Stormy Daniels Sues the President

[Stacko]

Trump has somewhat skirted the Emoluments Clause with arguments about money being exchanged for services (or realty) from corporations and LLCs of which he is a beneficiary. But his team has gone out of its way to emphasize that these were personal payments regarding Trump the individual, not the candidate. Presumably, they were positioning themselves for a "campaign contribution" defense. In doing so, they may have boxed themselves in to a much, much worse scenario.

Now, some sort of argument is already being put together that it was an American company that paid Cohen and, thus, not a foreign emolument. But when the numbers of the payments out to Cohen's LLC and the money put into the American shell by the Russians match, that argument becomes very hard to believe at best. In fact, it now adds money laundering to the list. Russian money that would have otherwise been an illegal gift to a president was washed through an American company and Cohen's little LLC side-project before ultimately benefiting Trump.

As I said, the sheer variety of possible crimes is astonishing. At this point, I'd almost be surprised if Bill Cosby and OJ somehow weren't involved.

It's really strange that so many powerful companies knew to give large sums of money to a consulting firm that didn't actually do any consulting and had been created in 2016 by the president's lawyer to provide hush money to a porn star. The oligarch's money is eye catching but seeing AT&T and NOVARTIS paying into it as well raises many more questions.

 

[Stacko]

I can't believe Cohen was dumb enough to use that same LLC for collecting bribes. Wait... yes I can.

Some speculation from a TPM reader on how using this one account led to Avenatti finding all this out.

I work as an Anti-Money Laundering and Bank Secrecy Act Specialist at a financial institution. Every bank/credit union/etc will have someone who’s responsibility it is to examine transactions and file Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) with FinCEN, a department of the Treasury. This is what I do.

Upon reading Avenatti’s document, it’s obvious that he has his hands on (multiple, I think) SARs that have been filed on Cohen. They are structured almost exactly as we write them. The KYC information at the beginning is a huge tipoff. This is something every bank is required to compile when a business account is opened, and it’s what AML staff would refer back to it when examining transactions to see if the account is “behaving” differently than expected. This KYC information would never be included in a bank statement or a ledger. It would only come from a financial institution, and is what is included in SARs narratives to justify their filing. Furthermore, there’s info in the document from multiple banks. Unless Avenatti has people at multiple different banks leaking him info on Cohen (he doesn’t) it comes from a SARs.

We know from the WSJ that at least one bank has filed a SARs on Cohen:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-...was-reported-as-suspicious-by-bank-1520273701

 

[Segnosaur]

Sounds like Avenatti discovered the evidence of the Russian’s payments to Cohen.

I wonder if Avenatti was the first to discover it, or did other investigators already know (but kept the information hidden while they built their case) and Avenatti was the first to reveal the information.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Yes indeed Thirsty has managed to confirm that Cohen got the cash to pay Stormy from a home equity loan.

Way to shoot off your own dick, Michael.

You think this worked out poorly for Avenatti ?



so triggered

 

[The Big Dog]

I wonder if Avenatti was the first to discover it, or did other investigators already know (but kept the information hidden while they built their case) and Avenatti was the first to reveal the information.

Clearly the FBI knew.

Avenatti clearly must have issued a subpoena, but why Cohen did not object amazes me.

 

[lomiller]

Yes indeed Thirsty has managed to confirm that Cohen got the cash to pay Stormy from a home equity loan.

Way to shoot off your own dick, Michael.

I don’t know how you would “confirm” this. Once in the account there is no tracking of where a specific $ came from.

The fact is that the money to pay Stormy came from a specific account, later on money received from other sources including a Russian Oligarch was deposited to that very same account. Even if it was his own money in that account at the time of the payment to Stormy, does it really matter if Cohen used his own money and was then reimbursed by Putin’s buddy vs getting the money from Putin’s buddy first and using it to pay Stormy?

 

[WilliamSeger]

Yes indeed Thirsty has managed to confirm that Cohen got the cash to pay Stormy from a home equity loan.

Way to shoot off your own dick, Michael.

Say what? How does that hurt any of Avenatti's arguments? Maybe Cohen had to get a loan because he had already spent the "retainer" that was supposed to cover such unpleasant situations -- according to the Giuliani version of how rich playboys typically avoid the consequences of their bad behavior, anyway.

 

[lomiller]

Avenatti clearly must have issued a subpoena, but why Cohen did not object amazes me.

I have no idea why you think people can avoid handing over evidence just by saying “I object!”

 

[The Big Dog]

I don’t know how you would “confirm” this. Once in the account there is no tracking of where a specific $ came from.

The fact is that the money to pay Stormy came from a specific account, later on money received from other sources including a Russian Oligarch was deposited to that very same account. Even if it was his own money in that account at the time of the payment to Stormy, does it really matter if Cohen used his own money and was then reimbursed by Putin’s buddy vs getting the money from Putin’s buddy first and using it to pay Stormy?

Sure there is, there is money in from a home equity loan and then the money going out to fund the settlement. Any subsequent funds into the account occurred after that transaction. In fact there are lots and lots of subsequent transactions, not all that have been disclosed and therefore the conclusion that the Columbus Nova payment reimbursed the Stormy payment is pure speculation.

 

[The Big Dog]

I have no idea why you think people can avoid handing over evidence just by saying “I object!”

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Judge Otero's order, obviously.

 

[Segnosaur]

I don’t know how you would “confirm” this. Once in the account there is no tracking of where a specific $ came from.

I suppose you could look at bank balances over time... if the amount of Cohen's free cash was insufficient to cover the Stormy payment until after the bank loan, then you can say at least some of the money for the payment came from the loan.

The fact is that the money to pay Stormy came from a specific account, later on money received from other sources including a Russian Oligarch was deposited to that very same account. Even if it was his own money in that account at the time of the payment to Stormy, does it really matter if Cohen used his own money and was then reimbursed by Putin’s buddy vs getting the money from Putin’s buddy first and using it to pay Stormy?

Well, it may matter if Cohen had to indicate why he needed the loan to the banks. If he wrote something like "home renovations" on the loan application instead of "paying hush money to a porn star" then it might be considered bank fraud. (From what I understand, not all banks ask for that information when applying for a loan however.)

 

[Segnosaur]

Avenatti clearly must have issued a subpoena, but why Cohen did not object amazes me.

I have no idea why you think people can avoid handing over evidence just by saying “I object!”

I suspect a lot of lawyers might try doing that as a matter of course; even if it only works in a small fraction of cases. (And rather than just an "I object", they'd probably wrap it in legalize... "You don't have standing to ask for this" or something along those lines.)

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I have no idea why you think people can avoid handing over evidence just by saying “I object!”

Internet Lawyering 101.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Clearly the FBI knew.

Avenatti clearly must have issued a subpoena, but why Cohen did not object amazes me.

Why would Cohen even know if Avenatti was subpoenaing bank documents?

 

[lomiller]

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Does not allow to withhold discoverable information on the basis of “don’t wanna”

 

[The Big Dog]

I am a bit baffled here, have none of our posters responded to a subpoena before??

Here is part of Rule 45:

(d) Protecting a Person Subject to a Subpoena; Enforcement.

(1) Avoiding Undue Burden or Expense; Sanctions. A party or attorney responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena. The court for the district where compliance is required must enforce this duty and impose an appropriate sanction—which may include lost earnings and reasonable attorney's fees—on a party or attorney who fails to comply.

(2) Command to Produce Materials or Permit Inspection.

(A) Appearance Not Required. A person commanded to produce documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things, or to permit the inspection of premises, need not appear in person at the place of production or inspection unless also commanded to appear for a deposition, hearing, or trial.

(B) Objections. A person commanded to produce documents or tangible things or to permit inspection may serve on the party or attorney designated in the subpoena a written objection to inspecting, copying, testing or sampling any or all of the materials or to inspecting the premises—or to producing electronically stored information in the form or forms requested. The objection must be served before the earlier of the time specified for compliance or 14 days after the subpoena is served. If an objection is made, the following rules apply:
(i) At any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving party may move the court for the district where compliance is required for an order compelling production or inspection.

Further, Cohen himself could quite easily ask Judge Otero to enforce his stay order

(ii) These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and the order must protect a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer from significant expense resulting from compliance."

 

[lomiller]

I suspect a lot of lawyers might try doing that as a matter of course; even if it only works in a small fraction of cases. (And rather than just an "I object", they'd probably wrap it in legalize... "You don't have standing to ask for this" or something along those lines.)

Sure and if there is a valid reason they may even win the point, but the purpose of discovery is to give the other side access to any information that even has a small possibility of being pertinent. Surely the history of the account Stormy was paid from would qualify as related to the case so on what basis could you ever say "I don't want to turn that over?"

 

[Fast Eddie B]

“What a tangled web we weave...”

“...when first we practice to deceive.”

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I am a bit baffled here, have none of our posters responded to a subpoena before??

Here is part of Rule 45:

(d) Protecting a Person Subject to a Subpoena; Enforcement.

(1) Avoiding Undue Burden or Expense; Sanctions. A party or attorney responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena. The court for the district where compliance is required must enforce this duty and impose an appropriate sanction—which may include lost earnings and reasonable attorney's fees—on a party or attorney who fails to comply.

(2) Command to Produce Materials or Permit Inspection.

(A) Appearance Not Required. A person commanded to produce documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things, or to permit the inspection of premises, need not appear in person at the place of production or inspection unless also commanded to appear for a deposition, hearing, or trial.

(B) Objections. A person commanded to produce documents or tangible things or to permit inspection may serve on the party or attorney designated in the subpoena a written objection to inspecting, copying, testing or sampling any or all of the materials or to inspecting the premises—or to producing electronically stored information in the form or forms requested. The objection must be served before the earlier of the time specified for compliance or 14 days after the subpoena is served. If an objection is made, the following rules apply:
(i) At any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving party may move the court for the district where compliance is required for an order compelling production or inspection.

Further, Cohen himself could quite easily ask Judge Otero to enforce his stay order

(ii) These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and the order must protect a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer from significant expense resulting from compliance."

Is your argument that Cohen is a **** lawyer ?

 

[lomiller]

(B) Objections. A person commanded to produce documents or tangible things or to permit inspection may serve on the party or attorney designated in the subpoena a written objection to inspecting, copying, testing or sampling any or all of the materials or to inspecting the premises—or to producing electronically stored information in the form or forms requested. The objection must be served before the earlier of the time specified for compliance or 14 days after the subpoena is served. If an objection is made, the following rules apply:

Sure but what is the reason for your proposed objection? Judges take the discovery process VERY seriously. Even the perception that you are stalling or throwing up barriers in the discovery process could net you a contempt of court charge. If you have NO chance of the objection being upheld do not want to send it back to the judge because he/she will not be happy.