dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
You still don't get it: Dear Leader can do no wrong.
Michael Cohen's Congressional testimony
- Thread starter Squeegee Beckenheim
- Start date
You still don't get it: Dear Leader can do no wrong.
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
I can see now why Manafort has given up.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
New York Penal Law §§ 250.00, 250.05
In-person conversations: The “mechanical overhearing of a conversation,” or the “intentional overhearing or recording of a conversation or discussion, without the consent of at least one party thereto, by a person not present” is illegal.
In effect, this is a "one-party consent" law.... Cohen was the party who consented. Seeing as how y'all claim to be an expert in the law, you should have known this!
Oy Vey!
RULE 1.6: CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION
(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly reveal confidential information, as defined in this Rule, or use such information to the disadvantage of a client or for the advantage of the lawyer or a third person, unless:
(1) the client gives informed consent, as defined in Rule 1.0(j);
(2) the disclosure is impliedly authorized to advance the best interests of the client and is either reasonable under the circumstances or customary in the professional community; or
(3) the disclosure is permitted by paragraph (b).
“Confidential information” consists of information gained during or relating to the representation of a client, whatever its source, that is (a) protected by the attorney-client privilege, (b) likely to be embarrassing or detrimental to the client if disclosed, or (c) information that the client has requested be kept confidential. “Confidential information” does not ordinarily include (i) a lawyer’s legal knowledge or legal research or (ii) information that is generally known in the local community or in the trade, field or profession to which the information relates.
(b) A lawyer may reveal or use confidential information to the extent that the lawyer reasonably believes necessary:(1) to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm;
(2) to prevent the client from committing a crime;(3) to withdraw a written or oral opinion or representation previously given by the lawyer and reasonably believed by the lawyer still to be relied upon by a third person, where the lawyer has discovered that the opinion or representation was based on materially inaccurate information or is being used to further a crime or fraud;(4) to secure legal advice about compliance with these Rules or other law by the lawyer, another lawyer associated with the lawyer’s firm or the law firm;
(5) (i) to defend the lawyer or the lawyer’s employees and associates against an accusation of wrongful conduct; or(ii) to establish or collect a fee; or
(6) when permitted or required under these Rules or to comply with other law or court order.
(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly reveal confidential information, as defined in this Rule, or use such information to the disadvantage of a client or for the advantage of the lawyer or a third person, unless:
(1) the client gives informed consent, as defined in Rule 1.0(j);
(2) the disclosure is impliedly authorized to advance the best interests of the client and is either reasonable under the circumstances or customary in the professional community; or
(3) the disclosure is permitted by paragraph (b).
“Confidential information” consists of information gained during or relating to the representation of a client, whatever its source, that is (a) protected by the attorney-client privilege, (b) likely to be embarrassing or detrimental to the client if disclosed, or (c) information that the client has requested be kept confidential. “Confidential information” does not ordinarily include (i) a lawyer’s legal knowledge or legal research or (ii) information that is generally known in the local community or in the trade, field or profession to which the information relates.
(b) A lawyer may reveal or use confidential information to the extent that the lawyer reasonably believes necessary:(1) to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm;
(2) to prevent the client from committing a crime;(3) to withdraw a written or oral opinion or representation previously given by the lawyer and reasonably believed by the lawyer still to be relied upon by a third person, where the lawyer has discovered that the opinion or representation was based on materially inaccurate information or is being used to further a crime or fraud;(4) to secure legal advice about compliance with these Rules or other law by the lawyer, another lawyer associated with the lawyer’s firm or the law firm;
(5) (i) to defend the lawyer or the lawyer’s employees and associates against an accusation of wrongful conduct; or(ii) to establish or collect a fee; or
(6) when permitted or required under these Rules or to comply with other law or court order.
If y'all would like me to further explain how these apply to Cohen, his time as Trump's "lawyer/fixer" and his Congressional testimony, just say the word. I'm always happy to help.
Protip: before you post documents in support of your claim, it pays to actually read them first so that their content doesn't whip the rug out from under your feet.
Last edited:
The Big Dog
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 29,742
I literally linked to the New York Bar Rules regarding lawyers' professional duties.
If you think they are worthless to "normal people" there is literally no way I am going to argue with you over that.
Like arguing math with someone who can't count.
The Big Dog
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 29,742
knock yourself out sport! SERIOUSLY! Love it, no one said the rat ****** committed a crime, he violated his fiduciary duties.!
None of the other provisions apply, quite obviously, although it makes me rigid that betraying his clients was necessary to defend himself from claims that he committed tax fraud! I absolutely love that argument my man.
bwhahahaha!!!!!!
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 39,530
knock yourself out sport! SERIOUSLY! Love it, no one said the rat ****** committed a crime, he violated his fiduciary duties.!
None of the other provisions apply, quite obviously, although it makes me rigid that betraying his clients was necessary to defend himself from claims that he committed tax fraud! I absolutely love that argument my man.
bwhahahaha!!!!!!
Fiduciary duties does not include committing crimes.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
knock yourself out sport! SERIOUSLY! Love it, no one said the rat ****** committed a crime, he violated his fiduciary duties.!
None of the other provisions apply, quite obviously, although it makes me rigid that betraying his clients was necessary to defend himself from claims that he committed tax fraud! I absolutely love that argument my man.
bwhahahaha!!!!!!
bwahahahah yer bloody self. Just what expect from you, another weak, pathetic, simpering handwave.
Comprehension is not your strong suit, is it? You can't reply can you? You are incapable understanding what I wrote, aren't you?
Let me explain it to you one word at a time
1. A . lawyer . can . break . client . confidentiality . if . the . lawyer . reasonably . expects . that . his . CLIENT . is . going . to . commit . a . crime; [Rule 1.6 (b) 2]
2. A . lawyer . can . break . client . confidentiality . if . the . lawyer . reasonably . expects . that . his . CLIENT . is . going . to . involve . him . in. the . CLIENT'S - criminal . act. [Rule 1.6 (b) 5]
Last edited:
The Big Dog
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 29,742
Random highlighting on:
Is going.... random highlights!
Those paragraphs are written in the present or future tense, a rat ****** cannot screw his client because he asserts he has false information that his client committed a crime in order to sell his client out in order to cut his sentence on crimes the lawyer actually committed.
Read the ******* paragraphs before you embarrass yourself by rushing to the defense of actual criminals.
I lOvE mIcHaEL CoHeN!
or, as was prudent with Trump's track record
"(5) (i) to defend the lawyer or the lawyer’s employees and associates against an accusation of wrongful conduct; or
(ii) to establish or collect a fee;"
Cain
Straussian
Liberals HATED Michael Cohen when he was telling the truth. Now they LOVE him because he's telling lies they want to hear. TDS...
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Its clear that you have ZERO understanding of what you are reading.
Yeah, I didn't think it was necessary to subject The Big Dog to things that are to complicated for him. He's clearly already in way over his head in the legal discussions on this forum.
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
Everything you just wrote was 100% wrong.
The Big Dog
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 29,742
Cha cha cha changing! Good that y’all gave up the other claims.
Disclosing his clients confidences was not necessary to defend a claim, he screwed his clients to mitigate other claims they had nothing to do with.
Cohen you committed tax fraud!
But trump “made” me lie to Congress.
Or is that too complicated for a Cohen fan? Lol
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
You got me there.
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
Finally as soon as Trump realised that Cohen lied he tweeted out a rebuttal to clear everything up.
Cavemonster
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 6,701
For the record, my opinion of Cohen as a person has not changed since he flipped, and I have no expectation that he's being entirely honest now.
He was a slimy weasel for Trump and I don't believe his heart grew three sizes.
I suspect that at least most of the damming things he's said about Trump are true. If he is lying, he's taking an extremely stupid risk and would likely end up dying in prison. Whatever lies he may still be telling would more likely be to make himself look less complicit. I see no real incentive for him to invent Trump crimes.
Any accusations he has made about Trump, either privately to congress or in public testimony will need to be corroborated by more than his testimony. That means recordings, papers, other witnesses.
I resent the success the right has had with their ad him attacks. No single testimony should be taken as gospel anyway. I don't care whether Cohen is a shot person just like I don't care whether Avenatti is a shot person. Neither will be invited to my wedding.
He was a slimy weasel for Trump and I don't believe his heart grew three sizes.
I suspect that at least most of the damming things he's said about Trump are true. If he is lying, he's taking an extremely stupid risk and would likely end up dying in prison. Whatever lies he may still be telling would more likely be to make himself look less complicit. I see no real incentive for him to invent Trump crimes.
Any accusations he has made about Trump, either privately to congress or in public testimony will need to be corroborated by more than his testimony. That means recordings, papers, other witnesses.
I resent the success the right has had with their ad him attacks. No single testimony should be taken as gospel anyway. I don't care whether Cohen is a shot person just like I don't care whether Avenatti is a shot person. Neither will be invited to my wedding.
Last edited:
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
No, my claims still stand.
1. Cohen was entitled to record his clients because NY Law allows him to (New York Penal Law §§ 250.00, 250.05). This is black letter law, there can be no argument about this. Whether it was moral or not is another question, but it certainly was not illegal.
2. Cohen was entitled to break client confidentially the moment that
a. his client asked him to break the law - Rule 1.6 (b)(2)
b. he realised that his representation was being used by his client to commit a crime - Rule 1.6 (b) (3)
c. he was placed in legal jeopardy by the criminal actions of his client - Rule 1.6 (b)(5i)
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
Thanks much for the thought because it sure does explain a great deal.
Belz...
Fiend God
Loyalty to the Fuhrer is more important than rule of law. Got it.