Michael Cohen's Congressional testimony

The Big Dog said:
knock yourself out sport! SERIOUSLY! Love it, no one said the rat ****** committed a crime, he violated his fiduciary duties.! :D:D:thumbsup::thumbsup:

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!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Wow, Smartcooky really broke you, there.
 
smartcooky said:
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)
Click to expand...

Thanks much for the great posting.

It is always so nice to see posts which are supported by facts and logic.

As opposed to some of other postings which are filled with nothing but various lies, stupid nonsense and hypocrisy.
 
Cavemonster said:
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.
Click to expand...

"Shot person"? Is this a typo or an idiom I've never heard?
 
I love how people say Trump "dangled" a pardon. Why should the boss ever offer a pardon to someone who can't keep their mouth shut? Fuggedaboutit. You had one job, Tom.
 
smartcooky said:
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)
Click to expand...

1 we are talking about breach of fiduciary duties, your straw man is silly.

2. Gotta ask you, do you really think that ignoring my response and repeating the previous arguments that I just destroyed is an

a. effective tactic?

b. ineffective tactic?
 
The Big Dog said:
1 we are talking about breach of fiduciary duties,
Click to expand...

No, YOU are the only one talking about your catchphrase of the week!

Perhaps you need a reminder of what YOU POSTED and what I REPLIED to....

The Big Dog said:
Surreptitiously tape recording his client without their consent or disclosure

breaching attorney client privilege without the clients' consent
Click to expand...

Those were the ONLY two parts of your post I was addressing..... ZERO mention of "fiduciary duties"

I nuked both of those points from orbit, using the Rules Document YOU posted (and didn't read first).

Then you moved the goalposts out of the park!


Hoo Boy!


ETA: and just to address your catchphrase of the week, according to the ABA's Model Rules of Professional Conduct, in particular MRPC 1.6(b), a lawyer's fiduciary duty to his client ends the moment the client commits a crime that would place the lawyer in legal jeopardy, or that would cause physical or financial harm to a third party.
 
Last edited:
The post to which i was replying

jimbob said:
Where did he breach his fiduciary duty? Client confidentiality doesn't involve illegal acts that your client requested of you. It doesn't involve refusing a plea bargain based on such acts, especially those acts that are documented - previously lying to congress on one's client's behalf
Click to expand...

The reply to the post which asked where "Where did he breach his fiduciary duty?"

The Big Dog said:
Surreptitiously tape recording his client without their consent or disclosure
breaching attorney client privilege without the clients' consent
monstrous conflicts of interest

Attorneys cannot waive attorney client privilege just because they committed numerous crimes and want to sell out their clients to keep their asses out of jail

C'mon folks, I get that TDS is debilitating, but the Michael Cohen should get paid theory that is being floated here is astounding.

You can hate Trump with every fiber of your being and still realize that Cohen seeking fees is idiotic.

Or not,
Click to expand...

The post quoting the post which quoted the post that asked "Where did he breach his fiduciary duty?"

smartcooky said:
No, YOU are the only one talking about your catchphrase of the week!

Perhaps you need a reminder of what YOU POSTED and what I REPLIED to....



Those were the ONLY two parts of your post I was addressing..... ZERO mention of "fiduciary duties"
I nuked both of those points from orbit, using the Rules Document YOU posted (and didn't read first).

Then you moved the goalposts out of the park!


Hoo Boy!


ETA: and just to address your catchphrase of the week, a lawyer's fiduciary duty to his client ends the moment the client commits a crime that would place the lawyer in legal jeopardy, or that would cause physical or financial harm to a third party.
Click to expand...

And that folks is basically what we call that. Hooboy indeed (that has to be a little more than embarrassing for our correspondent, n'est-ce pas?)

Your ETA is missing a cite.... hoo boy.... Hint
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
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)
Click to expand...

There's also the fact that anything Trump also told to any third, non-lawyer person (e.g. Weisselberg) is not covered by client privilege.
 
The Big Dog said:
irrelevant BS snipped.
Click to expand...

I'm not in the least bit interested in whatever conversation you were having with someone else.

I WAS REPLYING TO (AND ONLY TO) WHAT YOU SAID IN POST #972

The Big Dog said:
Your ETA is missing a cite.... hoo boy.... Hint
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. You either edited it out, or you quoted before I included the cite and posted afterwards.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
I'm not in the least bit interested in whatever conversation you were having with someone else.

I WAS REPLYING TO (AND ONLY TO) WHAT YOU SAID IN POST #972
Click to expand...

Say, folks, here is a link to Post 972

You know the post that quotes another poster asking:

Where did he breach his fiduciary duty?​

and where the big dog answers that question in that post.

Folks our correspondent is "not in the least bit interested in whatever conversation you were having with someone else" and ONLY WANTS TO TALK ABOUT WHAT I SAID IN A POST that was a conversation with someone else.

Fellas, if someone wanted to post 17 laughing dog emojis, do you think that is

Enough____

Not Enough____

for this next level hilarious conversation??
 
The Big Dog said:
Fellas, if someone wanted to post 17 laughing dog emojis, do you think that is

Enough____

Not Enough____

for this next level hilarious conversation??
Click to expand...

Are you polling the hordes of lurkers who support you? 'Cause I don't think that really works.
 
phiwum said:
Are you polling the hordes of lurkers who support you? 'Cause I don't think that really works.
Click to expand...

tell me you didn't think that it was funny when it was claimed that the post responding to a question about how Cohen breached his fiduciary duties had nothing to do with fiduciary duties.
 
New: Lanny Davis confirms: Dem staff on House intel met with Michael Cohen in NYC four times before his testimony last week.

Coached the **** out him and then he lied. there is your collusion folks.

I expect all the leftists to accuse the Democrat party of having Cohen lie for them, right? Certainly there would be no double standards, right fellas???

What a rat ******
 
The Big Dog said:
New: Lanny Davis confirms: Dem staff on House intel met with Michael Cohen in NYC four times before his testimony last week.

Coached the **** out him and then he lied. there is your collusion folks.

I expect all the leftists to accuse the Democrat party of having Cohen lie for them, right? Certainly there would be no double standards, right fellas???

What a rat ******
Click to expand...

You are wrong again.

It is common practice, and in most cases quite legal, to review things with a witness before that witness actually provides his testimony.

After all, this sort of thing happened to me when I had to give testimony in court room.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom