter into bad contracts all of the time.  The contract could have been written that Cohen would meet a certain number of times throughout the year and offer his opinion on stuff.  If Novartis decided after the first meeting that Cohen's opinion was stupid, they still had to honor the contract as long as Cohen kept agreeing to show up as agreed.

Sounds like Cohen just did a sales job on Novartis.

I am curious though as to what you guys think Novartis was paying for?  Or what they got?  Direct access to Trump?  Inside info?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, there's no way Trump wasn't getting his cut.  It's pretty hilarious the guy who claims he's a billionaire could get taken down by relatively paltry sums of money.  When your wealth is mostly an illusion and you're really just a money launderer, you have to get what you can I suppose.

Edited by kevwun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guy on twitter claiming Avenatti MAY have used the wrong Michael Cohen. May be something, may be nothing.

More from his twitter:

Email reads in part: “Please note that I am not the said Michael Cohen. I am a Canadian international consultant residing in Ottawa, Canada. The payment from Actuarial Partners was for legitimate work...”

“I would greatly appreciate it if you were to correct this error forthwith and make it known publicly that there is no connection between myself and Actuarial Partners and your action against the New York attorney with whom I share a name.”

“You are surely aware of the fact that this is an extremely common name and would request that you take care before involving innocent parries in this sordid affair.”

I do believe it is appropriate for @MichaelAvenatti to respond to this immediately.

I want to be clear about what this is: An email by a man claiming to be named Michael Cohen to Avenatti that was forwarded to me by Actuarial Partners. This is not definitive proof, this is a rebuttal. Both sides need to be heard.

Now I just got an email from Canadian Michael Cohen. He is currently in Tanzania but tells me "I will deal with this tomorrow, it will be good to straighten all this out." and he signed the email, "Best wishes, Michael Cohen (no relation to Trump’s lawyer!)"

It now appears that the Israeli payment and the Malaysian payment listed in Avenatti's document were sent to a different Michael Cohen. Mistaken identity.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God damn, even shs looks defeated answering questions about cohens pay to play.

Whats even more hilarious, is that this is the exact thing that he accused hillary of during the election. 

To make things worse, this is also the type of thing that leads directly to impeachment under law.  Bribery charges would wipe trump out without debate.  

Bring it on mueller.  Crush this orange fuck.

Edited by DiceHands
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, NaTeWHO said:

Guy on twitter claiming Avenatti MAY have used the wrong Michael Cohen. May be something, may be nothing.

More from his twitter:

Email reads in part: “Please note that I am not the said Michael Cohen. I am a Canadian international consultant residing in Ottawa, Canada. The payment from Actuarial Partners was for legitimate work...”

“I would greatly appreciate it if you were to correct this error forthwith and make it known publicly that there is no connection between myself and Actuarial Partners and your action against the New York attorney with whom I share a name.”

“You are surely aware of the fact that this is an extremely common name and would request that you take care before involving innocent parries in this sordid affair.”

I do believe it is appropriate for @MichaelAvenatti to respond to this immediately.

I want to be clear about what this is: An email by a man claiming to be named Michael Cohen to Avenatti that was forwarded to me by Actuarial Partners. This is not definitive proof, this is a rebuttal. Both sides need to be heard.

Now I just got an email from Canadian Michael Cohen. He is currently in Tanzania but tells me "I will deal with this tomorrow, it will be good to straighten all this out." and he signed the email, "Best wishes, Michael Cohen (no relation to Trump’s lawyer!)"

It now appears that the Israeli payment and the Malaysian payment listed in Avenatti's document were sent to a different Michael Cohen. Mistaken identity.

 

I’m calling BS.

The exact same strategy was deployed on the Dossier with Cohen.  “It was some other Michael Cohen!”  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, DiceHands said:

God damn, even shs looks defeated answering questions about cohens pay to play.

 

I'm far from a SHS apologist. In fact, she deserves whatever mockery and scorn that is directed towards her.  It's her decision to stick around and be the public face for this administration.

Having said that, just how fucking hard of a job is it to face the press on a daily basis and answer questions about a subject or situation that you had no idea existed 12 hours earlier, and probably learned about via the media just like the rest of the world, and because of your boss's outright lying and stonewalling, will get little to no information helpful for the situation directly from him.

Edited by Francisco 2.0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, NaTeWHO said:

Guy on twitter claiming Avenatti MAY have used the wrong Michael Cohen. May be something, may be nothing.

More from his twitter:

Email reads in part: “Please note that I am not the said Michael Cohen. I am a Canadian international consultant residing in Ottawa, Canada. The payment from Actuarial Partners was for legitimate work...”

“I would greatly appreciate it if you were to correct this error forthwith and make it known publicly that there is no connection between myself and Actuarial Partners and your action against the New York attorney with whom I share a name.”

“You are surely aware of the fact that this is an extremely common name and would request that you take care before involving innocent parries in this sordid affair.”

I do believe it is appropriate for @MichaelAvenatti to respond to this immediately.

I want to be clear about what this is: An email by a man claiming to be named Michael Cohen to Avenatti that was forwarded to me by Actuarial Partners. This is not definitive proof, this is a rebuttal. Both sides need to be heard.

Now I just got an email from Canadian Michael Cohen. He is currently in Tanzania but tells me "I will deal with this tomorrow, it will be good to straighten all this out." and he signed the email, "Best wishes, Michael Cohen (no relation to Trump’s lawyer!)"

It now appears that the Israeli payment and the Malaysian payment listed in Avenatti's document were sent to a different Michael Cohen. Mistaken identity.

 

I thought Avenatti found the information from SAR's (suspicious activity report) from banks? Wouldn't the banks be on top of who's sending money to and from accounts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I’m calling BS.

The exact same strategy was deployed on the Dossier with Cohen.  “It was some other Michael Cohen!”  

My understanding is that payments were made to a Cohen controlled LLC (the same one that made the Stormy payout). So this doesn’t even make sense 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, triplehorn said:

After donating not more than a few hundred dollars here or there in previous years, Intrater gave 250K to Trump's Inauguration fund.  You know, that Inauguration that blew the lid off all previous inaugurations in terms of cash contributions exceeding 100M, but were only partially used to pay that polka band that arrived by bus ?  Whatever happened to the rest of that 100M.  It got donated like they said they would, right?

 

Also, Novartis paid Cohen $1 million for literally...nothing ?

 

DcxbU7nXcAENRAB.jpg:small

  1 hour ago, Mojo Hand said:

 

 

That statement is mother fucking hilarious. Anybody who even considers that believable should be immediately sent to a crooked rest home like Homer Simpson threatened his dad with that they saw on 60 minutes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

On top of that we have AT&T and Novartis on record already saying they were working with the Cohen associated with Trump.  So yeah, he already got caught.

Exactly.  This shit has already been corroborated by the people involved and other news outlets like the NYT.

I doubt some random guy on twitter claiming to be a investigative journalist knows more than the lawyers and investigators directly involved with this situation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I met this dud one time who told me he could give me great gambling tips on football games so I signed a contract with him to pay him 1.2 million dollars. 

After meeting him a second time I realized he was full of shit as he thought the Oakland raiders were still in LA and picked a Lions-Browns super bowl. 

But as we all know a deals a deal so over the next 12 months I paid him 100k a month until we were all square. 

So anyway that’s what happened. 

Edited by JimmyJames
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

I want to know if Trump received any of the money.  The answer to that question has monstrous implications for where this goes.

Come on.

Cohen did all this and Trump didn't get a dime?  You think there's a chance Cohen did this and was gonna cut Trump out?
 

Oh, it probably got shuffled to the "Trump Organization", but everyone fully understands what that means exactly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

I want to know if Trump received any of the money.  The answer to that question has monstrous implications for where this goes.

The goalposts are on the move.

Of course Trump was in on the action.

Do you even know Trump?

He thought the cable networks owed him money because of what he did for their ratings during the election.

 

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

I want to know if Trump received any of the money.  The answer to that question has monstrous implications for where this goes.

Let's just assume hypothetically that he did not.  The money was used to pay off Daniels and others.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Come on.

Cohen did all this and Trump didn't get a dime?  You think there's a chance Cohen did this and was gonna cut Trump out?
 

Oh, it probably got shuffled to the "Trump Organization", but everyone fully understands what that means exactly.

If it went to the Trump Organization or Ivanka or Stormy Daniels then it's not any different.  Is it for the benefit of Cohen alone, or Cohen and Trump?  That's the big question.  We know Novartis was buying access.  was it to get Cohen to put in a good word?  Or was there a direct benefit to Trump? 

 

I already told you what I think.  Hell, I told you two years ago and I've said it over a hundred times.  We have all kinds of opinions and lies.  I'm waiting for the paper trail.  We will have one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

I want to know if Trump received any of the money.  The answer to that question has monstrous implications for where this goes.

I didn't pay off a porn star > OK, I did but it was all just my lawyer's doing > OK, I might have done it...

I didn't take any bribes >  OK, I did but it was all just my lawyer's doing >  ?????????????

Fill in the blank.

Edited by DiceHands
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, deech said:

Let's just assume hypothetically that he did not.  The money was used to pay off Daniels and others.  

Something like this.

"We didn't send any of the money to Brisketexan.....we just sent it to Wells Fargo, to pay off his mortgage, and to Joe Blow, his accountant, to pay off an outstanding invoice, and to Paul Plaintiff, who had sued Brisketexan for $1million, but then dismissed the suit the day after we paid him."

Generally, the legal difference between sending payments TO person X, or making payments FOR THE BENEFIT OF person X....is zero.  You have provided me consideration -- you satisfied one/some of my obligations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The goalposts are on the move.

Of course Trump was in on the action.

Do you even know Trump?

He thought the cable networks owed him money because of what he did for their ratings during the election.

 

Didn't Trump force Eric to bill St. Jude's for a charity event his foundation hosted at one of their properties?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, wildcat09 said:

Didn't Trump force Eric to bill St. Jude's for a charity event his foundation hosted at one of their properties?

Yes, he was livid when he found out Eric was actually being altruistic.

”BILL EVERYTHING ERIC, I don’t care who is using the property.”

Made me feel kinda sorry for Eric.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Brisketexan said:

Something like this.

"We didn't send any of the money to Brisketexan.....we just sent it to Wells Fargo, to pay off his mortgage, and to Joe Blow, his accountant, to pay off an outstanding invoice, and to Paul Plaintiff, who had sued Brisketexan for $1million, but then dismissed the suit the day after we paid him."

Generally, the legal difference between sending payments TO person X, or making payments FOR THE BENEFIT OF person X....is zero.  You have provided me consideration -- you satisfied one/some of my obligations.

I think that's correct in one sense and not in another.  It's correct if people can be made to see it for what it is.  But I'm sure you know that money is fungible and if the payment is not direct you can bet your life that showing it gets tougher.  Trump will argue that the Novartis money went to Cohen and he had no idea, and Cohen "paid his mortgage"  because Cohen was his buddy.

 

I have no doubt that Cohen was functioning as a bagman.  I've been crystal clear on that.  I am unclear how easy that will be to prove.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TahoeHorn said:

I think that's correct in one sense and not in another.  It's correct if people can be made to see it for what it is.  But I'm sure you know that money is fungible and if the payment is not direct you can bet your life that showing it gets tougher.  Trump will argue that the Novartis money went to Cohen and he had no idea, and Cohen "paid his mortgage"  because Cohen was his buddy.

 

I have no doubt that Cohen was functioning as a bagman.  I've been crystal clear on that.  I am unclear how easy that will be to prove.

It's a good thing Cohen liked to record conversations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's buried in a shitheap of a website, which prevents it from being thrown in my face on a daily basis.  But some months ago when Avenatti first filed that lawsuit, I dismissed the lawsuit as "stupid" and said something to the effect that he may be the worst lawyer I'd ever heard of.

Now every day I feel like the British first leftenant in Pirates of the Caribbean: 

4e854087-01d5-4a3f-b61f-0edda8339319_tex

 

That's got to be the best lawyer I've ever seen.

  • Like 7
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ghost of LL said:

It's buried in a shitheap of a website, which prevents it from being thrown in my face on a daily basis.  But some months ago when Avenatti first filed that lawsuit, I dismissed the lawsuit as "stupid" and said something to the effect that he may be the worst lawyer I'd ever heard of.

Now every day I feel like the British first leftenant in Pirates of the Caribbean: 

4e854087-01d5-4a3f-b61f-0edda8339319_tex

 

That's got to be the best lawyer I've ever seen.

Thanks for posting that.  I remembered you posting that, and I've always wondered if you'd changed your position. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...