Michael Cohen's Congressional testimony

[WilliamSeger]

Then what does this have to do with Cohen's testimony????

The post I responded to was talking about limits to attorney-client privilege. I wasn't inviting myself down your rabbit hole.

 

[The Big Dog]

The post I responded was talking about limits to attorney-client privilege. I wasn't inviting myself down your rabbit hole.

Huh... then you were not actually talking about attorney-client privilege at all, were you? Because you know, you have to have an attorney involved for attorney client privilege to apply. say, attorney client privilege does not apply to our discussion either! quality commentary...

Abundantly sorry tho that I had audacity to try to tie the discussion to the thread subject. I take full responsibility for that rabbit hole!

hoo boy...

 

[Belz...]

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.

Incredible how fast you run towards the collusion accusation when the target is NOT on your team.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Huh... then you were not actually talking about attorney-client privilege at all, were you? Because you know, you have to have an attorney involved for attorney client privilege to apply. say, attorney client privilege does not apply to our discussion either! quality commentary...

Abundantly sorry tho that I had audacity to try to tie the discussion to the thread subject. I take full responsibility for that rabbit hole!

hoo boy...

You're chasing your own tail again. You're the one who brought Cohen's suit and "fiduciary duty" to not talk about crimes into the discussion.

 

[The Big Dog]

You're chasing your own tail again. You're the one who brought Cohen's suit and "fiduciary duty" to not talk about crimes into the discussion.

Well, that is another total non-sequitor, you going for a record or something?

What does this

"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."

have to do with Cohen.

Just answer the question and do not dodge it with some simpering nonsense about rabbit holes.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Liberals HATED Michael Cohen when he was telling the truth. Now they LOVE him because he's telling lies they want to hear. TDS...

Too close to the sun, too close!

 

[WilliamSeger]

Well, that is another total non-sequitor, you going for a record or something?

What does this

"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."

have to do with Cohen.

Just answer the question and do not dodge it with some simpering nonsense about rabbit holes.

But I already answered that question: I responded to a specific posting about the limits of attorney-client privilege, which itself came up when you accused Cohen of betraying his "fiduciary duty" to Trump. Establishing what that has to do with Cohen is your problem, not mine.

 

[The Big Dog]

But I already answered that question: I responded to a specific posting about the limits of attorney-client privilege, which itself came up when you accused Cohen of betraying his "fiduciary duty" to Trump. Establishing what that has to do with Cohen is your problem, not mine.

I get it, you have literally no idea what you were trying to say, it is fine.

to make it absolutely obvious, discussions that do not involve a lawyer at all are not "a limit on attorney client privilege" because attorney client privilege does not apply in any way shape or form, and none of this has anything to do with Cohen at all, which i guess is my fault or something??

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Autocorrect is bullshot.

◊◊◊◊ your mouth.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Trump Tweets

Bad lawyer and fraudster Michael Cohen said under sworn testimony that he never asked for a Pardon. His lawyers totally contradicted him. He lied! Additionally, he directly asked me for a pardon. I said NO. He lied again! He also badly wanted to work at the White House. He lied!

 

[Dr. Keith]

Wikipedia isn't WestLaw, but it sure beats the crap being laid out around here:

Although there are minor variations, the elements necessary to establish the attorney client privilege generally are:

The asserted holder of the privilege is (or sought to become) a client; and
The person to whom the communication was made:
is a member of the bar of a court, or a subordinate of such a member, and
in connection with this communication, is acting as an attorney; and
The communication was for the purpose of securing legal advice.[4]


There are a number of exceptions to the privilege in most jurisdictions, chief among them:

the communication was made in the presence of individuals who were neither attorney nor client, or was disclosed to such individuals,
the communication was made for the purpose of committing a crime or tort,
the client has waived the privilege (for example by publicly disclosing the communication).

I don't think there is much evidence of Trump seeking legal advice from Cohen. Much of what he did for Trump did not include Trump asking for legal advice. I also think that a lot of the things Trump disclosed to Cohen were disclosed by Trump to non-attorneys. Finally, it is not up to Cohen to prove a communication was not covered by the privilege, it is up to Trump to prove that it was.

Clients rarely understand how limited the scope fo the privilege is. Attorneys often forget after they pass the MPRE unless they deal with it in court.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Trump could testify to these assertions under oath, I think it's way to straighten things out.

 

[newyorkguy]

Deleted. Wrong thread.

 

[The Big Dog]

Wikipedia isn't WestLaw, but it sure beats the crap being laid out around here:



I don't think there is much evidence of Trump seeking legal advice from Cohen. Much of what he did for Trump did not include Trump asking for legal advice. I also think that a lot of the things Trump disclosed to Cohen were disclosed by Trump to non-attorneys. Finally, it is not up to Cohen to prove a communication was not covered by the privilege, it is up to Trump to prove that it was.

Clients rarely understand how limited the scope fo the privilege is. Attorneys often forget after they pass the MPRE unless they deal with it in court.

wait, aren't you a legal beagle, and you quoted wikipedia?

you assume quite a bit, and appear not to understand the control group test.

But the kicker, for me? "Finally, it is not up to Cohen to prove a communication was not covered by the privilege, it is up to Trump to prove that it was." Spit take.

"Only the holderof the privilege can waive it.3Thismeans that an attorney cannot waive the privilege on behalf of his or her client unless the clienthas authorized the disclosure.4Additionally, a former employee of a company cannot waive thecompany’s privilege after he has been terminated."

maybe better than wikipedia

might want to brush up on the MPRE, no?

 

[jimbob]

The post to which i was replying

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

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

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,

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

You missed out the rest of this conversation:

Surreptitiously tape recording his client without their consent or disclosure

Legal in New York, and sensible when dealing with Trump. After all, if the conversations were privileged attorney-client conversations and legal, the evidence wouldn't be admissible.

breaching attorney client privilege without the clients' consent

Where specifically? Illegal instructions are not privileged.

monstrous conflicts of interest

Cohen was within his rights to reach a plea deal concerning his illegal activities, including those illegal activities that involved Trump

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

And again, you are asserting he breached attorney-client privilege, but haven't given an example of a privileged conversation that he has disclosed. Given Cohen's general level of legal competence, I would be unsurprised if he did, but am unaware of any examples.

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,

I said that I can accept the hypothetical situation where Trump asked Cohen for work that was not illegal.

I don't know about the indemnity clause.

Claiming that a lawyer has a duty of loyalty is silly.

Oh dear, recording client without notice or consent is a violation of the duty of loyalty.

The issue is not whether a court may find that they are not privileged, the issue is that it is not for the lawyer to decide that they were not privileged and offer them up as part of a pleas involving his own personal crimes that had nothing to do with Trump, which is exactly what he did. Resist until ordered to disclose, that is the lawyers' duty. This mutt was dead to rights on tax claims so he offered up his clients to take the heat off of himself.

That is exactly what lawyers should never do.

And remember that little of COhen's work was found to be privillaged.

No, it doesn't. The adversarial system does not include a lawyer committing crimes for his client. And nowhere does it say that a lawyer can't protect himself against a dishonest and criminal client.
What's important to recognize is that very little of Cohen's services was actually legal work so it isn't or should be treated as the work of a lawyer. The only question to be considered is did Trump Indemnify Cohen?

And could such an indemnity be legally enforceable? A contract for illegal acts is not enforceable.

Now that might be a reasonable argument. That said, making that argument is tantamount to confessing to a crime.

Protip : "Duty of loyalty" is not a thing. It's pretentious pap, impressing only you. That's but one of the reasons why you haven't explained anything, and the sources you trust for citations are worthless to normal people.

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;"

It was allowed and probably even prudent for Cohen, or anyone with dealings with Trump to record their conversations given Trump's previous history of disputing stories.

 

[jimbob]

Worth posting this with my hilighting

EXCELLENT JOB in destroying the flaw in TBD's analysis.

TBD should keep in mind that virtually NONE of the communications or documents seized by the FBI was deemed as fitting to the attorney client privilege.
From what has been reported, Cohen is suing Trump for not paying 1.9 million dollars in legal bills incurred by Cohen and for 1.9 million for assets that Cohen forfeited to the government.

 

[The Big Dog]

You missed out the rest of this conversation:

Claiming that a lawyer has a duty of loyalty is silly.

"Now Bob, i wouldn't say I missed it."

-Office Space.

Although i am very intrigued by your weighty argument "Claiming that a lawyer has a duty of loyalty is silly" right after i cited the preamble to the rule of ethics saying that there was such a duty.

Pretty even weighted, my citation to directly controlling authority, and you claiming it is silly.... both are pretty compelling....

But i gotta come down and say that my citation to directly controlling authority wins, now if you had cited directly controlling authority like i did you might have come out on top.

 

[Belz...]

Although i am very intrigued by your weighty argument "Claiming that a lawyer has a duty of loyalty is silly" right after i cited the preamble to the rule of ethics saying that there was such a duty.

No.

You've been shown exactly why you're wrong. Be a man and admit it.

 

[The Big Dog]

Worth posting this with my hilighting

Not worth posting at all. That is because Cohen was not allowed to waive the privilege because his clients (TRUMP) filed an action to assert the privilege.

But some of it was indeed privileged, now wasn't it, and you are quite forgetting that we are talking about Cohen waiving the privilege as to discussions he had with his clients.

Cohen waiving the privilege while holding out his hand for 30 pieces of silver for fees he incurred in his monstrous betrayals.

 

[jimbob]

"Now Bob, i wouldn't say I missed it."

-Office Space.

Although i am very intrigued by your weighty argument "Claiming that a lawyer has a duty of loyalty is silly" right after i cited the preamble to the rule of ethics saying that there was such a duty.

Pretty even weighted, my citation to directly controlling authority, and you claiming it is silly.... both are pretty compelling....

But i gotta come down and say that my citation to directly controlling authority wins, now if you had cited directly controlling authority like i did you might have come out on top.

I've highlighted the key part:

literally the preamble to the rules that Cohen was obligated to follow:

"The touchstone of the client-lawyer relationship is the lawyer’s obligation to assert the client’s position under the rules of the adversary system, to maintain the client’s confidential information except in limited circumstances, and to act with loyalty during the period of the representation."

Do you understand that everything you wrote involves putting Cohen's interests ahead of his clients.

Another fact, you claim it is prudent to record Trump, assuming that is true, why did Cohen not tell his client he was doing it?? Because Cohen was putting his interests above his clients.

The limited circumstances were met. There was also the fact that a lot of Cohen's bagwork for Trump was not covered by attorney-client privilege.